1968-02-08

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house may desire that I should make a short report on the constitutional conference which ended yesterday afternoon, and which I think successfully began the process of reshaping our constitution by federal-provincial co-operation, which is of course the only way it can be done.
At the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted to pay a tribute to the officials of the federal government who did so much of the preparatory work, and did it so well. As the house may know, some weeks ago a special secretariat was set up to work on this problem. That secretariat consisted of officials of the government, whom I will not mention by name, who did their work with that distinction, efficiency and devotion which we expect to receive and do receive from the Canadian civil service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were greatly assisted by three distinguished experts in the field of constitutional law who gave their time to the work of the secretariat. Perhaps I could mention them by name, Dr. Carl Goldenberg and Professors Head and Strayer. We are very grateful to them for the work they did, which was of great value to the federal participation in the conference and which will be of great value in the work ahead.
The conference decided, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps this is the most important agreement that was reached, to undertake a comprehensive review of the constitution of Canada with the objective of introducing whatever changes may be agreed to be necessary to make it adequate to meet the problems of Canada today and in the future. The conference also agreed that the heads of the governments of Canada, who are responsible to the
people of Canada, should and would assume responsibility for this review. To this end there will be further sessions of the constitutional conference as required.
To ensure that the work is carried forward without delay and is effectively co-ordinated in accordance with the directions of the conference, the conference agreed on the establishment of a continuing constitutional committee consisting of senior advisers qualified in this field and designated by each government, the federal government and the provincial governments.
The constitutional conference and the committee will be assisted by a secretariat to be provided by the federal government, but to which members will be nominated by the provincial governments if they so desire. We will be getting in touch with the provincial governments at once with a view to receiving nominations from those governments to this central secretariat. The continuing committee of officials is authorized to set up sub-committees on specific questions, with the approval of the constitutional conference.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It was also agreed that the following questions should be examined by committees set up for that purpose under the authorization of the constitutional conference and the continuing committee of officials. First, the question of official languages; I will return to that in a moment. Second, the question of fundamental human rights. The federal government submitted a charter of human rights on this subject which received support from four provincial governments for enshrinement in a constitution of Canada, and it was agreed that a special committee should go into this whole subject. Third, a committee on the distribution of powers. This is a fundamental aspect of the whole question. Fourth, reform of institutions linked with federalism, including the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada. Fifth, the problem of regional disparities which received consideration at the conference. Sixth, the question of amending procedure and provisional arrangements. Finally-and this is broader than the question of constitutional change-the whole question

February 8, 1988
Canadian Constitution
of federal-provincial machinery for consultation.
As I am sure hon. members know, the conference discussed at some length the recommendations of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism with regard to linguistic and cultural equality. I think those of us who took part in the meeting of this conference can be grateful that this report was before us. It seems to me that it alone is abundant justification for the work done by this royal commission. On this subject the conference agreed on the following paragraphs as recommendations of the conference which will be before the special committee dealing with the subject.
First, recognition by this conference that, as proposed by the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and as a matter of equity, French speaking Canadians outside of Quebec should have the same rights as English speaking Canadians in Quebec.
Second, recognition, as the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has recommended, of the desirability of proceeding by government action as speedily as possible in ways most appropriate in each province and without diminishing existing rights recognized by law or usage.
Third, establishment of a special committee to examine the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and the views expressed at this conference on this report and on 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.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the main subjects that were discussed at the conference. I do not intend to give any exhaustive review of this conference this afternoon or to outline what it accomplished in the constitutional and political development of this country. I think it was a very good first step in federal-provincial consideration of this vital subject. The position of the federal government in relation to the matter generally was set out in a booklet "Federalism for the Future" which was circulated to members of the conference and which, if the house agrees, I would be glad to table in English and French at this time.
If it is agreeable to the house I am sure it would be useful to arrange for a day's debate, perhaps next week, on this whole question of constitutional change and the federalism of the future. If this could be done by general

agreement the whole matter could then be discussed at greater length.


Mr, Speaker:: Has the right hon. Prime Minister leave to table the documents to which he has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
the Conservative party and Her Majesty's loyal opposition share the feeling of satisfaction which we believe is felt all across the country that this conference, concluded yesterday, has had a significant measure of success and that its results represent an encouraging step forward on the way to perfecting a grand design for the second century of Canadian confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For his part in convening the conference and for his conduct of it as chairman, credit is due to the Prime Minister of Canada. We wished him well on its eve; its success was important for the welfare of Canada, and we are happy to record our appreciation of his part now that it is over. There is no doubt that his conciliatory attitude and experience were of real value in helping the conference to surmount one or two difficult and awkward moments.
Remarkable and encouraging, especially coming as it did practically in the opening moments, was the degree of unanimity expressed on the matter of language rights. While there were some important differences, credit is surely due to those who, being most fundamentally concerned, such as the prime minister of Ontario, accepted so clearly and so calmly the responsibility for the pattern of the future in this area.

It should be emphasized, I think, that in the field of linguistic rights, the provinces are primarily responsible, as pointed out by the Quebec premier, Mr. Johnson, among others. There are, therefore, numerous points to be discussed and settled before an agreement can be reached, and any progress will depend, to a great extent, on the points on which the provinces will agree. We trust that the federal government will be willing to carry out its commitments, that is, to help the provinces in that field, if required.

It is noted, Mr. Speaker, that the conference made no mention of the position of those
February 8, 1968

Canadians whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. This is a matter which the provinces, therefore, may well have to consider in the committee, perhaps on the basis set out in the government white paper which we believe probably expresses the views they actually hold.
While we can take satisfaction, in this area and others, for what progress there was, it would not be realistic if we overlooked the fact that in order to find solutions we have still very much further to go than the distance we have come. In two of the most important areas especially, the examination of the division of constitutional powers and a program to deal with regional economic differences, little more was accomplished than a preliminary statement of position. Important though that be, it certainly means that most of the practical work lies ahead. Clearly, too, with respect to the division of powers, the width of the gap between two of the positions was also demonstrated.
I express the hope that there will be no intransigence in the working out of details, so the committee set up to work in this area may be allowed to approach its task in the spirit of good will and dedication that is so vital to success. It is obvious that a great deal remains to be done in the way of mutual exchanges of opinions, education as to each other's points of view, and efforts to bring them into reconciliation. It is important that we assist the country to understand its various parts.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In this matter of understanding, just as in the field of practical and acceptable redivisions or transfers of power, may I emphasize that there can be, in our view, no one way streets. This must be a two way traffic.
Here I must make a serious suggestion to the Prime Minister and to the house. Before I come to that, however, we desire to record our regret that it was not seen fit or possible to include representatives of the Yukon as delegates at this conference. We also record our very real desire to see progress made in the immediate future in constitutional advancement in that territory.
The whole of Canada's constitutional arrangements are, of course, of concern to the parliament of Canada, but no two areas are of more concern than the two I have mentioned, the division of powers and the closing of the gaps of economic differences between our regions. That is what confederation is all about. These are fields of interest essentially
Canadian Constitution
involving federal interest and concern. There can be no question, therefore, that they are matters of primary concern for the parliament of Canada.
I must therefore express our concern that there should be set up without further delay adequate arrangements for meaningful discussion of these matters by parliament, and for effective consultation between the government and parliament before final positions in these various fields are taken by the government.
I note that the Prime Minister has indicated the possibility of setting aside a day next week to discuss these matters. I feel this will be welcome, but express a reservation in this respect. It will be appreciated that this is the first time the Prime Minister has mentioned the matter. My reservation is that in the light of the seriousness of this whole matter and its enormous scope, one day's debate may not be adequate. I say this because we take the firm position that after all this is the parliament of all Canada; this is the forum in which the views of those who speak for all Canada can be collectively expressed; and this is the body, therefore, which should and indeed must be fully consulted before commitments are made in this field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will not be enough to say after agreement is made in committee or at the conference, "Oh, we will refer it to you for approval at that time", because such agreement can only be arrived at on the basis of a commitment by the government of Canada. Such a commitment should, in our view, only be made after consultation here.
Accordingly, while I note that the Prime Minister has referred to a day's debate and has also implied that a parliamentary committee may be appointed, we ask for a definite commitment and urge that such a committee be appointed just as early as possible. The government will find this party, which has repeatedly urged this course, ready to serve and work with our colleagues in other parts of parliament on such a committee just as soon as it can appropriately be constituted.
In connection with the process of education, consultation and reconciliation which is so essential to success in the constitutionmaking process, I should like to repeat the view we have expressed before, that the greater the extent to which such meetings are held in public, the greater the advantage to Canada. I am certain there will be agreement

February 8, 1968
Canadian Constitution
that this was amply demonstrated as a result of the extent of public awareness and interest in the proceedings of the conference just concluded. I should like to congratulate all the governments on their initiative in this respect. I hope the same policy will be followed with respect to meetings of our parliamentary committee and with respect to further meetings of the governments in constitutional conferences.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of this party to express our appreciation to the members of the other governments concerned who took part in this conference and submitted their views and positions to the scrutiny of public examination. I would like to pay special tribute to the prime minister of Ontario, not only for his participation in and manner at the conference just concluded, but also for his farsighted Canadianism in the preliminary conference or confederation of tomorrow which he called and which was held in Toronto last November. It is not my purpose to be critical-the conference here has been a success-but many millions of Canadians share the view that the gapfilling initiative of Prime Minister Robarts was a prerequisite to that success.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative party shares in the general satisfaction about the marked success of this conference, especially the contribution made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) and by all those who took part in it. We trust that the measures taken immediately to ensure consultations with parliament will not only acknowledge the concern and responsibility of that institution, but will also contribute, to a large extent, to the successful strengthening of confederation, so dear to us all.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, those of us who were invited and were privileged to attend the constitutional conference which ended yesterday had a feeling that we were taking part in an event which was of tremendous historical consequence for our country and its future.
I want to join the hon. member for Kamloops in expressing my personal appreciation, not only as a member of parliament but simply as a Canadian, for the way in which the Prime Minister presided over that conference with wit and wisdom and the flexibility

which were necessary if the conference was to succeed at all. I am sure I can say without any exaggeration that the success it did achieve was due to the manner and way in which he chaired the discussions, particularly when they became a little thorny at certain times.
In view of the fact that we are to have a debate on the subject I need not speak for too long, but permit me to make the following points. Some of them will imply some criticism, but I intend to make them merely to underline my belief that if we are to hold our country together and develop a viable constitution relevant to our day, then rigidity must go and flexibility must take its place. When the confederation of tomorrow conference was first called, the reaction of some leaders of the party on the other side of the house was very lukewarm and almost unfriendly. It became absolutely clear during the last three days that the initiative taken by the premiers of the provinces of Canada was not only necessary but an indispensable prelude to the discussions which took place this week.
The second point I want to make, from which it seems to me we ought to learn, is that for a very long time the attitude of certain important spokesmen in this parliament was against the concept that it was necessary to have a comprehensive review of the constitution. What in effect they said to the people of Canada and to the members of parliament was that all we need to do is concern ourselves with the language rights and perhaps with other human rights, but that when these matters have been dealt with the problem facing Canada at present will solve itself and there will be no need for a total or comprehensive review of the constitution.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
It became perfectly clear from the first hour of the conference that there was a need to be concerned with a comprehensive review of the constitution. In his statement yesterday the Prime Minister said, on behalf of his government, that the federal government was in favour-I think this was the word, and I am taking it from memory so I will be corrected if I am wrong-of entering into a total review of the constitution. In the statement the right hon. gentleman made today he called it a comprehensive review.
It has been obvious to some of us for some time that this kind of review and study of what needs rearranging, what needs bringing up to date, was essential for the future of this
February 8, 1968

country. It was a great step forward when that was recognized and acknowledged, not by all the heads of government who were there because there were still one or two who questioned it, but by the vast majority of heads of government who were there. I think, Mr. Speaker, now that the federal government has taken the initiative one can rest assured that it will continue that initiative. I hope, as the hon. member for Kamloops said, we will be prepared to discuss all aspects of the constitution and all phases of our federal-provincial arrangements as well as the rights of Canadians everywhere.
I was particularly glad, Mr. Speaker, as were my colleagues the leader of my party and the hon. member for Greenwood, who attended the conference as observers for this party, to note that the majority of the heads of provincial governments were prepared to accept the principles set out in the first volume of the B and B report. Furthermore, and to me this was even more important as I am sure it was to others, not only did they accept the principles but in the case of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan if I remember correctly, and Nova Scotia, steps had already been taken to put into practical effect the application of those principles. I feel that without regard to the party or the politics involved, the people of Canada ought to be grateful to the governments of those provinces, whatever their political stripe, for having been imaginative enough to take these steps even before the conference was held, and to give the undertakings that are essential for a united Canada in the future.
Our leader said, of course, when the B and B volume was tabled that we gave full support in principle to the recommendations in that volume, and we still do. We are in full support also of the idea of entrenching a charter of human rights in the constitution, even though that came up against some difficulties. We hope they are only temporary difficulties, and that eventually the constitutional conference will agree to making that a fact.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman reported, and of course correctly, that on his suggestion the conference which met on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week has been, as it were, declared a continuing constitutional conference consisting of the heads of governments. It is obvious you 27053-4095
Canadian Constitution
cannot make essential, fundamental constitutional revisions without the consent or acceptance of the people of Canada. It is obvious, too, that the heads of governments are the only ones who can take part in such discussions and make commitments. I am sure it is agreed that unless the people of Canada everywhere are prepared to accept these revisions at some point or other, we will have great difficulty.
I congratulate the Prime Minister, therefore, and the premiers of the provinces for two things, in my opinion both equally important. The first is that the conference was open so the people of Canada could participate in the discussions; and second, that observers from the opposition parties were invited to attend so that members of this parliament might have first hand experience of the proceedings. I hope this arrangement will continue at future meetings of this conference.
The final point I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is one we have made many times. My leader and the hon. member for Greenwood have asked many times that a parliamentary committee be appointed without delay, and that it be given the opportunity to study fully all the implications and all the suggestions made from all quarters. I want to join the hon. member for Kamloops in pressing the Prime Minister not to delay the appointment of such a committee. Such a committee will have sense enough, I am sure, not to attempt to reach rapid conclusions or to lay down firm guide lines. We are all aware of the fact that constitutional revision is a matter for lengthy discussion and temperate debate, but the sooner members of this parliament begin to consider this problem in depth collectively, the better will be the chance that what the government is able to accomplish will have the support of this parliament as a whole.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the success that has been achieved so far. As he indicated by a story he told, it is only a first step. We are all aware of the great difficulties still ahead. We all have confidence in the desire of all Canadians and all governments to see this country united and stronger, and any revisions of the constitution necessary to achieve that end will undoubtedly be agreed to in time.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we were informed today that a government in another country has resigned because

February 8. 1968
Canadian Constitution
of its inability to solve a language problem. I think we should thank the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) for having proposed this federal-provincial conference on the language problem which concerns us so much in Canada today. This conference was intended to prevent in Canada what happened in other countries.
We see that Canada is not the only country with a language problem. We are indebted to the Canadian government and to the right hon. Prime Minister for having taken steps to ensure that this federal-provincial conference contribute to a better understanding between the premiers of the ten provinces, so that what has just happened in Belgium may be prevented from happening in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for taking the necessary steps so that the proceedings of that conference could unfold before all the Canadian people. Thus all Canadians were able to hear what went on between the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada as well as between them and some of their advisers. We noticed that those discussions were very frank and, as a matter of fact, the Canadian people were able to see what was happening and know what their repreesntatives thought.
Things are a little different from what they were 40 or 50 years ago when politicians could say something in one city and then make an entirely different speech in another city without the electors or the_ public being any the wiser. Through television, we have been able to show the general public all that happened during this conference.
As an observer for my party at the conference, I noted how easy it was for the Prime Minister, with his old diplomatic skill, to chair the proceedings of this conference. I believe that everyone present noted his skill. As a matter of fact, some even praised his ability in timing coffee breaks.
I agree with the Prime Minister that we should be grateful to the secretariat for being so helpful to all who attended, and we should not forget the maintenance men who had to mop up the floor and do some repairs at the very beginning of the conference. In spite of this mishap, the proceedings were a great step toward national unity.
I also noticed the unanimous agreement of all participants to what the right hon. Prime Minister suggested, that French-speaking Canadians receive the same treatment outside Quebec as that granted to English-speaking Canadians in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I would

point out to the house that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, has been calling for just that for at least ten years. On many occasions, here in the house, he has called for French-speaking Canadians to receive the same treatment in the other provinces as that given to English-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec. This is now recognized by all the premiers of the country. It shows that everyone, in his own area, is ready for a linguistic breakthrough and this portends better days for the two founding peoples of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's suggestion that a more exhaustive debate should be held on that matter next week. One day might be enough to enable each party's spokesman to express his views, provided however, as suggested by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that a special committee be appointed to study the matter thoroughly.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers should be thanked for taking part in that conference and for agreeing to the establishment of a committee made up of high officials, in addition to a conference of premiers, responsible mainly for revising the Canadian constitution. That was the main objective of the federal-provincial conference, because obviously it was not the premiers' role to come to a conclusion during those three days; there was not enough time.
The committee of officials, who will have to make suggestions and advise the conference of premiers will have a beneficial effect. But I noticed, during these three days of discussions, that the provinces seemed to attach much more importance to equalization payments. That proves that the provinces are especially concerned with economic and financial problems. I understood that what the provinces need, most of them at least, is money. Therefore, I think that the committee of officials and the conference of premiers will be able to deal with all these subjects and that in the near future, suggestions will be made with a view to amending the constitution and do justice to all classes and all governments in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a great deal
February 8, 1988

of interest to the statement just made by the Prime Minister on the discussions at the conference that has just concluded. In view of the recommendation that a debate be held on this subject next week my remarks are going to be very brief.
I should just like to say that any and all attempts to resolve our problems and eliminate the frictions that affect our country are commendable. In this most recent conference matters of real concern were discussed both frankly and forcefully. It is far too early to assess the results of this conference. To some, viewing the prospects through spectacles rose tinted by hope and optimism, it might appear that there is clear sailing ahead. To others, who prefer to face the issues realistically, the problems and objectives outlined require careful analysis and sound thinking before conclusions are reached and decisions made.
I believe the obstacles on the path the government of Canada has chosen to follow are very real, and this is particularly true with respect to proposed amendments to the constitution. As pointed out in various briefs, in particular those submitted by the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta, attempts over the past years to find an acceptable formula for domiciling the constitution of Canada in Canada have thus far proved unsuccessful, and if this essential first step is impossible of achievement the consideration of further steps is somewhat premature.
This institution of parliament should clearly understand that the suggestions made by the federal government propose a definite shift from our traditional concept of legislative supremacy to one of constitutional supremacy with the ultimate power in the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen, Mr. Speaker, whether the Canadian people want such a change to be made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that unemployment has now reached the point where more than 6 per cent of the work force, amounting to nearly half a million people, are unemployed, would the Prime Minister take the first opportunity early next week to outline to the house and the country the initiatives the government intend to take to
Inquiries of the Ministry stimulate the economy and halt this steady growth of unemployment which we have had in this country during the past 12 months?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, this is a very worrying matter. I hope there will shortly be an opportunity to discuss this subject in the light of general economic conditions.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to address to the President of the Privy Council arising out of the answers he has given on previous occasions in connection with this matter. When may we expect him to table the report of the special task force working under his command on the question of foreign ownership in Canada?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the French translation will be available tomorrow, and barring accidents in connection with its reproduction I would expect to be able to table the report a week from today.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Following the presentation of that report to the house, would the Prime Minister indicate when the government expects to announce its position on this important matter to the house and the country?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the presentation of the report of a task force, which in itself is not a normal procedure but is one that I think should be followed on this occasion, is followed by government consideration of the subject matter of the report. As soon as that has been completed the government will then be able to make known its position.



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, further to the favourable steps taken in the
February 8, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry last three days, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether steps have been or will soon be taken for the Canadian government telephone directory to be published in French for the use of members?


Mr. Speaker:: 

CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I am basing my question on a statement attributed to the Prime Minister during a press conference yesterday. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could advise the house if he has now reached a final decision on the desirability of setting up a parliamentary committee to study and make recommendations concerning constitutional reform.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I listened with great interest to the observations made here this afternoon, and I agree that this parliamentary committee should be set up with the minimum of delay. I think perhaps we ought to have a day's discussion of the subject generally, and we should try to arrange this on a day which would be convenient to all hon. members-shortly, I would hope-and after that set up the committee to go into this question during the present session and, I would hope, in coming sessions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether a full verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the conference will be available for the information of members of the committee and others who are interested or involved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is a very good idea. The sessions were all held in public with the exception of half an hour devoted to the agenda. The proceedings are therefore public and I think a document of this kind would be very useful.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question. May I first of all thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the Yukon Territorial council for seeing to it that one of the
[Mr. Laprise.l
elected representatives on the council was accredited to the conference as an observer. In view of the wide and important spectrum of subject matters to be discussed by the special committee to be set up, would the Prime Minister give serious and favourable consideration to the inclusion as members of that special committee of representatives from the elected bodies of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should be glad to give serious consideration to that matter.


An hon. Member:: How about giving it favourable consideration?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Prime Minister along similar lines. Will there be provision for the first Canadians, the Indian community of Canada, to be heard in the course of this committee discussion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would think so. I was conscious, as I am sure many others were conscious, of the fact that in our discussions this week when we talked about founding races and all that sort of thing we were overlooking the two real founding races of this country; while we might not have said very much about them in our discussions they were, I thought, in everybody's minds. I hope they can be associated in an appropriate way with the further consideration to be given to this subject.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is the Prime Minister now ready to say, as a result of the very successful reporting of this conference, whether we may expect similar opportunities for radio and television broadcasting of proceedings in the house and in parliamentary committees?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the hon. member knows, this is not really a matter which concerns the government so much as it concerns the house. I appreciate the fact that, in general, progress has been made in the consideration of this matter with a view to reaching a conclusion. I would hope we could come to a decision without more delay and make arrangements which would be acceptable to hon. members. I would hope-and I speak as one member of the house-that we could begin by opening certain of the committees to television and radio, and then move to the house on appropriate occasions.


An hon. Member:: What about cabinet meetings?
February 8, 1968


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wonder whether the Prime Minister in raising this question would call the attention of the responsible authority to the fact that another venerable legislative chamber, the House of Lords, is permitting its proceedings to be televised.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot conceal my surprise at the fact that the hon. member for Greenwood has put forward the venerable House of Lords as a pattern we should follow in this modern House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gerard Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
At the close of the constitutional conference, after the premiers have decided to provide themselves with some instruments to pursue the work related to the constitution, and since, moreover, that federal members, as well as members of the various provincial legislatures, are unable to keep in touch with each other, would the Prime Minister agree that the government should promote the formation or creation of an association of Canadian parliamentarians which would constitute the very instrument required to enable both federal and provincial private members to meet every year, in order to discuss constitutional matters, not necessarily before television cameras or journalists?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very interesting idea, Mr. Speaker. I would be glad to look into it.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. During the forthcoming visit to Ottawa of Right Hon. Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is it the intention of the Prime Minister of Canada to propose and discuss the holding of a commonwealth prime ministers' conference here in Ottawa either late this year or in 1969? Further, could we be told what subjects are likely to be on the agenda for discussion?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: There will be no agenda. As the hon. member knows, on these occasions we do not have any formal agenda. However, I would be very surprised indeed if we did not discuss the possibility of a prime ministers' conference. I would think the views of Mr. Wilson would be of great importance in this regard, and I should like to hear what he has to say on this subject before coming to any conclusion myself. I think other subjects likely to come up are all those which concern international affairs throughout the world at this time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the fact that two prime ministers of commonwealth countries have indicated they would like to see the next meeting held in Ottawa influence the government's position when discussing this matter with Mr. Wilson?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, as would certain views I have had conveyed to me from other members of the commonwealth indicating that from their point of view it would probably not be desirable to hold a commonwealth prime ministers' conference until later this year.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio, the minister from Newfoundland (Mr. Granger). I do so in order to promote a spirit of Canadian unity. My question is prompted by correspondence I have received from people in British Columbia who in increasing numbers are desirous of visiting Newfoundland and places such as Heart's Content and Heart's Desire.


An hon. Member:: And Come-By-Chance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They indicate that they do not know how to get there, whether by air, water, rail, road, or saddleback by trail. Would the minister bring this situation to the attention of the government travel bureau to see whether the necessary guidance could be provided?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not my understanding that this question relates to the minister's administrative responsibility.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the remark the Prime Minister made
6498	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry on television last night to the effect that he would like to see only 40 nations represented at the United Nations, would he indicate to the house which nations he believes those should be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and ask him whether he intends to proceed during this session of parliament with order No. 5 which has been on the order paper since May 10, 1967 and with order No. 30 which has been on the order paper since June 26, 1967?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I think it would depend entirely on the speed with which we can deal with the business which is before the house. I think we are ready in respect of item No. 5.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether during his extremely busy and, I am sure, trying week he had an opportunity to meet with the premier of Nova Scotia to discuss with him federal financial assistance to the steel industry at Sydney? If so, can we be given a progress report at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I had the privilege of a talk with the premier of Nova Scotia outside the conference. He referred to his letter to me, and I told him that this letter would be considered immediately by the cabinet. We gave it preliminary consideration this morning, and we shall continue this consideration next Tuesday. I believe the premier would like to make this letter public, and if he does so this afternoon I shall see that it is tabled tomorrow.

DEBATES	February 8, 1968



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEETING OF MARITIME PREMIERS TO DISCUSS UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: This question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman any information with regard to a meeting of the premiers to discuss the possible union of the Atlantic provinces? Did I understand the Prime Minister to say there are to be representatives from the federal level at such a meeting? Is the federal government interested in this proposal and will it be represented should a meeting of the premiers take place?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member a progress report on this very important matter, Mr. Speaker. I learn from the press that they had a discussion in connection with maritime union, a consummation no doubt devoutly to be wished if it meets with the wishes of the people of the Atlantic provinces.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Due to the alarming increase of unemployed, does the minister intend to amend the unemployed retraining legislation in order to increase the number of months during which the unemployed can study a trade, and does he intend to increase the number of trades which the unemployed can take up under that legislation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Adult Occupational Training Act has not been designed to cope with unemployment. It is meant to retrain workers in accordance with the needs of the market and to improve their technical qualifications.
Now, if my hon. friend wants to deal with unemployment, he would have to do so from a point of view other than that of the Occupational Training Act.
February 8, 1968


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question.
Is it the intention of the minister to move an amendment to that legislation so that it may become more effective and the unemployed may become more qualified in order to find jobs, thus reducing unemployment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to consider any improvement to the legislation. If the hon. member wants to suggest a few, we are prepared to consider them.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. minister of external affairs.
In view of the fact that the number of unemployed is close to the half million mark, and in view of the concern shown in the past by the hon. minister in this field, is he in a position to offer some suggestions to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration in order to alleviate unemployment which is a calamity?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Monday I directed a question to him concerning the great transfer of investment by Canadian mutual funds from Canadian to United States securities. In his absence the President of the Treasury Board undertook to look at the figures and took the question as notice. Can the minister reply now to this question?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it has been the policy of the government to encourage Canadians to invest their savings in Canadian development, and in the case of mutual funds there is a tax incentive to this end. On the other hand, it has not been government policy to direct or to impose restrictions on how and where Canadians invest their savings. I remain convinced that our objectives of economic growth and stability can best be achieved by providing a climate which encourages investment in Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he has inquired if investors find it
Inquiries of the Ministry more advantageous to invest in United States securities than in Canadian securities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I can give some figures that will interest the hon. gentleman. In the last two years there has been a fairly large increase in the investment by Canadian mutual funds in foreign securities. On the other hand, in 1967 there was a large increase in the sales of foreign securities and a decline in the net purchase by Canadians of outstanding Canadian securities held in foreign countries. The net effect has been that in the first 11 months of 1967 trading in all outstanding securities produced a net outflow of capital some 40 per cent below that in the corresponding period in 1966.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a further supplementary question, is it not a fact that the purchase last year of approximately $485 million worth of United States securities by mutual funds depressed the stock market in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as
phrased is argumentative.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to immediately increasing the financial resources and scope of the Atlantic Development Board in view of the very serious economic disparity, acknowledged at the constitutional conference, so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that question. It was brought to our attention yesterday by spokesmen from the Atlantic provinces and, speaking on the matter, I had the privilege of pointing out to them the greatly increased assistance that had been given, and rightly so, to that area in recent years.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a related question to that asked by the hon. member for Cumberland, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government plans to call a special conference to consider the conflicting purposes of the federal government programs regarding the Atlantic region?
February 8, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these matters ol overlapping and conflict are continually under consideration, and they were also brought to our attention yesterday.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Compton-Frontenac.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is it the intention of the hon. minister to increase immigration to Canada in 1968, and especially from France?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that this question is of a general character and not very urgent, and that it could easily be placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position today to indicate the approximate date when it is proposed to establish the parliamentary committee on the national capital?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works has this matter under active consideration and I am informed will be bringing forward a motion to set up the committee fairly soon. [Mr. MacDonald (Prince) .1



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is based on a very serious situation that exists in western Canada caused by unprecedented imports of United States potatoes into that area. Is the minister in a position to state whether or not an application of value for duty will be made, as requested by the potato producers of western Canada?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is under very close study by the officials of the Department of Agriculture. To date there has been a limited flow of United States potatoes but the situation is a dangerous one and has to be watched very carefully. At the present time there is no intention of applying value for duty as a case cannot be made that there has been injury caused by an appreciable flow of potatoes.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he tell the house whether he has received letters of protest from certain medical authorities in Saskatchewan regarding actions by officials of the Department of Indian Affairs in making arbitrary and long distance medical decisions contrary to those made by the local doctors with respect to treaty Indians, concerning medical sterilization and the use of contraceptive pills?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I am not sure whether this matter is urgent in any way. If it is, the hon. member might consider the possibility of asking the question again at the time of adjournment this evening.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak very boldly to the matter of urgency, medical decisions on sterilization in some instances can be extremely urgent, particularly if there is disease present and the danger of one of nature's propensities becoming evident. If we have to wait for the time it will take the
February 8, 1968

minister to answer a question on the order paper I am afraid I do not know what will happen.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot enter into an argument with the hon. member on medical grounds. I think it might be the part of wisdom to allow a reply from the minister.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I believe I might have been able to save a great deal of time. The question should be addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: On the contrary. I should like to point out that this decision was made in a directive from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the operation of the unemployment offices. Would the minister give consideration to improving the services rendered by these offices, particularly in areas where offices have been closed and amalgamated into one central office?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give consideration to this suggestion and discuss it with the officials of the commission. If the hon. member has any suggestion of a helpful or constructive nature and will send it to me I will see that it is referred to the commission for consideration.

Inquiries of the Ministry
that it should be in my hands by the middle of this month.


Mr. Chafferion:: In view of the fact that it has already taken four months to complete the translation, will the minister now in any event study the report in English so that a decision may be expedited?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he recently had conversations with the premier of Prince Edward Island concerning the Northumberland strait crossing project and, if so, was the outcome encouraging or otherwise?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed. I had the pleasure of having lunch with him today and found as always that he was very energetic and sincere in putting forth the point of view of Prince Edward Island in respect of the causeway and other projects of interest to him and to my hon. friend.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the house some information in respect of the recent lay-off of a considerable number of engineers and other employees by the government consultant charged with the design and supervision of the construction project. Would he also indicate whether this will mean another slowdown in respect of this important project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am unaware of that particular situation. I will look into it.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would he inform the house whether the Woods committee report has been translated?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no information other than what I gave the house last week. I will make inquiries, but I understand 27053-4101



BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is based on a telegram I received just before coming into the house to the effect that the provincial government has made a request to the federal government for assistance in respect of the flood in the Bella Coola valley. Has the minister received such a request and what action is being taken as a result thereof?
February 8, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have checked as of 2.30 this afternoon with the area commander and have been informed that no request has been received from the provincial authorities.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked the federal government to convene a meeting to review the declining prices that producers are now receiving for some of their farm products such as eggs, potatoes and hogs? If so, will the minister inform the house whether such a meeting will take place?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, such a request has not been drawn to my attention. It may have come in in the last day or so. If such a request is received I will certainly be very happy to meet with them in this regard.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I am prompted to ask it because of my interest in the charming gentleman who previously held my seat of Kindersley and who subsequently has been so popular as Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan. Is the Prime Minister extending Lieutenant Governor Han-bidge's term as lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan, and for what period?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I have the right to answer that question but I shall be glad to do so in any event. I have written the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan to ask him if he would stay on for another year. I felt so sorry for him after the football game last December.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: May I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the year before the shoe was on the other foot.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Has the Solicitor General any statement to make concerning whether R.C.M.P. officers forcibly prevented a bailiff in Montreal from serving a superior court injunction on the Scotland Yard detective who had trailed the British train robber, Charles Wilson, to Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question should be placed on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General in his capacity as acting house leader. In view of the fact that there is a change in the order of business for today, would the minister now indicate to the house what the order of business will be?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to continue with item No. 47, the debate on the amendments to the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act and the Criminal Code. Then we would proceed with item No. 43, second reading on Bill No. S-18, to amend the Publication of Statutes Act; item No. 50, second reading of Bill No. S-28, to amend the Defence Production Act; item No. 61, second reading of Bill S-32, to amend the Territorial Lands Act, the Land Titles Act and the Public Lands Grants Act. This would be followed by item No. 60 and item No. 46.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact, according to my information, that the Prime Minister has indicated his decision on medicare to the press, will he change his mind and not wait until next week to tell the house? Is he prepared to give his views and decision in respect of medicare now?
February 8, 1968


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not said anything to the press except that I would be making a statement in the house on Monday. I wish I were in a position to make it now, but I have not had an opportunity to prepare the statement. I have been rather busy in the last few days. I hope my hon. friend would agree that I should have the week end to think about the form in which I might make the statement.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the acting house leader. Because of the widespread interest throughout the country in the amendments to the Criminal Code, would he announce as soon as possible how the house will proceed to deal with this matter so that people will know whether or not they should be making representations in the form of briefs?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I have taken notice of the hon. member's question.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address this question to the Minister of Finance. On two previous occasions I drew his attention to the increase in the prices of gasoline and domestic heating oil. He informed the house that he had asked officials of his department to inquire into the matter. Can he now inform the house what the result of that inquiry was?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not yet in a position to report. I have received some information. However, I have asked for some supplementary information and will make a statement as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State
Inquiries of the Ministry for External Affairs wishes to ask for permission of the house to revert to motions. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the
consent of the house in order to table the French and English versions of a paper distributed yesterday to the members of the federal-provincial conference, emanating from the Secretary of State for External Affairs and entitled "Federalism and International Relations".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs will table this paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, before this paper is tabled, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether all the candidates for the leadership of the Liberal party intend to publish a similar paper and table it in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this document be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for second reading of Bill No. S-23, to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act and the Criminal Code.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we listened last evening to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Chretien) give us an outline of the purpose behind the bill. I should like to suggest to the government, as I did by way of a question before the Christmas recess, a certain course of action which should be followed in the minting of coins, with particular reference to metallic or silver dollars as we have referred to them in the past. Even though they may be made of nickel this year I still have a tendency to call
6504	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins them silver dollars because that is the designation they have been given since 1935 when they were first minted in this country.
There is a way to mint dollars with a silver content and still make a rather handsome profit so tar as the operations of the mint are concerned. Up until last year silver coinage contained 800 parts of silver. In a silver dollar this amounted to 0.6 ounces of silver which, at the almost standard price until about a year ago of $1.29 per ounce, meant that each coin contained about 77.4 cents of silver.
I should like to refer to silver dollars for numismatic or collection purposes. Silver dollars minted in the past for general circulation and for use as currency have actually been used by people such as numismatists, collectors and others who put them away for their children or for other purposes. Very few of them have actually been used by people in the conduct of their business. Very few silver dollars minted in Canada since 1935 have ever got into general circulation. While I am talking particularly about silver coinage for numismatic purposes, what I have to say applies equally to the silver dollars that went into general circulation because, as I say, almost all of them end up being taken out of circulation rather than being used as currency.
The number of silver dollars minted in the past few years for numismatic pusposes, sold in sets or singly in a plastic cover, in 1964 amounted to approximately 2.85 million, in 1965 approximately 2.7 million, and in 1966 approximately 700,000 or slightly less. If we took a high average of about 2,500,000 silver dollars during a year and minted that many this year with a content of silver of 50 per cent, or 500 parts instead of 800 parts, we would have a substantial saving. This would be the same silver content as used in dimes and quarters during the latter part of last year. In terms of the maximum price for silver of about $2.30, which was about the peak last year, using 50 per cent silver in silver dollars we could mint them with a content value of 88.125 cents of silver.
I do not intend to go into these statistics in any greater detail except to point out to the government that in years past silver dollars of the numismatic type were sold for $1.25. They contained 77.4 cents of silver. In other words, the income in relation to the value of the silver showed a profit picture of 47.6 cents. If we made a silver dollar this year

DEBATES	February 8, 1988
with a 50 per cent silver content and distributed it to numismatists, collectors, dealers and others for $2 instead of $1.25 we would bring in at least $1 to the coffers of the government for each silver dollar sold.
The minister says it is not possible to do this because it is difficult to obtain silver as it is being used for other purposes including the space program in the United States, the film industry and the like. Late last year I checked to see if it was possible to obtain silver in quantity. I found it would have been possible on a long term purchase contract to obtain sufficient amounts of silver for use in silver dollars. It may not be too late even now to purchase the silver. As I listened to the Minister of National Revenue I understood him to say there was a provision in a schedule to this bill whereby dollars may be minted with a silver content as well as of pure nickel. The minister would be well advised to make inquiries into this suggestion of minting silver dollars this year with a 50 per cent silver content to be sold for $2 each. Not one single silver dollar, I submit, would end up in general circulation. They would end up in the possession of collectors or people who put them away to commemorate a certain anniversary. The mint and the federal treasury would end up with a substantial profit by minting silver dollars this year in this way.
It may be that at some time in the future it will be impossible to mint silver coins but it certainly would be possible to do so this year. This year is the sixtieth anniversary of the mint. I understand the mint is preparing a presentation case which will contain the nickel dollar and that it is a beautifully designed article. Even though nickel is a shiny substance and withstands wear for a long period of time, as suggested by the Minister of National Revenue last night, it cannot possibly equal the brilliance and lustre of silver. It would seem to me that the two together, a silver dollar and the presentation case that is being prepared by the mint in any event, would make an ideal collectors' item this year to commemorate the diamond jubilee, the sixtieth anniversary of the mint. There are a few other items to which I wish to refer but I think it might be more appropiate to deal with them when we get to the committee stage.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill comes at the right time
February 8, 19G8	COMMONS DEBATES	6505
since, in my opinion, it is indirectly connected with national unity and it can therefore be considered as complementary to the federal-provincial conference which has just ended.
Currency, which appears often in this bill, is a subject of interest to all Canadians from sea to sea. All classes of society are interested in currency. All governments, federal, provincial or municipal, are interested in currency. Political parties also are interested in currency, whether they be a left-wing, right-wing or centre party. In fact, we are all interested in it.
The passing of this bill will make it possible not only to change the size of some coins but to use nickel instead of silver. Currency, up to now, consisted of a silver alloy. If silver is a precious metal, nickel is not less shiny.
In view of the fact that our country ranks first in the world among nickel producers, obviously the government can consider making a few changes without fearing that it will lack metal.
However, what is of special interest to me is the price at which the coins will be sold: at what price will the twenty-five cent, flfty-cent or one dollar coins be offered?
If I ask this question, it is because nothing in this bill indicates at what price those dollar coins will be sold.
For instance, clause 9 of the bill reads:
"396". Every one who, with intent to defraud, knowingly utters
(a)	a coin that is not current, or
(b)	a piece of metal or mixed metals that resembles in size, figure or colour a current coin for which it is uttered,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Therefore, the only thing this bill contains is a warning against substitutes.
At the present time, in Viet Nam, Canadian soldiers can exchange the American dollar for 70 units of that country's currency on the regular market, and it may go up to 130 and even 140 units.
As for the mtehods used in the Polish Socialist Republic, in the daytime tourists may obtain at the banks or at foreign exchange offices 25 zlotys for one United States dollar, but after 9 p.m., through private dealers, tourists may get as much as 90 zlotys for one United States dollar.
This is known the world over as the black market. This is a criminal offence under the law; anyone found guilty is liable to 2 years in jail.
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins
The situation here is rather strange, as last summer some had the nerve to offer one dollar silver coins, minted to commemorate our centennial, at $3 each. Many people in my area, students, teachers, three credit union managers, two managers of bank branches, in short people from all classes of society had asked me to get them a few of these silver dollars. I went to the mint, here in Ottawa. I was told I was two days late. So I went to the bank, and they told me that the very small quantity they had received was long since gone. But they were able to refer me to two Ottawa dealers who nonetheless had silver dollars to sell and still do.
Even today these Ottawa dealers, and other American dealers as well, are still offering us silver dollars at unheard of prices. I know that it is too late to remedy the situation, but I would like the minister to take this opportunity to tell us how many fifty cent and one dollar coins were minted to commemorate centennial year.
In addition, for the good of the people, I would like the minister to tell us also how the distribution of those coins was made and by what organizations. How many coins are held by the public and how many are still unsold in stores? I would also like the minister to tell us if that business should really be made legal in our country? In addition, I would like to know how many middlemen took part in that little scheme which finally pushed the price of a centennial dollar up to $3, as I said a while ago? I would like to know what the minister thinks about that.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing Bill S-23, as a Social Crediter I think all members of my party and fellow Social Crediters will welcome the announcement regarding the coining of money of less intrinsic value using a metal that is equally durable, if not more so, but worth considerably less on the market for its own sake than silver. We welcome this step because obviously the only quality that money should have is durability, and the only real use to which it should be put is in the exchange of goods. If we find it being purchased for its own sake or being saved and kept as a hedge against inflation, then there is something wrong with the state of the economy and with our regard for and attitude toward money itself.
I have to disagree with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) because after the
February 8, 1988
6506	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins experience of our centennial year I think it would be wise if the government never again got into the business of producing memorial coins and simply refused to make them for numismatic or any other purposes. I say this because it has already been pointed out to the house by various members that there has been a vast disappearance of thousands, if not millions, of coins that were purportedly designed to come into the hands of the Canadian public as souvenirs or mementoes of centennial year but ended up making an extremely handsome profit for some individuals and dealers, people who remain unidentified but who certainly were not the mass of the Canadian people.
I received early last year, as I am sure most hon. members did, requests from individuals who wanted to know where centennial silver dollars could be obtained. On making inquiries I was told that the coins could be obtained at the chartered banks and all people had to do was make application for them. I was told that, admittedly, the number would be limited for each individual but they could probably obtain at least two apiece if they made application for the coins. Certainly very few of these coins ever got to western Canada through the chartered banks. When people inquired over and over again they found they were absolutely unobtainable. Yet we saw them blossoming out in blocks of plastic in various shops dealing with this type of souvenir, so they were obtainable by certain people.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
One of the Ottawa newspapers pointed out a few months ago that anyone who had enough foresight to obtain a sack of one thousand 50-cent pieces back in the spring could have made a profit of around $5,000 on them by now. Again I do not know how one went about obtaining them. I do not think it was our duty as members of parliament to try to go through the labyrinth to obtain a thousand or so of these coins to carry back to our constituencies and distribute them there, but unless we did I can think of no other way by which they could have been put into the hands of individuals who wanted to collect them.
The items which were quoted from coin magazines yesterday indicating the availability of these coins outside the country are, a sad and sorry commentary on the government entering into the coin business. It is a strange thing that when, for example, certain individuals wish to collect service medals the

government refuses to part with them even when they have surplus stocks, and have not even considered registering bona fide collectors of such items. Yet we know that the government has been in the business of minting centennial dollars for souvenir purposes, which had the effect of making some individuals much more wealthy than they should be.
The situation is much more critical with regard to the coining of the gold dollar-and the regulations in the act cover this-because in view of the great urgency in the minds of the public to reduce the use of gold in modern currency, this is the last thing that any civilized, modern, developed government should be doing with currency. There is heavy pressure on the monetary authorities of the world to permit an increase in the price of gold, to double or treble its value. Canada has joined its friend and ally, the United States, in opposition to that move because the effect on world trade would be disastrous and would give aid and comfort to certain countries which have endeavoured to frustrate the development of the free western world.
The country which would gain the most from an increase in the price of gold would probably be the Soviet union. Such a move would also be a tremendous boost to France which in the past few years has done all it could to turn its United States dollars into gold rather than to hold its reserves in that currency. So we have opposed the move to increase the price of gold but at the same time the government, in our centennial year was engaged in the minting of a $20 gold coin along with other coins amounting to $1.91 which were put into a set and sold for double the value the $20 gold coin gave to the set. While opposing an increase in the price of gold on the one hand we have tacitly suggested that the price of gold should be far higher than it really is on the other. It has been a confusing effort at a time when, through the International Monetary Fund, spokesmen have told us that they have endeavoured to eliminate the use of gold in the monetary system.
This policy was supposed to be ratified by member countries of the International Monetary Fund over the next two years, and it will be the job of their parliaments to endeavour to convince their people and the people of the world that there is no relation between the value of gold and the worth of money. It will be much harder to put that idea across so long as the Canadian government continues to
CMr. Johnston.]
February 8, 1968

point out that the value of gold is far above $35 an ounce when it is being used for coinage.
I should like to mention one other point. In the minister's statement yesterday reference was made to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the acquisition or purchase of securities of that organization by the Minister of Finance for the Canadian government at a good rate of interest. If the rate of interest is good, then the interest which the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is charging throughout the world is probably far too high.
We know that some countries which have borrowed from organizations such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development have reached the point where they have had to continue borrowing in order to meet the interest charges on the loans they already have, and that no reconstruction and development can take place because these countries have all they can do to keep their heads above water as they pay the interest charges to the organization. Here again the developed nations should change their approach toward the supplying of credit to and the financing of undeveloped nations because so far all their efforts through such organizations as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development have succeeded only in widening the gap at an accelerating rate between the rich and the poor nations. Although we may congratulate ourselves on the fact that the purchase of these securities is providing a good rate of interest to this country, we should at the same time question very seriously the whole approach because it can only exacerbate an already extremely difficult situation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to discover that the program to support the U.S. dollar on which the minister has embarked also meets the Social Credit philosophy and that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) believes that this program has encroached into the numismatic field. Frankly, I thought it was a rather strange type of operation that Canada, which has a large quantity of gold and silver for sale, should tie itself to United States financial policies. Yet this has been done and will probably be extended.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Although I do not see anything wrong in doing so, it is probably true that coinage should never be minted to be melted for
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins industrial use. The production of coins has some value. For that reason it would be foolish for the mint to be minting coins while industrial users were melting them down for industrial purposes. However, this has been done in the United States. It was done not because of the value of the coinage but because the United States government pegged the price of silver at a level at which the industrial community could not advantageously buy it from industrial sources so they purchased it from the treasury. The United States government has pegged silver at $1.29. Silver purchased on the London market by industrial users in my area is running as high as $2.04. For this reason, I believe the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke is probably right. I believe this only points up the fact that the price at which the United States government has been forced to peg the silver dollar is an artificial one with which they cannot hope to live but which we probably have to take into consideration.
We can do one of two things with our silver coins. We can either decrease the silver content or increase the size of the coin. The minister is suggesting in this bill that we do both. There are many people in the world today who will buy any kind of junk and call it antiques. They pay a high price for these antiques. Peculiar things happen even in the normal course of business. My brother has a tractor which he has had for a great number of years but on a number of occasions he has been offered more for this Farmall-H than he paid for it, not as an antique but as a trade-in. This seems to me a rather odd situation, particularly when that Farmall-H still does the job it was intended to do and yet commands a higher price in the market today than he paid for it. The same situation applies to used furniture.
I could refer to another field of government endeavour, the production of stamps. We find certain countries in the world that can exist on the revenue from manufacturing stamps. They do not have to go into any other field of endeavour. These countries turn out nice looking stamps which collectors pick up, thus providing sufficient revenue for some of these small countries to take care of their needs without taxation. We in Canada are issuing many new stamps and are finding this a lucrative field. Even in the currency field the minister is now proposing that we set up a factory-type operation and that we mint coinage for other countries. I presume we will
6508	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins also manufacture bank notes on a custom basis.
Since I do not believe in Social Credit philosophy I do not see anything wrong with the minting of gold coins if we are going to get in return twice the amount of money we paid for the gold that is in the coin. This does not seem to me to be a foolish operation. If the government would get out of some other operations and go into the manufacture of gold coins, possibly they could reduce the deficit twice as fast. If we can get $2 for each silver dollar, this would seem to me to be a good arrangement.
I am well aware of what happened in connection with United States currency. We talk about supporting the International Monetary Fund, and probably there is a necessity for that because we live in a community of nations. The United States has been turning out scrip in various countries which they never intend to redeem. Much of the currency the United States has put into Viet Nam they never expect to see again, and for that reason this money is really scrip such as armies operated on during the last war. This money is of value only for trade and the United States hopes that operation will be a one-way street.
Canada is being asked to back the United States government. The International Monetary Fund is now being asked to substitute for gold silver certificates and other forms of hard currency, a unit that will probably not be based on the United States dollar. Most countries of the world have lost faith in the United States dollar. There will be a new unit which the government of Canada and the 63 other nations involved in this operation will develop. I represent a gold mining community which has existed for many years on gold selling at $35 per ounce when everyone knows that the price of gold in the free market is much higher. The United States government set the price of gold at $35 and, incidentally, limited the right of United States citizens to hold gold. Many of these people are buying gold and holding it in Swiss banks as a hedge against the devaluation of their own United States dollar. Whenever there is a run on the United States dollar these people are probably undermining their own currency to a great extent.
Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with what the Canadian government decided to do in coining centennial presentation sets. I congratulate the government upon taking this step. Now that they have taken this step and realize the advantages of the operation, I

DEBATES	February 8, 1968
strongly urge the government to extend it. I am glad the government has adopted what might be called a socialistic way of thinking by deciding they are not going to allow other people to decide what is good for them. I think it is true that most Canadians who wanted to buy a silver dollar had no intention of carrying that silver dollar around in their pockets. In my opinion, Canadians who bought silver dollars did so with the idea of presenting them to children as souvenirs. I suppose they hoped that if the child kept the silver dollar long enough it would be worth $8 or $10 by the time the child wanted to spend it. I am of the opinion the Canadian government should consider the segment of the population that wants to save money by stuffing it under the mattress, so to speak. This $2.5 million worth of coins does not seem to me to be too large a number of silver dollars. I do not know where they will end up, perhaps in the Bank of Canada, but I doubt it. I do not believe they would ever get back to the tellers in local banks.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I doubt that these silver dollars find their way back to the bank in the same way that old bills do. Many of us who get these 50-cent pieces in change drop them in a dresser drawer and save them. If you take them to the bank you find that the teller has a list of people who want to get 50-cent pieces. Since I have been interested in collecting coins I have noticed that you seldom find a worn silver dollar or a worn 50-cent piece. This indicates to me they are not used in normal trading. I feel the government should be fair to the public and indicate why they are restricting the use of these coins and why they are so opposed to the collection of coins. Perhaps one answer lies midway between two very good reasons, reasons which might be underlined by outlining certain steps the government has power to take. Probably one of the reasons is that coin collectors in Canada have an edge on buying methods and have been able to affect large transactions in silver for coinage purposes in the United States. There was an example in a newspaper of a three-ton truck load of silver that was transported to the United States to meet a shortage of coins for vending machines.
The second reason is probably the market that has developed for coinage received from the mint distributed in bags of silver in mintlike condition. The bags were distributed not to the general public but to vending machine operators and for numismatic purposes. These
February 8, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	6509
coins then find their way into various outlets that sell them back to Canadians at a high profit.
I do not think that the government should become involved in this type of trafficking. On the other hand, I think the minister must explain why he has discontinued the sale of $1.90 worth of coins, not $1.90 worth of silver but face value, in cellophane bags priced at $4. I realize there have been some abuses of these sales, but surely these can be overcome and this type of transaction continued.
I should also like to say that I am of the opinion that the public should be told once and for all that the Canadian government really has no coinage policy in any way, shape or form. In fact the government is following the United States system and is anxious not to do anything that would rock the U.S. dollar. If this is true then perhaps we should link our currency with United States currency.
Some people have suggested that the currency of the International Monetary Fund should be based on the U.S. dollar. Representatives of the Canadian government who attended the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Rio were surprised to find that many countries did not support that suggestion. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the Canadian government is prepared to support such a proposition it should give leadership in developing a new International Monetary Fund unit that is more compatible with the wishes of its members.
I still feel that there is a place for silver coinage. There is a role for industrial silver in the production of coinage and this role should be perpetuated. We do not want to be put in the position where every industrialist in Canada has to go through a sort of reverse operation, with the mint melting down his coinage and turning it into silver and then melting down the silver and turning it back into coinage. Also, collectors of coinage should still have access to the coin market so they can buy silver dollars or 50-cent pieces, and that access should be guaranteed. The cut-off date should be in September instead of without warning early in the year.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the part of the bill that provides for the transfer of the mint or part of its operations from the city of Ottawa. I think the minister will agree there is an historical connection between the capital of the nation and the minting of money. The capital is the place where the mint should be situated, although I realize
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins that in the United States there is a mint at Pittsburgh and also at Denver. However, there is some historical background to that situation.
I think the argument about relocating the mint has been carried to the extreme during the last few months, so much so that we could find ourselves locating the mint in an area over which Canada had no control. This could mean that instead of minting our own money we would have to get somebody else to do it. This would be a ridiculous situation. I suggest that historically the mint should be in the national capital, and that historical right should be protected.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to put to the minister about which there has been quite a bit of discussion. Previous speakers have referred to the unfulfilled demand for centennial silver dollars and half dollars. I also commented on this situation last November when I brought the matter to the attention of the minister. These coins were on sale at various dealers outlets at very high prices in relation to their face value, and when I last motored through the United States they were available in large numbers.
When I raised this matter in the house last November, in referring to the centennial silver dollars and half dollars the minister had this to say, as reported on page 3793 of Hansard:
These are no longer being produced for ordinary-use. They are being produced in sets which are sold mainly for numismatic purposes.
People have written to me asking where these sets can be obtained, how to apply for them and whether the price is still $40 per set. I have not been able to ascertain whether these sets are still available. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me so that I can reply to these inquiries.
Another question I should like to raise, which may have been dealt with when I was absent from the chamber, concerns the proposed new section 8 (1) (d), which says:
The governor in council may by proclamationid) call in coins of any date and denomination.
This provision is of great interest to those who hold numbers of coins; they wonder whether those coins could be called in. Does this provision apply to these coins or does it merely refer to those now in the banks?


Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of this bill by the
6510	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins minister. Its main feature is the change in the type of metal used to strike coins for the government of Canada. I think no metal is more representative of Canada than nickel. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, Canada supplies the world with better than 65 per cent of its demand for nickel. Over 50 per cent of that production originates in the riding I represent, the city of Sudbury. The whole economy of the city is based on the mining and refining of this metal and for these reasons I am pleased to see the minister introduce into the coinage of our country a metal more in keeping with the job coinage has to do. In many of its qualities nickel is superior to silver or gold. It can stand a great deal of wear, unlike more precious metals which are subject to loss of weight and disfigurement when used in coinage. Nickel is not only valuable but tough and difficult to work. I am sure the coins produced from it will stay in circulation much longer than the conventional coinage of the past.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is, of course, a certain magnetism in the precious metals which tempts people to withdraw them from circulation and hoard them. This is a romantic inclination felt by many people. If we turn to a more ordinary metal such as nickel the tendency to hoard might be reduced with beneficial effect on the amount of coinage in circulation. I recall that not too long ago there was a severe shortage of metal coins and the mint was unable to turn new ones out in the quantities required.
I am not against the purchasing of these coins for commemorative purposes. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has pointed out that a one dollar coin made 50 per cent of silver would have a silver content worth 88 cents. I see no reason for not making those dollar coins out of nickel. They would probably have a real value of 15 or 20 cents, but dealers could still sell them for the figure my hon. friend mentioned and the profit to the treasury would be even greater.
We must remember, too, that these coins have to be carried around in our pockets. From time immemorial man has tried to simplify the business of carrying money around. At one time coins consisted of large stones with holes in them and it took an ox-cart to move them from one place to another. Today, in Canada, we have reached a point at which relatively large sums can be carried around as coinage without too much inconvenience.

DEBATES	February 8, 1968
The new coins envisaged by the minister will be 13 per cent lighter than the present coins and easier to carry to this extent. The substitution of nickel in the one dollar coin will lead to a 30 per cent reduction in weight. This will in turn lead to other economies. The minister has estimated that to express these coins across Canada costs $285,000. Thus, if we bring about a reduction in weight amounting to 13 to 30 per cent there is bound to be a considerable saving in shipping costs right off the top.
Many people collect coins which have been disfigured in the course of the original stamping. They will pay thousands of dollars for a 50-cent coin which has a dot in a certain spot. Not unnaturally, there are some individuals who disfigure coins in an attempt to make an ordinary 50-cent piece into a rare one. Unlike nickel, silver is an easy metal to work. Its melting point is around 1,200 degrees. The melting point of nickel is between 2,600 and 2,800 degrees. Thus, anyone who wishes to disfigure a coin made of pure nickel has an extremely hard job on his hands.
I should like to comment on one further proposal in the legislation before us. In referring to the proposed location of the mint the bill says it must remain in the national capital region. I consider that the striking of coins is a manufacturing process. I see no relation between the location of the mint and the location of the parliament of Canada. We are trying by various means to create employment in certain depressed or designated areas of the country and I see no reason why these coins could not be manufactured in the maritimes or possibly in northern Ontario close to the source of supply of nickel. These areas have already been designated. I am certain such a move would relieve at least some of the unemployment which exists in those areas.
I do not know what quantity of nickel the mint might use in a year. I have not tried to estimate it because I do not know how many coins it is intended to strike. Regardless of the amount, however, I think the nickel industry in Canada will welcome the decision which the minister has made known. Right now the industry is tied closely to the United States war effort. Sales were high at the time of the Korean war, but shortly after that war ended the nickel company with which I was employed laid off 2,800 men in one week. At the present time the industry is benefiting from the war in Viet Nam but when the Viet Nam war ends the supply of nickel will, I
February 8, 1968

suppose, exceed demand and another two or three thousand workers will be laid off. For this reason a steady market, small as it might be, would certainly be welcomed by the nickel producers of this country.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, before we advance further in our consideration of this bill I should like to ask the minister whether attention has been paid to the effect this legislation may have on 450,000 businesses in Canada which operate by means of coin machines. I am thinking of laundromats, automatic dry cleaners, vendors of soft drinks and so on.
I can appreciate why the government feels we ought to make these changes, but it has been estimated that the cost of converting the sensitive mechanisms which operate these machines and make change may be in the neighbourhood of $50 per machine. The government might be able to save a great deal of money through an amendment of this kind but I am wondering what consideration has been given to the circumstances in which these businessmen will find themselves.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will not prolong the debate on second reading. Perhaps I might begin by answering a question asked by the last speaker and refer him to the statement which my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Chretien), made on my behalf yesterday, in which he described the measures being taken to facilitate the change-over of coin vending machines. The principal reason we have not yet been able to proceed with the striking of nickel coins is the difficulties with vending machines, coin changers and so on. We have appointed a management consulting firm to investigate the possibilities of compensating the operators of these machines. I agree with the hon. member that this is an extensive matter.
Most of the comments made by hon. members were directed to the numismatic value of Canadian coins. I can understand the reason why these questions were raised because I have received more correspondence about Canadian centennial dollars and 1967 50-cent pieces than about any other subject during the last few months. As was said yesterday, it is the intention of the government to make provision in this bill for the striking of further 50-cent and dollar coins with 50 per cent
DEBATES	6511
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins silver content rather than the present 80 per cent, principally for those people who may wish to collect these coins and hold them rather than use them for currency purposes.
There is no question but that the new nickel coins will be much more durable, beautiful, and cheaper to issue than silver coins. In order to meet the immediate problem it was decided to reduce the silver content of the 25-cent and 10-cent coins, but when making that announcement I said that these coins would not have the same beauty as those with 80 per cent silver content because in due course they would begin to acquire a yellowish tinge. However, we expect we will be able to issue the new nickel coins before they begin to wear out their welcome. With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude the debate on second reading and be ready to answer any questions in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


William Arnold Peters: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 1-Authorizing composition of coins where alternatives stated.
Mr. Monteith:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one brief comment. Speaking on second reading yesterday the Minister of National Revenue mentioned that the 50-cent and dollar coins were going to be somewhat smaller in size. I think this is most appropriate as under this government the dollar has lost so much value in the last four years.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Royal Canadian Mint.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think it is wise that provision has been made in this clause whereby the mint may make coins of the currency of countries other than Canada. I hope the mint will engage in this work because I believe it would be a profitable and useful operation.
There is one other aspect to which I would like particularly to refer and that is the location of the Royal Canadian Mint. This clause contains an amendment which permits it to be in the national capital region, whereas under the previous legislation it was required to be in the city of Ottawa. The suggestion
6512	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins was made by the Minister of National Revenue that perhaps the present mint building should be abandoned completely and a factory type of premises built elsewhere. I want to express the hope that there will not be a complete abandonment of the present mint building, which I recognize as having become too small for the facilities now required but which, on the other hand, is a building of considerable architectural distinction. I believe it ought to be retained as the principal headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mint. If another building is required I believe there is within the immediate area sufficient space which would be fully suitable for such a building. In this respect I hope I might have the support of the hon. member for Ottawa East.
I wish to express the hope, and I would like to have some assurance from the minister, that the location of the mint will not be used as a matter of log rolling, shall I say, in relation to the location of government buildings on the two sides of the Ottawa river. The mint has been in its present location ever since it was organized in 1908. Its principal branch should be retained in that position, and I do not think the mint should be used as a means of satisfying those who seek to increase the number of buildings on the other shore of the Ottawa river.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I would like to revert to clause 2 for purposes of an explanation. He asked what was the purpose of the proposed new section 8(1) (d), authorizing the governor in council to call in coins of any date and denomination. I am informed by the Master of the Mint that no proclamation has ever been issued to that effect. It could be used for the purpose of calling in all silver coins, or something of that kind, but such a case has never arisen. In fact coins have been accepted by the mint and replaced by new coins because the old coins had become defaced or worn.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel it is in our interests to have the words "within the national capital region" substituted for the words "in Ottawa" in the present act. I too feel that the capital should be the location of the mint. Therefore I move:
That clause 4 be amended by deleting in lines 10, 11 and 12, the words "within the National Capital Region described in the Schedule to the National Capital Act," and substitute therefor the words "in Ottawa."

DEBATES	February 8, 1968
[DOT] (5.00 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, my colleague dealt with this subject yesterday. He said that the purpose of the amendment in clause 4 was to locate the mint within the national capital region rather than specifically in Ottawa. I believe this is a wise amendment. There are many departments in the government of Canada that have offices in other parts of the national capital region and I can see no reason why the mint should be an exception. I recognize, of course, that it is almost universal practice to have the mint located in the capital region, but there is no specific reason that it should be located in the city of Ottawa itself any more than should the printing bureau or any other department of government. There is nothing sacrosanct about the mint which would require that it be located within the municipal boundary of the city of Ottawa. Indeed, in the interests of the country as a whole I would have thought it would be well not to have the national capital region identified specifically with the province of Ontario but rather as part of a complex of Ontario and Quebec.
Therefore I can say that the government does not agree with the proposed amendment. We believe there should be sufficient flexibility, if it is found desirable for economic reasons or for reasons of efficiency, so that buildings can be distributed over the whole area to the best advantage. That decision in the case of the mint could mean that it would be located outside the municipal boundary of Ottawa. On the other hand, I wish to assure hon. members that no decision has as yet been made.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Is there a tentative proposal in relation to the site?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are several. Some of them relate to sites inside Ottawa and some of them relate to sites outside Ottawa.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very brief statement. I can understand that there may be some members who feel they ought to support this amendment because of the nature of their constituencies. However, I think I would have to oppose it on the ground that at the moment there is under way some type of arrangement to have a national capital region. I do not believe there has been diversity in respect of the buildings in the national capital area and although I really do not know what the officials of the department have in mind I
February 8, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	6513
believe I would be opposed to the amendment.


The Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas 17; nays 30.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question in connection with the minting of coins and the switch to nickel. I am aware that the blanks for nickels have been made at Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Is it the intention that the blanks for the new coins which are to be switched to nickel will be made at the same plant and will the Sherritt Gordon Company of Fort Saskatchewan be the exclusive provider of these blanks for the mint?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the plant to which the hon. gentleman has referred may not be the exclusive manufacturer of these blanks. We may make some of them ourselves, but we have no intention to switch from this company.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: In connection with new coins I am wondering whether the blanks for the quarters and dimes, for instance, will be supplied by this plant at least in part.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, in part at least.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister what action is proposed by the Royal Canadian Mint in respect of seeking the business of making coins in the currency of other countries? Is it intended that there will be a general promotional job in this regard and, if so, by what means?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I can say to the hon. gentleman that it is the intention of the mint to seek business, I believe the best advertisement will be the quality of our coins and the speed with which we can produce them. The Master of the Mint advises me that his main method will be salesmanship.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether certain countries in the world today have their coins minted in other countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. This is widespread practice, particularly by the less developed countries.
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins


Jay Waldo Monteith: Therefore this salesmanship would not necessarily be in the western hemisphere?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


James Ernest Pascoe: In respect of the subsection of new section 14 which refers to "making coins of the currency of Canada" can the minister say whether the $40 coin sets will continue to be available.


Mitchell William Sharp: This question was asked a number of times during the debate on second reading. The $40 coin sets had to be discontinued. Last September we gave notice of about a month. Perhaps everyone did not see the notice but it was given. The mint is now very busy trying to fill the orders which have already been received. Almost 400,000 sets were ordered. It is a very considerable task not only to produce the coins but also to produce the boxes in which they are mounted. The $4 sets without the gold coins have been discontinued. The number ordered was about one and a quarter million sets. In both cases the mint had to stop taking orders in order to start work on the 1968 coins and in order to check the unlimited demand for coin sets and meet the need for the year 1968, particularly in light of the fact that we must switch from silver to nickel.


Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Were efforts made to see that the centennial dollars and 50-cent pieces were sent in any quantity to individual banks in western Canada so that individuals who wished to obtain one or two would be able to do so?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the orders for the sets of coins, either the $40 sets or the $4 sets, are made directly to the mint itself. The other coins, whether dollars, 50-cent, 25-cent or 5-cent pieces are just distributed generally for public use. The government has no way of controlling the ultimate destination of those coins. An attempt is made by the mint and the Bank of Canada to see that there is an adequate geographical distribution of the coins across the country. Other than that, the government has no control over their ultimate destination, that is, whether they go into the hands of collectors or to the public for circulation.


Mr. Rynard:: When the Minister of Finance says "geographical distribution", who is distributing them? Are these coins distributed to
6514	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins the banks? How do you obtain a geographical distribution?


Mitchell William Sharp: The distribution is made
through the Bank of Canada to the chartered banks which make application to the Bank of Canada for the number of coins they think they need for general use.


William Arnold Peters: Is it not a fact that general distribution is not on a geographical basis but is actually made to the headquarters of the banks? Is it not so that distribution on a geographical basis falls within the responsibility of those head offices?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, the distribution is made through the agencies of the Bank of Canada in various parts of the country. It is not made through the head offices of chartered banks.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-1963, c. 34, s.l(.l).
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 deals with the exchange fund and this might be an appropriate time to ask the Minister of Finance to express his view regarding the rather vigorous advocacy of a floating exchange rate for the Canadian dollar by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. In view of the advocacy of a floating exchange rate by such a highplaced adviser of the government we should have at this stage the most positive assurance from the Minister of Finance that the government has no intention of departing from the present pegged rate of 92J cents in United States funds and that it intends to use the exchange fund to the limit to protect that rate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to confirm what the hon. member for Carleton has said. When Mr. Smith made his statement he made it without the knowledge and without the authorization of the government. He did not consult in any way with the government in advance. He made it as a purely personal expression of his views, just as many academics have done. Indeed, I think it was a president of one of the chartered banks who said he thought there was a theoretical case for a floating exchange rate. So far as the government is concerned, our policy is quite clear. It is to maintain the present value of the Canadian dollar and to use our resources to the utmost to defend that rate.


Richard Albert Bell: Did this expression of opinion by such a high-placed adviser of the

DEBATES	February 8, 1968
government have any unsettling effect upon our exchange position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I could say that I regretted very much that Mr. Smith had been led into making a statement of his personal views. I think he regrets that he succumbed to the temptation.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, now that the Minister of Finance has told us what the government policy is, will he tell us the reason we should not revert to a floating exchange rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: The short answer is because I do not think that a floating exchange rate would be in Canada's interest today.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, clause 5
makes mention of the purchase of securities from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. When looking at the note in respect of the purpose we find that there are various items the minister is authorized to purchase, including securities of the International Monetary Fund. Is the addition of authority in respect of securities of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development desired on behalf of the Canadian government in order to improve the resources of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or is this simply because it is a good investment? Has the minister any idea how much money would be involved in the purchase of such securities in a year's time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, when my colleague was presenting this bill on second reading yesterday he said that the securities which the exchange fund would expect to purchase with this authority would be special issues of two year central bank bonds which the I.B.R.D. first brought out in 1964 and which are offered only to central banks and other government institutions. These bonds are denominated in United States currency and are offered every six months. The last issue was on September 15, 1967 and was sold to central banks and other governmental institutions of 43 countries, and one international organization. The issue at that time was $1 million United States and carried an interest rate of 5f per cent. These bonds are not only a good investment from the point of view of the exchange fund but they represent an indirect way of assisting the operations of the International Bank itself. They serve the double purpose of providing an attractive
February 8, 1968

means of short-term investment for the exchange fund and a way of providing more resources for the International Bank itself.


Howard Earl Johnston: Is the minister in a position to tell us at what rate of interest the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development lends the resources it obtains to developing countries in the world?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed that at the present time the International Bank is lending to its customers at about 6J per cent, somewhat higher than the cost of the money it has borrowed.


Howard Earl Johnston: I have one further question. I would be interested in knowing, with all of the interlocking arrangements between the International Bank and the Bank of Canada, whether it would be possible for the Canadian government to refrain from entering into any proposal to purchase securities from this bank?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. There is no compulsion whatever upon the exchange fund to purchase any security if it is believed unwise. However, it is believed that it would be wise to have this authority because these are excellent securities guaranteed by most governments of the world. I cannot think of any better vehicle in which to put our exchange funds today. We are under no compulsion, and if we do not like a particular issue or if it is not priced well there is no reason to make an investment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister has under hand the statistics in respect of the exchange fund account as of January 1 of this year and as of the latest date for which they are available? Could he indicate what loss there may have been during that period and what loss there may have been immediately subsequent to the statement of the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada? Perhaps I might ask also whether the minister has or could obtain for the committee what the amount was as of the first of the year invested in each of the various types of investments which are listed in subsection 2 of section 22 of the act?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not happen to have the information with me but I could remind the hon. member that at the end of January a statement was issued that showed there had been a loss of reserves of approximately $340 million, which was replaced in part by taking advantage of a swap facility with the Federal
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins Reserve Bank to the extent of $250 million, leaving a loss of something of the order of $90 million. I do not have with me the distribution of the securities. My recollection, is, however, that gold forms about $1 billion out of something of the order of $2 billion in reserves, other than the $250 million we used through the swap facility. So it is about $1 billion out of reserves of $2J billion, something of that order. I do not have the figures with me but that it is my recollection.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could secure the figures and give them to me.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: How much of the fund is held in gold at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: About $1 billion, upon which we earn nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Earnings.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I ask this question for clarification. As I understand it, in the estimate for the year ending March 31, 1968, there is a vote asking for the transfer of moneys from the exchange fund account for the calendar year 1964. Old section 24 states that profits from the exchange fund should be transferred into the consolidated revenue fund within three months after the end of each year. I am at a loss to know why this was not done and why, therefore, four years later we are changing this act.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a technical amendment, Mr. Chairman. The present act provides for the transfer to the consolidated revenue fund at the end of each year of that portion of the exchange fund's net income derived from interest and discounts on the securities held in its portfolio. It does not provide, however, for the transfer of other income realized by the exchange fund, most of which is derived from trading operations.
The Auditor General and the public accounts committee of this house recommended the transfer of these other profits to the consolidated revenue fund and my department undertook to obtain the necessary authority. While we were awaiting an opportunity to open up this act for amendment, we did in fact obtain the authority by an item in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. This was in vote
0516	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins 23a. This vote authorized the transfer of these other profits for the calendar year 1964 and subsequent years. The amendment in clause 6 of the bill before us will supersede this item. So it is purely a technical change.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to know that one more recommendation of the public accounts committee has been crossed off the list.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister how much gold was being held and he said $1 billion, which was not earning any money. The obvious question to ask is, why are we holding it? Does the minister not see some profit in minting this gold for Canadian currency? We have $16 million of it in gold currency and it cost us only $4 million for the gold. We made a profit of $12 million. I think the minister is overlooking a good bet as Minister of Finance if he does not try minting some of this gold so we can make the same kind of profit that we made last time. Obviously this situation has great profit potential.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the hon. gentleman that the minting of gold never produces any profit. Every gold coin has to be worth its intrinsic value in gold. It is not like nickel, in respect of which we will have a lot of seigniorage. The value of a gold coin must be what it says. If you have a $20 gold piece it is worth $20 in gold. I made an offhand comment that the $1 billion we held in our reserves does not earn us anything. This is the reason we do not hold all our reserves in gold. The reason we hold some 40 per cent or so in gold is as a hedge against the possibility that some time the value of gold might be increased.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule, Part I, agreed to.
Schedule, Part II, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mitchell William Sharp: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

DEBATES	February 8, 1968



PUBLICATION OF STATUTES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau for the second reading of Bill No. S-18, to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, there was some debate on this bill last November. I have noted the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) at that time and I also took the trouble to read his testimony before the Senate committee which considered this bill. While I do not want to take up too much time of the house, I believe, considering the expressed purpose of the minister in bringing forward this bill, that he is doing more harm to his cause than good.
The simple situation will be that if this intent is carried into effect every lawyer in Canada will be faced with a doubling of the size of the books with which he is dealing, a doubling of the size of the statutes and the field through which he must search in any book to which he refers. I want to make it plain that I have no particular objection to attempting to further the use of the French language in parts of Canada or the use of the English language in parts of Quebec. However, I do not think it can be argued that the method now suggested by the minister is the only way to do it.
I do not think there is any validity in the argument that the minister seems to suggest, namely, that by doing it in this manner there will be more justice for French speaking Canadians because copies of the statutes will be available in the French language. There is absolutely nothing wrong with statutes being printed in English, and in French, with both volumes being available so that one or the other may be used. I cannot imagine a case coming before any court in the land where the trial will not be held in one language or the other.
As a matter of fact, I am sure that in the courts in most parts of this country you will find that English is used almost exclusively, and in some other courts French is used almost exclusively. For the odd, exceptional case the statutes will be available in the other language. Therefore the necessity of having the other language in the road at all times is going to be irksome. Instead of making our second language a cultural heritage which we
February 8, 1968

will like, treasure and enjoy, it will become an irksome nuisance to those trying to follow their professions in the best way they can. Certainly it would not promote either unity in the country or the further spread of bilingualism if one language were to become irksome and a nuisance in any part of the country.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is also a practical consideration to be taken into account, namely, the cost involved. The minister said that bilingualism costs little and is worth it. I have no quarrel with that, but if it costs more money because of a wrong approach then bilingualism will not be advanced and money will be wasted. I think it is perfectly proper to point out that it will be more expensive to print bilingual statutes, not just for the government but for everyone across Canada who refers to them, because if the statutes are printed in the manner suggested by the minister we will have to pay the cost of both sets. Certainly my own law office has little use for a French set and I am sure there are many law offices in Quebec city which have no use for an English set. The government will have to pay the cost of printing both sets, and each individual in Canada will have to assume the cost of both whether or not he uses them. I think this is an imposition and I see no justification for it.
There is another matter which concerns me greatly. A suggestion has already been made that one way of dealing with this matter would be to resort to finer print in order to have both versions on the same page and so that the size of the volume would not be too great. I suppose that for thinner paper to be strong enough it would have to be of higher quality and therefore more expensive, so that this suggestion might result in greater expense. The idea of finer print bothers me. Certainly legal work is hard on the eyes because it requires constant reading and reference to statutes and case books.
I am amazed that the Minister of Justice is setting out to reduce the size of print in order that both languages may be contained in the same book because in this way he may create difficulties for lawyers across Canada. I believe that many lawyers, especially those getting on in years and having trouble with their eyes, might take this as a personal affront. I do not want to sound as if I were getting too close to that age but as I wear glasses I think I can speak with some authority on this subject. When I was in my early thirties I could read all day and never get tired but now that I am getting on in years I
Publication of Statutes Act become tired after reading for a couple of hours. If the minister has his way I might have to have someone read to me after I have passed the age of 50.
I should now like to review some of the minister's arguments before the committee. He said that his purpose is to ensure that justice is available. This sounds very good and I am certain the measure he has proposed is one way of ensuring that people can be heard in either language before the courts. But surely the mere fact that we have to refer to one book or another instead of having both languages in the same book would not affect the availability of justice. The minister argued that lawyers in court will frequently find it useful to have the French version of a section readily available in order to clarify a legal point so that the court may understand more clearly what parliament meant in the legislation. To that I say that it seems to me that ten times more often the French version would be used in order to confuse the issue if a lawyer felt he was losing his argument. I do not think much would be gained by it.
While in the city of Edmonton there are not many bilingual lawyers, I have often appeared before a bilingual judge and have been opposed by a bilingual counsel. Yet I have never heard them refer to a French version for assistance. In fact, I suggest that in many cases the judge would be displeased with what I consider would be an additional complication, particularly in view of the fact that there can be no literal translation of either language. Therefore resorting to another language would in most cases be an added complication rather than assisting in understanding the legislation.
I think the strongest argument used by the minister in favour of this measure is based on his feeling that it would assist in the spread of bilingualism in Canada and that it would give the French speaking people in western areas, for example, a greater feeling of security in the knowledge that the statutes are available in their own language. It has been my feeling for some time, which has been confirmed by some friends of mine who are concerned about the lack of understanding in western Canada of the views of French Canadians on the subject of bilingualism, that this subject has not been taken seriously enough here in Ottawa. We in western Canada are accused of not taking our French friends seriously enough. In a previous speech
6518	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act in the house I said that this lack of understanding is one of the greatest dangers we face in this country today because it leads to suspicion and distrust, which in turn leads to resentment and then to enmity. There can also be resentment when things are not done the right way. If I am correct in my argument that the citizen's right to obtain justice in either language is protected by the availability of two volumes, one in English and one in French, then the minister's suggestion that both versions be available in one volume would only serve to promote bilingualism, and the right to justice would not be protected by this proposal.
The minister may have a point, if I have understood his argument correctly, but I do feel that the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) last November should be considered a little more seriously. There are many courts in large sections of our country where the use of French is completely non-existent. In a few areas French is used in the courts on rare occasions. I suppose also that there are areas in Quebec where the use of English is very infrequent. Therefore, a vast majority of lawyers in Canada deal in one language most of the time, and whether or not a lawyer is fluently bilingual he knows before going to the court in what language a case will be conducted. In such cases the second language is really redundant. Yet on every occasion when a lawyer goes to court he will have to carry with him statutes in both languages, which may perhaps be a nuisance and irksome to him. He would have the constant reminder that his books were costing him more, that they were taking up more room on his shelves and that the paper was thinner. He would have the constant reminder that he must try to read finer print. All of these constant and irksome reminders would serve to recall to the people of this country that we are a bilingual nation. If these books are to serve only as reminders of our bilingualism and must take this irksome form, then I say to the Minister of Justice he is not helping the cause of bilingualism, he is not helping the cause of unity and understanding.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I suggest to the minister that he should look more closely at this proposal. It may well be that in another 20 years when the provinces have moved in the field of education to the extent that we have a whole new generation that is truly bilingual, when all aspects and advantages of bilingualism have

DEBATES	February 8, 1988
spread across the country, there may be a more general acceptance and understanding of this proposal. I am suggesting to the minister that at this juncture in our development the printing of the statutes in the manner in which he would like to see them would not be an asset but rather an irksome nuisance. He would, therefore, do his cause much harm by this proposal.
Since the minister has suggested that the revised statutes are going to be in this form he may be well advised to wait until the revised statutes are published and distributed across the country. He can then ascertain how they are received. If the minister finds that in the west, for instance, there is no particular feeling about it, that it does not give rise to these feelings I fear, then he could proceed with this suggestion. I hope that for the sake of greater understanding and a broader acceptance of bilingualism in this country the minister will take a good look at this suggestion.


Mr. Augusfe Choquette (Lofbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, on examination of this bill, to pay tribute to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), sponsor of the bill, and to emphasize the admiration we all felt during the constitutional conference.
We were given a chance to appreciate the exceptional work he has done and to admire the truly unique competence with which he set forth his views during the conference. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that, if the conference was the success it was generally recognized to be, the contribution of the hon. Minister of Justice was truly outstanding.
I feel that he expressed, during this conference, a philosophy we can trace back to the testimony he gave before the Senate committee on banking and commerce. We really find in it the essential basis on which will inevitably rest the Canadian unity that we are on the point of achieving. If it does not yet exist to the extent that the existence of a Canadian ideal could be generally recognized, it is precisely because the French fact has never been accepted, in some parts of the country, as a typically Canadian asset.
When listening to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) we know that he no doubt speaks with deep conviction and sincerity, but he represents that very minority group in Canada which has always refused to consider the French fact as one of the
February 8, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6519
greatest assets which enables the Canadian people to be distinguishable from our neighbours to the south, the Americans. And this is fundamental, if Canadian unity is to be strenghtened for future generations.
In his evidence before the Senate committee, the minister expressed most clearly the views of all those who advocate Canadian solidarity. There was never any question of forcing a language upon anyone; any attempt to do so would be anti-democratic, and we would then have to condemn such a philosophy, such an attitude.
This fact remains, Mr. Speaker: The younger generation of Canadians, either Frenchspeaking or English-speaking, really believe that the French fact is an asset for Canada. If the older generation is somewhat surly and rather unwilling to make such a concession, it is normal. The hon. member for York-Hum-ber said the other day: Since Wolfe, French-Canadians are a conquered people. He is not to blame for expressing such a thought; he has lived, he was educated and he has grown old in that atmosphere.
The younger generation, however, disputes such remarks. I had the opportunity to talk-
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is looking at me because I have been speaking too long.


Mr. Trudeau:: I am admiring you.


Auguste Choquette: Thank you. I had the opportunity to speak before several university audiences outside Quebec. There is always a great deal of applause when one says to Canada's younger generation: "The French fact is still the strongest feature that distinguishes you from the Americans". Our young Canadians do not want to become Americans. We have heard Americans visiting Quebec city ask us: "Why don't you join the American flag?"
Why were they asking such a question, Mr. Speaker? Because they could not see any difference between Canada and the United States.
They thought that Canada was a wholly English country, and English the only language in use. But when you say to young English Canadians that the French language and culture are live and active factors in the country, they feel proud. I would like here the hon. member for York-Humber to imitate these feelings of the younger generation and revise the erroneous philosophy to which he holds so obstinately.
Publication of Statutes Act
But why all these words, when we are dealing with a seemingly rather insignificant bill? It is precisely because it has symbolic value. And I am only repeating what the minister said before the Senate committee. There is symbolic value in this. Why print the French text besides the English text?
If you want to consider the political aspect of the question, because the legal interpretation aspect-I will come back to that later- has been strongly pointed out, and besides cannot be ignored under the circumstances, it acquires thereby a symbolic value, for by placing the French version besides the English version there is affirmed to the whole country that we have really bilingual institutions.
In the province of Quebec, there are lawyers practising law in Chicoutimi, Rimouski, Quebec city and distant municipalities where the English language is never used. Yet the statutes of the province of Quebec are printed in both languages. There may be extremists who will question that, but people of good will, serious people willingly accept it. We have the French and English versions side by side in the statutes of the province of Quebec, but we would never think of denouncing that fact as a situation through which we might be unduly coerced. Nobody would think of doing that. The phenomenon is accepted, and we are happy to tell the people of the province of Quebec: "English is a language, and the more familiar you become with the English language and culture, the richer your personality will be".
What we would really like in order that the cultural equality spoken of during the constitutional conference these last few days might become an actual fact, would be for people such as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. member for York-Humber to say one day: "If we want to enrich the personality of all Canadians, we should all have a better knowledge of the two languages and the two cultures, for that is an important factor in our development and in the enrichment of our personality. There is nothing revolutionary in this theory, Mr. Speaker. That should be accepted.
The legislation before us is intended to allow printing the English text beside the French text. But some members, including the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), argue that it would result in additional expenses. That is obvious, Mr. Speaker.
Simultaneous interpretation in the house is an added expense. Bilingual inscriptions
6520	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act and all the translation system cost more money than if we did not need them, as in unilingual countries.
But, as the provincial premiers gathered around the constitutional conference table have proclaimed, what we want to establish is language equality. It is a very symbolic way of acknowledging in practice this principle of cultural and bilingual equality. It is a matter of friendly coexistence between the two great Canadian communities. This is the only way, Mr. Speaker, to make Canada a strong and progressive country. In fact, it is the only way to break through the psychological barriers which have been existing for one hundred years, namely that French Canadians do not feel at home when they are outside Quebec.
This is a psychological separatism, a linguistic separatism which inevitably leads to the demand for political separatism. I think that if the hon. members opposite wanted to get inspiration from the spirit which prevailed during the constitutional conference, they would quickly share the spirit which prevails in the bill now under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, on page 51 of the report of the committee on finance, trade and economic matters, a remark can be found which, in my opinion, sums up pretty well what was said by the hon. minister himself when Senator Everett said to the hon. Minister of Justice:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

So you would say then, Mr. Minister, that by printing the versions side by side you improve the degree of interpretation that is available to the lawyers and to the courts?

The hon. Minister of Justice then answered: [English]
That is exactly my point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot find a more concise and striking formula to outline the basic question of judicial interpretation.
If both texts are official, if both texts can be used to enlighten the court, they must be readily available to those responsible for the interpretation of the laws. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said, and this is an argument which should be considered seriously: Lawyers never use the French text; to my
[Mr. Choquette.l
DEBATES	February 8, 1968
knowledge, I have never seen anyone consult the French text.
Does the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona realize, however, that if the French text were more easily available to lawyers, perhaps they would then remember to refer to it. In my opinion, there are many English-speaking lawyers, who are members of the Canadian bar and who are well versed in French, enough at least to read it, if they cannot speak it fluently.
I think that the Prime Minister is a perfect example of that type of bilingual Canadian whom we would like to see more numerous in Canada. He understands French quite well. We can speak to him in French and even if he answers in English, because he is unable to express himself correctly in French, he can at least grasp its subtleties.
Besides, no one would like a Canadian to feel that he has to learn another language and here I have to disagree with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire)-and I am sorry he is not here-when he says in this house: Are you going to give us bilingual constables? I think that is heresy. How can we ask constables to be bilingual when the members of parliament are not? There is no better way to create prejudice, ill-feeling and resentment. We are not asking that the constables be bilingual; we are asking that the French Canadians who come to parliament be able to make themselves understood in their own language. But a constable must never be forced to be bilingual to keep his job.
So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put the record straight about this matter of bilingualism and show that claims as ridiculous as those of the hon. member for Lapointe may create prejudice, resentment, incomprehension and a hardening attitude. The result is that it is difficult afterwards to obtain what we want.
After all, our claims are legitimate: That the French fact be an enrichment for Canada, that the English-speaking Canadians be proud of the existence of the French fact, since it is the best way to distinguish ourselves from Americans. If that attitude, that doctrine were accepted, Canada would be strengthened and more unified.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
February 8, 19G8



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the following questions will be raised at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), Public Service; the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), Education; the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Loney), Indian Affairs.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-104, respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Honey-Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 1-Abbreviated name.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-104, respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Shall clause 1 carry?


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to hold up passage of this bill as amended to any extent. It has had exhaustive treatment in the transport and communications committee over a period of more than a year. During that time many firms presented evidence criticizing two aspects of the original bill, first, the clause that would have given Bell the power to issue stock without any measure of control either by the transport committee or the securities board and, second, the extension of powers to engage in any business or purchase or development whether related to the communications field or not. There was also the thought that the powers Bell asked for would enable them to enter the broadcasting field.
I think I am correct in saying that the members of the transport and communications committee realized that to a large extent these objections were valid. It pleases all of us to know that when the company understood our objections and those raised by so many other people they showed their good faith as corporate citizens of Canada by suggesting amendments to correct both these
Private Bills
complaints to which I have referred. On this basis, Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to support the bill as now amended and feel the company should be commended for its cooperative attitude.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a few opening remarks to make on this bill. I realize that it is an important private bill as it affects the people of Ontario who are telephone subscribers and the employees of the company. For this reason hon. members have a distinct responsibility to all concerned to make certain that the bill is as satisfactory as possible in the circumstances which exist today. I think this was the general attitude of the standing committee in dealing with the bill. I know that a considerable time was spent hearing representations and considering the views of hon. members.
It is a somewhat unusual situation for me to be speaking on a bill concerning the affairs of a giant monopoly, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I happen to be speaking as president of what is possibly the smallest telephone company in Canada, the Nakusp-Galena Bay Telephone Company which has operated a 40-mile double-wire telephone line for many years. It has been operated for service only and exists because these big monopolies decline to operate in areas where there are so few subscribers and where the physical conditions are so severe. I might say we have never declared a profit and that our assets are now in the lap of the gods, which in practice means they are subject to the decision of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. All we can do is hope and pray so far as the future is concerned. However, I do know something about the difficulties of maintaining and operating telephone lines in circumstances which these large companies would prefer to avoid, and for this reason I have been interested in following the bill in committee and considering the evidence placed before it.
I have one or two question I should like to ask the sponsor. Can the sponsor assure us that the company told the truth to the committee or that the company has presented all the facts to the Board of Transport Commissioners? Is it a fact that the company has a loan capital of $400 million which is included as investment capital so far as the company is concerned? I have been told this is so but I do not know whether it is correct. Again, will the sponsor, when we reach the appropriate clause, inform this committee about the

February 8, 1968
Private Bills
objections which were raised to certain amendments as a result of representations made by members of the committee and others? The previous speaker referred to this subject, and I understand the company was willing to make certain amendments. I should also like to ask the hon. member whether this bill gives the company a monopoly over research related to this type of enterprise. When this bill is passed in its amended form, what particular advantages will it give to the company concerned? We shall have some further questions to ask when we reach the clauses dealing with these matters.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we in this group have been very interested in the operation of the Bell Telephone Company and its financial structure. While it is true that the committee devoted more careful consideration to the bill before us than was forthcoming in the case of the measure presented some years ago, there are still several matters to be resolved.
The problem facing us in connection with the setting of rates for Bell Telephone services arises from the fact that Bell has a wholly-owned subsidiary engaged in both manufacturing and research. I do not criticize Bell for making these arrangements. In fact, I believe the company is wise to use this method of ensuring the services of a research organization and of a factory which can manufacture material for its use as well as produce equipment on a competitive basis for the use of others engaged in telecommunications. As I say, the problem arises from the fact that in these circumstances there is really no way in which one can correctly assess the amount of money which is put into Bell by Northern Electric or which flows in the reverse direction. The task of the Board of Transport Commissioners in setting rates is made virtually impossible.
The company has appeared before the board in recent years seeking a profit level higher than that which the board had set. Recently it persuaded the board that it should be allowed to raise its level of earnings to 7.2 per cent from approximately 6 or 6| per cent. I understand from one of my hon. friends that the company has not agreed to the separation of Northern Electric from its operations. In wishing them to divorce their operations we do not object to Bell having a controlling interest or ownership but we do believe stock should be made available so that others can buy into Northern. As long as we allow Bell to give stock options to its

employees, and it i& debatable whether we should, Northern Electric employees should be allowed to buy stock in that company or in Bell if there is no Northern stock available.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
A number of worth-while amendments have been made to the bill but I think the Bell Company should be forewarned that the next time it comes before parliament it should be prepared to give up sole control and ownership of Northern and of any research facilities which it provides. One of my colleagues asks why I should pick on Bell. Simply because that is the company involved in this bill. My remarks could apply equally to C.P.R. or any other major company operating in the public utility field. Rates are set for the C.P.R. by a public agency, but the subsidiaries of the C.P.R. do not make reports to the controlling agency. As a result a confused picture can be presented to the board which we have appointed to fix rates. As a matter of fact, the members of the board are to be criticized for not requiring such subsidiaries to report to it.
The members of the standing committee have done a thorough job in examining this bill and I am willing to accept the decisions they have made. However, as I say, the Bell Company should be warned that there are members of this house who will not treat it leniently in the future unless it is prepared to let the regulatory board have full information about its subsidiaries.


Mr. Honey:: Before we pass clause 1, Mr. Chairman, I wish to express thanks to the chairman and members of the standing committee who worked diligently and carefully on this rather complex, involved legislation. As hon. members have indicated, they made very substantive changes to the bill, which were agreed to by the Bell Telephone Company. These changes were worked out in conjunction with the officers of the company.
I should also like to deal now with the matters raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West now because some of them cover more than one clause. But before doing so I wish to say that when we reach clause 7, which is new clause 6, I understand the hon. member for York South will move an amendment to subclause 3 which will be of a minor nature. I shall also move an amendment to subclause 4 of that clause which will involve a rewording suggested by the Department of Transport counsel and concurred in by the Department of Justice and Mr. Henry.
February 8, 1968

I know that the hon. member for Kootenay West has some considerable experience in the telephone business. I do not claim any particular competence but I will do the best I can to give him the information he has sought. On the question of whether or not the officers of the Bell Telephone Company gave truthful and accurate information and testimony to the standing committee, I can only say to my hon. friend that I am satisfied they did, and were I not so satisfied I certainly would not act as sponsor of this legislation.
The hon. member also raised something which he said he had heard. He was not specific with respect to details, but I made a note of his remark concerning loan capital of $400 million included as investment capital. I have here the balance sheet included in the 1966 annual report of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and I refer my hon. friend to that report. Under "Investments" it indicates subsidiary companies. There are some eight or nine subsidiary companies. I checked with the head office of the company today and am informed that its total investment this is at cost-in those subsidiaries is $178 million in round figures. I quote the following from the balance sheet to which I have referred, under the heading "Other Companies":
5.9 per cent of the preferred shares and 53.7 per cent of the common shares in the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company, Limited. Direct ownership, without voting control, acquired in September, 1966; market value at December 31 1966: $38,194,000.
My up to date information today is that the market value of those shares is now approximately $52 million. The only other item under Investments" in the balance sheet refers to the special refundable tax, which is $6,464,000.
The hon. member for Kootenay West also asked me for information about objections raised and about amendments. I think he was probably referring to amendments made in the committee. These are set out in Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, February 7. They are substantial, and I have already given credit to members of the committee and the officers of the company for working in cooperation with each other.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
There are still many matters of importance to the company in this legislation. One is the
Private Bills
updating or refurbishing of much of the terminology used. The word "telecommunications", for example, which is used throughout as an amending word in this legislation brings the legislation into line and consistent with other legislation of parliament such as the Radio Act, the Criminal Code and the Broadcasting Act. The general counsel of the Bell Telephone Company, when he appeared as a witness before the committee, said that the refurbishing of the language brought their legislation into the jet age, I believe he said.
A second matter of importance to which the hon. member for Kootenay West referred has to do with the power given in the legislation to invest in research and development companies. This particular power may have been available to the Bell Telephone Company but it is now clarified and I believe made explicit in this legislation. As other hon. members mentioned this afternoon, the amendment to which I refer now limits the Bell Telephone Company to confine its investment in research and development to companies engaged in telecommunications research and development. I believe I can answer my hon. friend's next question by saying, in my opinion in any event, that this does not give the Bell Telephone Company a monopoly in this field. Perhaps I might read the amendment. It reads as follows:
Delete and substitute therefor new clause 7 as follows:
"7. For the purpose of carrying out its corporate powers the Company is empowered to purchase or otherwise acquire, and to hold shares, bonds, debentures or other securities in any other Company engaged in research and development work in areas of inquiry that relate to the objects of this Company-
I think those words are important because they confine the Bell Telephone Company's investment in research and development to companies which are doing research and development in the area which Bell may pursue under the objects of the Bell Telephone Company.
-and to sell or otherwise deal with the same, provided-
These words are important.
-that such other company, not being a subsidiary of the company on the date on which this Act comes into force,-
Of course, that provision is there to save whatever rights the Bell Telephone Company has in respect of investments and so on with regard to the Northern Electric Company.
-does not manufacture products for sale to the Company or to other customers."

February 8, 1968
Private Bills
In the last provision the Bell Telephone Company is excluded from investing in general terms in a manufacturing company save in respect of the provision for the Northern Electric Company.


Mr. Sherman:: I wonder whether the hon. member might be in a position to alleviate the anxiety of some parties concerning this clause. With regard to subsidiaries, or possible or potential subsidiaries, of manufacturing companies and outlets referred to in the proposed legislation, can the hon. member assure the house that he believes the companies operating under the aegis of the Bell Telephone Company at the present time, such as the Northern Electric Company and other companies which might be added to that kind of corporate structure or operation, would be prohibited from themselves investing in subsidiaries which will be involved in manufacturing processes?


Russell Clayton Honey: Well, even if I were qualified to do so I would not wish to give a legal interpretation. My observation, however, is that the answer is explicit in the wording of the amendment which restricts the Bell Telephone Company to investing in research and development work in the areas I have mentioned with the following exception. I will read the exact words:
-provided that such other company, not being a subsidiary of the company on the date on which this Act comes into force-
Therefore I think the interpretation of the amendment is that it saves to the Bell Telephone Company the authority to invest in what the wording says, that is, a subsidiary of the company on the. date on which the act comes into force. To conclude my answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West I should like to offer this for what it is worth. I think it is quite clear that the amendment in no way gives the Bell Telephone Company a monopoly in respect of investment in research and development companies. It merely says that the Bell Telephone Company may make an investment in those companies. This in no way, of course, inhibits other investors in the same company.
Then the hon. member for Kootenay West asked what particular advantage this legislation gives to the Bell Telephone Company. I have mentioned the refurbishing of the wording in the old Bell Telephone Company act. I also mentioned the powers to invest in research and development within the limitations set out in the amendment. An important

amendment, of course, is the increased capitalization which is authorized in the bill and which, as the officials of the company indicated in detail before the committee and as I indicated on second reading of this legislation, is important to the company's immediate expansion programs.
Then there are some things contained in the legislation that are important to the company which we might generally put under the heading of housekeeping legislation. These have been discussed in the committee. These include housing plans for employees, the right for the company to issue preferred shares if it deems it necessary to do so, the establishment of an executive committee within the framework of the company's bylaws, the right to make loans to employees and retired employees who may be temporarily in some sort of financial distress. These are all things which are important to the company and very helpful.
I hope that answers the questions. With the amendments which are before us it is important that this legislation may go ahead as soon as possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the sponsor of the bill for answering as fully as possible the questions I asked. If this bill has been amended as a result of representations made by members of the committee to the company, then I should like to congratulate the company for listening to the opinions of the members of the committee and for accepting the amendments which have been proposed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall
clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Clause 4 has been deleted by the committee on transport and communications.
Clauses 5 and 6 (renumbered clauses 4 and 5) agreed to.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
On clause 7 (renumbered clause 6)-Power to operate communication system.


David Lewis: I am just writing my amendment to this clause, Mr. Chairman. I move:
That clause 7 of Bill C-104 be amended by inserting in subclause (3) thereof the word "common" between the words "as a" and the word "carrier" In the second line.
February 8, 1968

Subclause (3) would then read:
The company shall, in the exercise of its power under subsection (1), act solely as a common carrier-
We were told at the committee hearing that there is not really any definition of a "common carrier". In the same sense I do not imagine there is a definition of the word "carrier". My purpose in moving the amendment is to make it clear that as far as the words "common carrier" are concerned, they place an obligation on the carrier to make its facilities available to whoever wants to be a customer of that company. I do not know anything about the law in this regard, but I do have the impression that the term "common carrier" is likely to carry the implication that the company is obliged to rent its services, subject to tariffs, regulations and requirements, to any one who legitimately asks for them.
Without the word "common" that implication may not be quite so clear and it is for that reason I move this amendment. I may say I have spoken to the sponsor of the bill in respect of this matter and I understand he has no objection to the amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall
clause 7 as amended carry?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that there was another amendment which is not of a substantive nature in respect of subclause (4) and subclause (5). I should like to say a few words about this amendment, but before doing so, and if the committee agrees,
I will put the amendment and then explain the purpose. I move, seconded by the hon member for York Centre:
That all of old clause 7, new clause 6, from and Including subclause (4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) For the protection of the subscribers of the Company and of the public, any equipment, apparatus, line, circuit or device not provided by the company shall only be attached to, connected or interconnected with, or used in connection with the facilities of the Company in conformity with such reasonable requirements as may be prescribed by the Company.
(5) The Canadian Transport Commission may determine, as questions of fact, whether or not any requirements prescribed by the Company under subsection (4) are reasonable and may disallow any such requirements as it considers unreasonable or contrary to the public interest and may require the company to substitute requirements satisfactory to the Canadian Transport Commission in lieu thereof or prescribed other requirements in lieu of any requirements so disallowed."
Private Bills


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the mover I should like him to select a seconder other than myself.


David Lewis: The hon. member does not need a seconder in committee.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: There is no need for a seconder when the committee is sitting.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have no question to raise with regard to the rewording of subclause (4) of the old clause 7, new clause 6, because it really is precisely the same thing passed by the committee. However, there are two important omissions from new subclause (5). I should like to have an explanation from the sponsor. Perhaps he can persuade us that these omissions are not of any consequence.
The original subclause (5) gave a person affected by a decision by the company with regard to a foreign attachment the right to go to the board in an attempt to have that board declare that the foreign attachment is all right because the requirements of the company in a particular case were not reasonable Perhaps I can make that clear.
As I understood the evidence given to the committee it was that any time there is a foreign attachment and the Bell company wants to make sure that the attachment is of such a kind it fits into the circuit, the line or the equipment of the company-


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: That it is compatible.


David Lewis: Yes, compatible was the word used. I know nothing about the industry, but it is obvious to anyone that if the attachment is not compatible it might cause trouble to other customers of Bell, or to the equipment Bell has to which the foreign attachment is attached. For that purpose the company was going to have reasonable requirements. We were informed that at the present time the company would make some investigation of the inside and outside of the foreign attachment to make sure it was compatible. According to the wording now in Votes and Proceedings, if I attached something, and I am not likely to, and Bell told me I could not do it, I could go to the Canadian Transport Commission and present my case. If the C.T.C. declared that Bell's requirements were unreasonable, then my attachment would be all right.
The difference in the present wording as I read it, is that there is a sort of general

February 8, 1968
Private Bills
declaration as to whether or not the requirements are reasonable, without the person affected being involved in an appeal to the commission. If I am wrong in that perhaps the sponsor can set me right. It seems to me important that the person affected by the decision of the company should be able to go directly to the commission and have his grievance settled by it, instead of having to read some new requirements which have been promulgated by the commission in lieu of the requirements the company had.
The second change seems to be of perhaps more consequence. The original subclause (5), which is now in Votes and Proceedings, provides for a public hearing in the case of a person affected making an appeal, because the word used was not "may" but "shall". It said that the Canadian Transport Commission shall hold public hearings to determine the effect of the attachment. There is no requirement for any hearing at all as a result of the amendment moved by the sponsor, and there is certainly no requirement for a public hearing.
It seems to me, because this has been done before in other cases, that what this would mean is that Bell would promulgate requirements and send them to the Canadian Transport Commission. The railway committee, or whatever it is called, of that commission would look over the requirements and send Bell a letter saying its requirements were not unreasonable; and that would be that.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Any person who was later affected by a decision of Bell Telephone that a foreign attachment was undesirable would be stuck by a decision of the C.T.C. made in its own executive sessions, or by some officer of the commission on the basis merely of a submission of the regulations of Bell Telephone to the commission.
It may be that I have missed some points, and if so, I would be very glad to be enlightened. But because of these two rather fundamental changes, I personally feel uneasy about the wording of new subclause 5 and I am not ready at the moment to support it unless I am persuaded otherwise.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is somewhat complicated and we have just seen it for the first time. It seems to me that it is a new proposition. I for one did not get as excited as some others in the committee about this matter of foreign

attachment generally. I think the hon. member for Waterloo South first proposed this amendment and other members presented their views in brief. The hon. member for Waterloo South felt there should be an appeal for individuals. I pointed out to him the impractical nature of the suggestion, but nevertheless I think the right of appeal should be included in the act.
The amendment says that the Canadian Transport Commission should be involved in this question, whether there is an appeal or not. These are two different propositions. I do not say they are in conflict, but I would not at the moment want to vote for one as against the other. I think the right of appeal that now exists for an individual should be there. I do not think it is practical, I think it will be quite costly, and I doubt whether too many persons will act under this provision. However, I think it is right that it should be there.
The amendment that has been introduced places some onus and responsibility on the Canadian Transport Commission, but we do not know how far they will go in these matters. I suggest that in order to be practical, we retain the old section 5 and make this new provision section 6. Then if there is any conflict in it-and looking at it quickly, I do not think there is-it can be caught in the Senate. The Senate will have noted the debate here tonight.
Then we will have satisfied those on both sides of the question. We will have satisfied those who feel there should be a right of appeal for the individual who believes he is aggrieved. I point out that there is not any third party right per se, anyway, in these foreign attachments. But if an individual feels he has a case, he should have a right of appeal.
I believe that now this matter has been raised, even though it is not too practical and will be a costly procedure, it would not hurt to have the Canadian Transport Commission involved in the question. They could look into the matter that has been mentioned by the hon. member for York South-and I recall asking questions about the interpretation of the word "reasonable"-with regard to what are the "reasonable requirements" that may be prescribed by the company.
Therefore in order to avoid an impasse tonight and in an effort to be co-operative, I think it would be possible to leave in the statute the old section 5 and include this amendment as section 6. If there is any conflict, it will be caught in the Senate. Then we will make everybody happy.
February 8, 1968


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Chairman, I have noted the remarks of the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and I appreciate their concern with respect to the amendment. If I had taken a little more time when dealing with the amendment I would probably have been able to alleviate their concern. However, I think I can do that now.
As I said earlier, there is no change in the substantive provisions as a result of the amendment. The reason is that the right of appeal, the right of third parties, and so on, is provided in the provisions of the Railway Act, and are now the law of the land. These provisions give the Canadian Transport Commission the right to hear appeals. This amendment was made and offered to the committee at the instance of the Department of Transport. I have here a letter from the chief counsel of the department, Mr. Fortier, which I will table if hon. members wish. As I indicated earlier, the amendment was concurred in by the Department of Justice and by Mr. Henry who was a witness before the committee. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could read Mr. Fortier's letter. It is addressed to the general counsel of Bell Telephone Company and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I enclose herewith as agreed in our telephone discussion of today the draft paragraphs (4) and (5) of clause 7-
That is now clause 6.
-of Bill C-104, as prepared in the Department of Justice.
This matter was raised by the Department of Justice and they felt it would be better legislation and more in conformity with existing legislation if these amendments were made. Mr. Fortier's letter continues:
In connection with the said redraft made by Justice the officers of the said department point out as follows:
"It seems to me-"
I am here quoting what the Department of Justice said.
"-that if subsections (4) and (5) are set out more or less in line with those set out in my redraft, we will have effectively invoked-"
I think this is the important thing.
sections 33 et seq of the Railway Act, including sections 51, 52 and 53. Not only would aggrieved persons be able to complain to the Board and obtain a hearing but so also would the Minister of Transport."
I think this is important, because under the Railway Act the Minister of Transport would
Private Bills
have the right to intervene in this sort of hearing, and he would presumably intervene in the interests of the public, whom he represents as a minister of the crown. That provision was not made in the original amendment of the committee. Perhaps we did not think of it at the time. The original amendment gave a right to the subscriber to complain but did not give the right of intervention to the Minister of Transport. This letter continues:
"In addition, the Canadian Transport Commission could of its own motion interject itself into the matter where it deemed it in the public interest to do so."
So the Canadian Transport Commission could also intervene. Then the letter says:
"Subsection (5) is taken from a provision of the Railway Act applicable to telephone companies in respect of discriminatory tolls and should work for your purposes."
It is suggested that it may be considered advisable in the circumstances to suggest an amendment to clause 7 when Bill C-104 is being reviewed on second reading-
I imagine that Mr. Fortier meant when the bill was being reviewed in committee of the whole.
-in order that paragraphs (4) and (5) of clause 7 meet the legal requirements involved.
I tried to obtain a copy of the Railway Act just now and I apologize to the committee for not having it here, but I have not been able to obtain a copy yet. However, I am advised that section 13 of the Railway Act will provide for public hearings in these circumstances, and with regard to the other sections of the Railway Act, as the officer of the Department of Justice indicated:
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Subsection 5 is taken from a provision of the Railway Act applicable to telephone companies in respect of discriminatory tolls and should work for your purposes.
If hon. members are concerned about this, I would be the last one to try to impose my opinion on them without being able to produce the provisions of the Railway Act, which I am sorry I cannot do at the moment. But it seems to me that what we are doing by the proposed amendments is to co-ordinate provisions which are already in the Railway Act and which we have in effect duplicated, perhaps without knowing we were doing so, because when the committee discussed this matter I did not know that the provisions were already in the act. So what we are doing by the suggested amendments is to bring the Bell Telephone Company bill as amended in line with the existing legislation.

February 8, 1968
Private Bills
The hon. member for York South was concerned about subscribers having a right to go to the board. May I say with respect that this is covered by subclause (4) as amended which reads as follows:
(4)	For the protection ot the subscribers of the company and of the public, any equipment, apparatus, line, circuit or device not provided by the company shall only be attached to, connected or interconnected with, or used in connection with the facilities of the company in conformity with such reasonable requirements as may be prescribed by the company.
Subclause 5 reads:
(5)	The Canadian Transport Commission may determine, as questions of fact, whether or not any requirements prescribed by the company under subsection (4) are reasonable and may disallow any such requirments as it considers unreasonable or contrary to the public interest and may require the company to substitute requirements satisfactory to the Canadian Transport Commission in lieu thereof or prescribe other requirements in lieu of any requirements so disallowed.
The right for the subscriber to apply to the board, as I understand it, is given in section 13 of the Railway Act, so we do not have to repeat it in this legislation. Having established that fact, we then have subclause (5) which I read to the committee. So I think that I can alleviate the concern of the hon. member. I have to make it clear, however, that I do this on the basis of the information that this right is provided for in the Railway Act and that the Railway Act provides for a public hearing. So, as I understand the situation, we are not in any way providing something less than was provided in the amendment of the transport and communications committee, but merely co-ordinating it and bringing it in line with the existing legislation.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member a question? I am doing so with an eye on the clock, in which he is no doubt more interested than I am. He said he has not been able to obtain a copy of the Railway Act and has not seen the actual provisions to which the letter from the Department of Justice refers.
Does he think we should simply accept the statement in the letter from the Department of Justice and take for granted that they are right and that both the appeal and the hearing is contained in the legislation, or is he prepared, for the sake of having this bill passed today, to accept the very excellent suggestion of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that both the old and the amended clause go into the bill, so that those of us who vote on this bill are certain that we are

not doing something which might prove to be a disservice to some sections of the public? I want to say to the hon. member that regardless of how much longer he may take to try to persuade us-and I accept the statement that he is giving us advice which he obtained from the Department of Justice-I for one would not be prepared to vote in favour of the bill without satisfying myself that the right of appeal and the right to a public hearing are in fact contained in it.


Russell Clayton Honey: I think the hon. member is completely correct and I would not want to impose the opinion of the departmental officials on the committee. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert is a good one and I hope the committee will see fit to proceed in this manner.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: What is the question? I am in favour of the new subclause (4) but not in favour of subclause (5). I prefer the original subclause (5). Are we going to adopt both the original subclause (5) and the amended version?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The question before the committee now is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durham that the old clause 7, new clause 6, from and including subclause (4), be deleted and the following substituted therefor-


David Lewis: We do not agree to that.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment. The matter will be left as it is and the other place will have the record of our discussions.
Amendment (Mr. Honey) withdrawn.


David Lewis: May I move a subamendment, Mr. Chairman? Will you please guide me?


Russell Clayton Honey: I withdrew my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Assisiant Deputy Chairman: The Chair would have to know what the subamendment will be.


David Lewis: I move:
That clause 6 (4) of Bill No. C-104, as amended by the standing committee on transport and communications be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) For the protection of the subscribers of the company and of the public, any equipment, apparatus, line, circuit or device not provided by
February 8, 1968
the company shall only be attached to, connected or interconnected with, or used in connection with the facilities of the company in conformity with such reasonable requirements as may be prescribed by the company."


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It is the
opinion of the Chair, after consultation with the officials at the table, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South is in effect that the clause be amended by deleting the proposed new subclause (4) and restoring the original subclause (4). Is this correct?


William Arnold Peters: It is vice-versa, Mr. Chairman.


David Lewis: I am not certain, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could propose-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: In view of the fact that both the mover of the amendment and the Chair are not certain of the amendment, we will call it seven o'clock.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before you call it seven o'clock may I ask for the unanimous consent of the house to retain this bill in its position on the order paper, in view of the fact that it is a very complicated bill and that a great deal of public interest is involved.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Yes, this can be done when Mr. Speaker is in the chair.
It being seven o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the house to have this bill retain its place on the order paper, because of the size of the bill and the degree of public interest in it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the house agree with the hon. member's request that this bill hold its place on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau for the second reading
Publication of Statutes Act of Bill No. S-18, to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Canada, a united and bilingual country, but I do not understand the provisions of this bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Continue in French.


Howard Earl Johnston: This evening, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with several matters relating to the bill. I think we should be very much concerned about the motivation behind this bill. I used to teach school before I entered politics, and during one period in my teaching career I taught French for two and a half months. I taught nothing but French every day for those two and a half months. This fact had nothing to do with my ability to teach French, but it had a great deal to do with the shortage of qualified teachers of French in the province from which I come.

My poor students, I cry when I remember them.

The two and a half months I spent teaching French taught me something about motivation. As is always the experience of anyone who teaches French in British Columbia, I was asked the inevitable question: Why do we have to learn French? Like all teachers, I am sure, of French in that province I gave a variety of reasons to my students: it was a beautiful language; it was useful in promoting national unity; it was a language of great literature; there were millions of people in the world who spoke the language, and so on. I tried to put the best case possible for the task confronting the students.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, I have come to realize that I should have restricted my reasons to only one. I should have answered always in the same way, namely that it promoted national unity-that there was no other reason. I should have reiterated that reason over and over again. Perhaps I should even have had the class learn it in two languages, repeating it after me, chanting it regularly and perhaps singing it. I should have made a slogan out of it. I should then have persuaded all the other teachers of French in the schools in my province to give only that one reason

February 8, 1968

Publication of Statutes Act -that it was something that would increase their patriotism.
If you were to give any other reasons for teaching French in British Columbia you would also have to teach other languages as well. Because there are other languages that are beautiful, that have great literature, that are spoken by millions of people around the world. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the motivation for a bill such as Bill S-18 that has been presented to us must be very precise and equally limited, as in the example I have just given. If we are to deal with this bill and to make any sense of it at all, then it must be in terms of promoting national unity and for no other reason.
This will not be the last bill, Mr. Speaker, of somewhat similar nature to be presented to this house. We know that the minister who deals with corporate affairs, for example, is considering measures which will require all food sold in stores across the country to be labelled in both official languages. If and when the minister introduces a bill to make that the law of the land, he must equally be very careful to state that he is motivated to promote national unity, and for no other reason.
It does not do to say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us has anything to do with justice or with seeing that justice is done across the land. If this is the motivation for the bill, then it opens the door to any other language that is spoken by a Canadian. Surely we are not going to suggest for one moment that justice is not done in our courts. If printing the statutes in another language has anything to do with justice, then we would have to print them in a whole variety of languages. I do not think this would be a good idea and I do not think it would lead to national unity, either.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The same applies to the bill having to do with labelling of food products. The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner) has suggested that this be done in two languages for the protection of the public. This contention will not hold water, either, because if the public is to be protected against errors in the purchasing of so basic an item as food, then we should label these products in every language which could possibly be used in this country, since we would wish every citizen to have all the protection we could afford.
Obviously a bill of this kind must be presented on the basis that it contributes to

national unity. If it is presented on this basis it becomes easier for several of us to tell the government and the minister responsible why it will not work and why it will not contribute to that goal.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) has spoken to us as a practising lawyer and indicated the problems which would arise within his profession if the course suggested is followed. He deserves to be listened to by the government and by all hon. members because he is making a valid point. Some of his remarks may apply when, later on, a bill having to do with the labelling of food is presented to us.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) has been praised, and rightly so, for his activities in the last few days during which he has presented his position and the position of the government in connection with constitutional requirements. His presentation has been a gentle one. He moved through most of the conference using what might be described as a velvet glove. Certainly there is no other approach which would lead to national unity and contribute to the acceptance of the two languages throughout Canada. But we must not mistake the velvet glove for the hair shirt, and this is the error with which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was dealing-the daily irritation which can arise if people are confronted with a second language in a most unlikely and unnecessary place.
If one is to continue to work toward learning a second language the process must ordinarily be a pleasurable one, or at least it must lead to pleasure. The result of printing all the statutes in the same volume in both languages would quickly lead to frustration whether they were printed on the same page or on facing pages, as I understand is intended-this must be the intention because the statutes are already printed in separate volumes in the two languages and are available for use if necessary in our courts.
We in western Canada, and in British Columbia in particular, do not have traditions of hair shirts or self-mortification. If we are to be presented with actions and ideas which contribute to national unity they must be great ideas or pleasant actions, not something which would be a daily irritation. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) suggested to us that this constant reminder would be good for us. This I doubt. I would think the irritation of having to flip through twice the number of pages to find a statute,
February 8, 1968

of being able to read on an open page only-half the amount which would normally be there, would have the result opposite to that intended. Such minor considerations as the quality of the paper, the extra cost might, together with the other inconveniences I have mentioned, lead to a sort of explosion of temper which could become a real factor in the situation in western Canada.
All this is not realized in eastern Canada, either by the press or by the public. The statements of Premier Manning and Premier Bennett represent the thinking of a large proportion of the western population. It might be said that this thinking is not of the quality it should be or that it may be the thinking of people who are not well educated. You can run down the sentiment, but you cannot bring in a bill which would irritate the very people who are probably most receptive to the idea of bilingualism. I cannot think of any group of people I would wish less to irritate in this connection than the lawyers of western Canada, unless it were the school teachers. If in the name of justice, we take this step in connection with the statutes, we could be led to it in a variety of other areas-text books in education dealing with mathematics, for example; food labelling. The possibilities are endless.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This bill was presented to us a few months ago very late at night in the hope, I think, that at fifteen minutes to ten nobody would realize what it was all about and that it would become law almost by default. However, one or two people did realize some of the dangers inherent in the measure. They protested, and it did not appear on the order paper the following day. I hoped that the initial reaction at that time would have been sufficient to have the bill withdrawn completely. But now it has come back to us, and the timing is unfortunate because it comes at the end of a conference on the constitution and the language problem, a conference hailed in most parts of the country as a great success. At such a time I do not think we need this reminder of how small, how tiny, how irritating a measure can be contemplated in the name of national unity. It is certainly not in the name of justice. Let us not suggest for a moment that that is why it is being presented. If we are going to move toward national unity we will not do so through a host of little irritations, to be repeated over and over again within the next few years. We will have to move on a higher and sounder level than that.
Publication of Statutes Act


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do so at some risk of being called a radical, of being called bigoted, but I believe the time has come-and this is a good opportunity on a small, insignificant request made to us by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau)-to take a cold, hard look at Canada and at what Canadianism really means to various Canadians all across Canada.
Speaking about western Canada, Daniel Johnson, as reported in the Gazette of February 6 said he attributed the attitude of the younger provinces, meaning western Canada, to "a lack of Canadianism". Whose image of Canadianism is right, and what contribution will this legislation make toward the correct image, whoever has that correct image?
I had some hope for the Minister of Justice at the constitutional conference. He began with a very frank approach to the Canadian picture as he saw it. As I watched him on the television screen I wondered whether he was saying what he said for the good of his campaign to seek the leadership of the Liberal party, or whether he was saying it for the good of Canada. But now, shortly after the ending of the constitutional conference, we have evidence before the House of Commons that he is promoting a piece of legislation which, as the previous speaker said, will contribute nothing to better justice in this country of ours. Perhaps in the minister's mind this legislation is contributing something to unity, but to my mind it may be something that will do more harm to the chance of reaching a situation in Canada where we can all say we are in unison.
The time has come for some plain speaking about the question before us today, about the question that is before the country as a whole this year, that was before it last year, and will be before it in the years to come. During the past several years, at an ever increasing tempo, we have witnessed demands being made upon the Canadian nation by one province, Quebec. This is another one of those demands. We have seen attempts made to meet those demands, first by this government in Ottawa, and more recently by the premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts.
At the recent constitutional conference the premier of Alberta posed a question that is very much present in the minds of all people in western Canada. That question is, when do the demands stop? This is a very small request that is being made here today through the Minister of Justice, but where is
6532	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act it going to end? For example, will all the law reports need to be printed in French and English too? If I were a French speaking lawyer in western Canada defending a client, and using the French version of the statutes, how could I look for precedents in law reports written in English? It would be an impossibility. This is something the minister should consider.
A continuation of the demands at the present rate of escalation, and a continued acquiescence in those demands will bring about a definite movement in western Canada for it to separate from the rest of Canada. We have been hearing separatist threats from Quebec and the government of Quebec for quite a while, particularly over the last five years. We require some assurance of an honest and sincere desire to maintain the Canadian confederation, based on a strong national government with the capacity to act for Canada. For a while earlier this week I thought the Minister of Justice had the capacity to act in that regard, but now I have come to the conclusion that he was acting on behalf of his own campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party.


Auguste Choquette: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member made his speech and I listened to him very carefully. Not necessarily in my mind was the Minister of Justice making a sincere effort to unite the country when he took that approach at the constitutional conference and now, one day after that conference ended, he brings in here what I am certain the premier of Alberta would call another demand.
Let us look at the whole question just briefly. During the last five years we heard a great deal of talk about the province of Quebec wanting to separate. There is only one part of Canada that economically can separate. That is western Canada, and by western Canada I mean Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. We could separate and do without the rest of Canada. According to the federal government, even Saskatchewan is no longer a have-not province. If we separated we would immediately shed ourselves of financial contributions to the have-not provinces. We would be rid of that economic drag. This is a cruel way of putting it, but it is honest. This side of the coin must be looked at before we can come to a true meeting of the ways. We would also shed our responsibility for the continuing economic costs of meeting this supposed idea of justice 
DEBATES	February 8, 1968
and fair treatment with respect to the bilingual problem.
It is interesting to note that at a time when we are debating the bilingual problem the government of Belgium has resigned over the very same problem, and Belgium is a much older country than ours. Premier Johnson said that the western provinces are not old enough and that they need a tutor. Again I refer to the Gazette of February 6, where he was reported as saying that "Quebec being the oldest province in confederation, has never needed a tutor". What tutor would he recommend for Belgium to assist it to meet the very same problem we are debating?
There is no question in my mind that if western Canada separated, our economy would continue to be as good as it is today and our standard of living could not help but go up. We all know what Mr. Kierans told Rene Levesque would happen to the economy of Quebec if it separated. As a matter of fact some time ago I read an article about that, and I thought the author phrased it very well. He said Quebec would become a banana republic without the bananas, and there is some truth in that. The same cannot be said of western Canada. We could, and perhaps will-


An hon. Member:: Grow bananas.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -reach the saturation point of continual concession, and maybe we will decide to separate.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As one looks through the debates of the confederation period it is interesting to note that there was no talk about the French language having to be projected all across Canada. I do not wish to delve too deeply into the confederation debates, however I should like to refer to an article written by Donald Creighton which appeared in the September 1966 issue of Saturday Night; he said:
The special aim of these British Americans at Quebec was to create a strong, centralized federation which would avoid the decentralizing weaknesses of the American federal system, and would never break apart, as the American union then seemed to be doing-
What are we doing in Canada at this time? We are creating a situation which is evolving as close to republicanism as-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been listening to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) and while I recognize there is some relationship between the remarks he is now making
February 8, 1968

and the bill before the house, I feel that he is now progressing too far afield. I do not believe his remarks could be considered to be wholly within the ambit of Bill No. S-18.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize that if a narrow interpretation is to be placed on this, one must deal, as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) did, with the specific application of the legal statutes. However, the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke made lengthy speeches and thereby broadened the debate to quite a large extent. I do not intend to broaden it as much as they did.
Even in its narrowest interpretation I believe this bill must be considered to be another concession toward the grand cause of unity. This is what I was attempting to deal with. I was quoting from an article which appeared in the Saturday Night written by the historian Donald Creighton with regard to the protection of the English and French courts. We said this:
There is no evidence that the French-speaking delegates at the conference, or the French-speaking members of the Canadian legislature, were dissatisfied with these provisions. There is no evidence that they tried to extend these language rights to the legislatures, courts or schools of any or all of the other provinces.
This is the very point with which I was dealing. Here we have the government suggesting that in the interest of unity this provision must be projected into every court and all the facilities of that court. This is the point I am making and I believe it is right on the target. In the same article he went on to say that we find there is in Canada today not the slightest interest in what the intent was in 1867. We are told that today there is a new French fact that must be reckoned with in Canada today. At the very onset of our second 100 years we are told that we must reckon with this fact. I suppose this very piece of legislation is in essence an attempt to reckon with that French fact.
There may well be a French fact in Canada, but there is also a very definite division in other regions of Canada. I shall attempt to put the case for some of the other regions to show why this particular piece of legislation wiil continue to bring about greater disunity rather than unity in Canada. I should like to say at the outset that western Canadians wish to remain in Canada, provided there is some assurance of a continuing Canada of which they can be a part. Up until the present time,
Publication of Statutes Act and very recently, in the last five years particularly, there have been instances when the western Canadian picture has not been considered at all. When the premiers of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan were in Toronto their opinions were practically disregarded. How can you convince me that we are considered to be a part of Canada when no attention is paid to what is said in that vast region west of the great lakes?
When we have continuing threats of separation and continuing attempts to make a Canadian nation, these seem to be two parts of a double headed coin, just as this bill and what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) has in mind for Canada and what the present Prime Minister has in mind for Canada are parts of a double headed coin. We hear continuing demands from Quebec for more power at the expense of Canada as a whole. What are we to think? We are not prepared to remain part of a concept in which there are two national governments in Canada, one for those who speak French and the other for those who speak English. Constitutional nationhood cannot be built on the foundation of such a double dealing situation. This bill is a perfect example of what I am referring to.
In the west we have a vision of Canada. In the east there is a double vision. This bill and the new statutes will be a perfect example of that double vision. You can no more operate a country on the basis of a two-nation government system than you can have two chickens in one egg. In western Canada we have put up with this kind of thing for a number of years. It is no longer a joke in western Canada. We believe that Canada is drifting into a "never never land" of illusion, hypocrisy and unfilled expectations. In other words, I am saying that this particular piece of legislation will not meet the demands of Quebec. Let us be frank and admit this. As reported in the Globe and Mail for Thursday, February 8, 1968 Premier Johnson said that the French language and linguistic rights in all of Canada are nothing more than an aspirin, when we consider the problem. He believes there must be drastic changes in the constitution. The present Prime Minister said this:
-"my own view is that tinkering with the existing Constitution will not be enough."
Then the article continues:
-a clear hint that he shares Mr. Johnson's view that a wholly new, made-in-Canada constitution is required.
February 8, 1968

Publication of Statutes Act This, of course, means more power to the provinces, and in particular Quebec. Therefore, I ask what the real reason is for passing this particular piece of legislation, if it will solve no problems and not answer the question one bit. It must be clear to the government that in order to be the government of Canada it must take on a clear, national responsibility and must carry it out with nationalistic scope. It must take and accept responsibilities fully. It must not bring in piecemeal legislation in an effort to solve this problem which, as Mr. Johnson said, has the effect of a mere aspirin in the solution of the problem. There is an example in history of an attempt of this sort in respect of the Austrian empire, which existed in Europe many years ago and which, as we all know, collapsed.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The same thing will happen to Canada unless we are prepared to face the issue squarely and attempt to reach a true image of Canadianism. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) suggested a while ago that his image of Canadianism is not a French Quebec, but a French Canada, including the province of Quebec. This is his view of Canadianism, but I do not believe it is shared entirely by everyone in western Canada.
If this is what he is attempting to do by this piece of legislation he should say so. The only way a solution to this problem can be found is by a factual examination of the case, not by adopting piecemeal and chipping away legislation which will only bring about greater disunity in many regions. There has been an attempt to create the impression that different languages result in different methods, different responsibilities and different approaches as well as different types of citizenship. This is not so. There is only one way to shoe a horse, and there is only one way to brand a cow. It does not matter whether it is done in French or English, it is still going to hurt the cow but it will still lay a claim to ownership. There is only one way a farmer can drive his tractor.
If we accept the idea that there are two ways of doing things and that everything must be done on this basis, as this piece of legislation suggests-half a page in English and half a page in French-then we must accept the idea, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) suggested, that there is a Ukrainian way, an Italian way, a German way and a Dutch way. We must make allowance for all these different ways, if that is the only way to have true
[Mr. Homer (Acadia) .1
justice and a true administration of justice throughout this country. There must be more than two ways, if we accept the suggestion that there should be a different application of the administration of justice in this country.
The Minister of Justice has taken the stand that it is the job of the federal government and parliament to legislate and to administer the rights and needs of all Canadians, regardless of language, on a national level. This is the impression he gave at the confederation conference which has just concluded. This piece of legislation does not convince me that he is of the same mind today. Perhaps, as somebody suggested earlier, we should have the television cameras on him because he would not then be adopting this approach. He would destroy the image he tried to create earlier in the week. The people of Canada are not so gullible that they must keep him under surveillance in order to understand him. They can read between the lines.
In contrast to that idea we have the theory advanced by the premier of Quebec, that Quebec in some mysterious way has a mandate to legislate and administer on behalf of French Canadians on a national level. It is on this basis we have the preposterous demand for greater control by that province. Apparently Quebec wants the right to appoint members to the federal Senate, the right to appoint individuals to the supreme court and the right to move into the field of broadcasting on the French network throughout French Quebec, and I suppose in those other parts of Canada that are predominantly French. I do not think for one moment that even New Brunswick will stand for a French broadcasting system controlled by the province of Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will agree that the comments he is now making are a little removed from the part of this bill which refers to both languages.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As it happens I have completed my remarks in respect of broadcasting. I was enticed into this discussion by the remarks of the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) who suggested that this whole question should be looked at in a new light, because we are not back in the old days when the battle of the Plains of Abraham was fought. He suggested we have a new administration in Canada today.
It was my suggestion that no province would stand for the development of a French
February 8, 1968

nation with headquarters in Quebec city. This is what Mr. Johnson says is the absolute solution. The Minister of Justice is attempting to solve these problems, or cure these ills with an aspirin. This bill is nothing more than a part of such an aspirin.


Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps it is a baby aspirin.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps it is only half of a baby aspirin. The principle of this theory would be clearly demonstrated if this bill becomes law and our statutes are to be printed in this double sort of-I was going to say abortion, but perhaps I should not use that world as that subject is being discussed a great deal these days.
It is high time we realized and stated categorically that one province shall not interfere in the affairs of others. We must face the fact that this bill is an attempt at separation on the instalment plan. We would just as soon know what the over-all intent of plans of this kind is, because we might find in the west that it would be cheaper in the long run to separate now. This is what Premier Manning tried to do last week. We want a glimpse at the whole plan. Perhaps it would be better at this time for the west to make a clean, clear cleavage somewhere west of the great lakes. Perhaps the resulting expenses would be less and the west would be better off in the long run.
Demands for linguistic rights will perhaps be accepted. This was a recognized fact of the confederation of 1867. There is no real quarrel with this idea, that on one page of our statutes we should find English and on the other we should find French. I can read the English on one page and turn to the next page and read the English there. This will not bring about greater justice, or a solution to the serious problems facing the French people in the province of Quebec, or the province of Alberta. This is nothing more than an attempt to impose the French language on those who really do not want it.
There was a statement by the Minister of Justice at the confederation conference that there would be no attempt to impose the French language on any other part of Canada. Certainly this bill represents an attempt to do just that. We must recognize the fact that this approach will not bring about unity. As the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) suggested, this will irk, gall and annoy Canadians outside of what might be termed the French sphere and will bring
Publication of Statutes Act about greater disunity. Such an attempt as this can be joined with the evident attempt to fill all key positions in the civil service with bilingual persons. Apparently all civil servants at the top level must be bilingual. It must be obvious that no one will want to join the federal civil service, even if our statutes are printed in French and English, if in order to qualify for a high paid job one must be bilingual.
[DOT] (8:50 pjn.)
If the purpose of this legislation was to promote the idea that you would not have to be bilingual and the other language would be good enough, there would be no need for the type of statute book envisaged by the legislation; a French set of statutes and an English set of statutes would suffice. But this is not good enough. They want the whole picture; they want to be in control. We federal members of parliament know that the actual administration of this country is carried out by those at the top levels of the civil service.
Will the passage of this piece of legislation allow western Canadians to contribute to the administration of our country? I say no, it will not. Actually the passage of this legislation will not bring western Canadians any nearer to that objective but it will take them further and further away from the administration of Canada, from actual policy setting for Canada.
In view of these facts perhaps we would be better to make that clean-cut cleavage now. One cannot understand why responsible employment in the administration of this country must be reserved for those who speak both languages, with all others excluded. Does the government realize that if this criterion were employed today, more than two-thirds of our deputy ministers would lose their jobs? We believe that a whole new policy is being implemented and all top civil servants are being paid to learn French. There is really no need for this legislation if one can pick up a French statute and an English statute. But we are told that this legislation must be passed. We are told that under the new image of Canada everything must he written in both languages. I do not know that the French government in Quebec writes its cheques in both languages. I do not know of the French government in Quebec having its statutes printed one page in English and one in French.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You had better find out.
6536	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act


Auguste Choquette: That is it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They might have. This might be a recent innovation.


Auguste Choquette: We like it that way. We respect the English language.


An hon. Member:: That cannot be.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Somebody said, "That cannot be", and he is correct. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere likes it that way, that is his privilege, as it is my privilege and the privilege of those in western Canada not to look at it in that way.


Auguste Choquette: How many farmers are going to be affected by this law?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is their answer to every question raised on this subject: it will affect nobody.


Mr. MacEwan:: Farmers are Canadians, aren't they?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are asking, what is the end product of this type of legislation? What is the complete deal? We know that the Liberal government has for years and years made fun of the farmers. But it caught up with them in western Canada. It will catch up with them in Quebec, too, and perhaps in the hon. member's riding of Lotbiniere.
This new philosophy goes beyond anything that has existed in the past and stipulates that everyone shall eventually be required to speak the two languages. It stipulates that if they want to move forward and go anywhere in the manipulation of federal affairs, they must speak the French language. They must do this if they want to participate fully in the affairs of this country. This statute will do nothing to counteract the trend that is well on the way to becoming accepted philosophy throughout the province of Ontario, in the province of New Brunswick and perhaps in many other provinces. It has not yet become the accepted philosophy in western Canada.
I have mentioned the position taken by the Minister of Justice in the confederation conference. But people all across the country have lost confidence in the capacity of this government to stand by those words. The people will lose confidence in the Minister of Justice, also, to stand by those words, if he continues to marshal his forces to push this simple little aspiration through the house tonight.
[Mr. Ricard.l
DEBATES	February 8, 1968
People have lost faith in the government's determination to exercise in Ottawa those powers and prerogatives without which a national government is a government in name only, and becomes merely an empty husk. I believe, as I have stated, in those linguistic rights that were perhaps-and I say "perhaps"-a part of confederation. But I do not believe in the rights of any group being forced upon another group, whether it be language or any other subject one could mention.
French Canada, in my definition, has the right to remain French. It has no right to demand that everyone else become French, absorb French, or even participate in the French dialogue that is going on today. We are told that this whole question has hindered French participation in Canada. We are told that this bill will do something to alleviate the feeling of unfairness that we are told exists for French Canadians when they travel outside of Quebec. Why, then, have more than two million French Canadians from the province of Quebec migrated over the past few years to the New England states, where they immediately give up any hope of having legal recognition of the French language in the courts, let alone the whole question of statutes being printed in both French and English in the same bound volume?
For these people who have migrated to the New England states, their French rights have disappeared, as they disappeared in the state of Louisiana. When they migrated to the United States they were apparently prepared to give up this valued treasure which we are told they must have. And Premier Johnson wants more than that: he wants to be prime minister of the French nation, and the new French fact throughout all of Canada.
We in western Canada are sick of being singled out, criticized and hauled over the coals when our only crime has been to believe in the philosophy of live and let live. We do not ask others to give way to our views; yet we are continually being asked to bow down to the views of others. That is what this bill is asking us to do. It goes so far as to attack the very basis upon which this nation exists.
I think this kind of thing has reached saturation point. I have been a member of parliament for ten years, and because the saturation point has been reached this is the first time-I point this out-I have opposed anything like the idea behind the bill that is now before us. I am very pleased to take this opportunity, particularly on a bill such as this, which on the surface is of so little consequence, to state my views. I believe this bill
February 8, 1968

is a perfect example of where a stand should be taken. We should recognize the fact that it is an indication of what the Minister of Justice will do to Canada, particularly if he becomes prime minister of this country. In that event, there will be no stopping this type of thing.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
When one considers Premier Johnson's concept that confederation was formed by two equal partners, a concept which is shared by the present Prime Minister, who stated over and over again that Canada is formed on the basis of a partnership of two equal nations, one should look at the present composition of this house. The government side of the house has 75 elected members from areas outside the province of Quebec; the official opposition has around 87 or 89 members representing areas outside Quebec. If this is an equal partnership, then it is high time we heard from the other partner. Perhaps I could be considered as being only part of the other partner. This subject should be examined very closely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate-

However, after having heard the speech made by the hon. member for Acadia I decided to say a few words myself. In order that there may be no misunderstanding of the few remarks I wish to make, I will try to make them in the best English I know so that I can be heard and understood by my hon. friend from Acadia. I will take the risk of being accused of having different thoughts than some of my colleagues.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am from the province of Quebec, and tonight I was deeply concerned and hurt by what was said by the hon. member for Acadia. If we were to believe what he said, we would have to come to the conclusion that members from the province of Quebec are an embarrassment to the house as well as to the rest of Canada. I do not believe this to be so, Mr. Speaker. I think that we from the province of Quebec have come here to discharge our responsibil-ties. We ask for no favours, but we want our rights. If for many years we have sat back and said nothing and endured conditions
Publication of Statutes Act against which we could have complained, this is not to mean that now when we lift our heads we can be slapped down and reduced to nothing.
Let it be well understood that what we want here for the province of Quebec is our rights, and nothing more. I think that the prime minister of Quebec is a tolerant and decent man, one who explains very well the position of Quebec and of its inhabitants. I do not think his statements were in any way extravagant when he explained the position of Quebec at the constitutional conference which was held this week, and I felt deeply hurt when I listened to the speech of my friend from Acadia. I am sorry I have to say this, but I feel I must. In his speech the hon. member more or less denied that the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada were equal partners. It is about time that we knew whether or not we were equal partners in this confederation of ours. I want to say to my colleague, the hon. member for Acadia, that we are part of the confederation and that the prime minister of Quebec said quite plainly and clearly that we want to remain in the confederation. This does not mean that we are to be denied our rights. We want our rights to be recognized-I cannot make it any plainer than that.
All that the Minister of Justice asks for in the bill before us is to print the statutes of Canada in both French and English. Will it hurt anyone to take a book of statutes into his hands, to open it and to see on one side of the page the French version of the text and on the other side the English version? I do not think so. This is what we have done in Quebec for years. I think that Quebec set an example which should be followed by the rest of Canada. From what I have heard, some of my fellow Conservatives, who are lawyers, have no objection to this measure. All the pretexts which have been brought forward in opposition to this measure, such as the fact that it would cause irritation and be expensive, have no basis at all. How can it be an irritation? I would have liked those hon. members who have said this to come to my province and see all the English signs on the walls of our factories and our stores in which only French Canadians were employed. The employees could not even read those signs, which were the rules and regulations. Were these signs not an irritation for us? We have had to stand it for many years. We are sick and tired of having to do it, and we are not prepared to go along with it any longer. Let it be well understood.
6538	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act [Translation]


Some hon. Members:: Speak French.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I realize I am allowing myself to get carried away.


Auguste Choquette: That's just fine!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I had to contradict one of my colleagues here, but I had no alternative. To my mind, the legislation now before the house is fair; it is a step towards recognition of the rights of French Canadians.
Someone asked: when will there be a stop to it? Well, there will not, until such time as all our rights are recognized. That is when there will be a stop to it, and not before.
Mr. Speaker, as others have said, not only will this bill not entail additional expenses but, in the long run, it will cost less to have statutes printed in both English and French in the same volume.
I ask my colleagues to support the legislation now under consideration.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I echo the feelings of admiration expressed in the house this afternoon by my colleague for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for the efforts of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) during the recent federal-provincial conference.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as a citizen from the west and as a representative of a western riding, I oppose the ideas expressed by the hon. member from Acadia (Mr. Homer) and some other members on the other side of the house.
Please forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I continue my remarks in English, for I am rather familiar with that language.
Mr. Speaker, I am now holding a copy of Quebec statutes published in the two languages, with the words "Most Gracious Sovereign" on one side and, on the other, "Tres gracieuse Souveraine".
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

If I could just send this book over to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), I think it would be useful for him to see what the statutes of a province look like when they are printed in both the French and English languages side by side. I do not see anything wrong with it. I would ask that a member of the house staff take the book over to him. I
[Mr. Ricard.)
DEBATES	February 8, 1968
believe there is extreme value in seeing the two languages side by side, especially when the law is being read. Surely, there can be nothing wrong with this in a country which talks about equality in two languages. Is it wrong to have the two languages printed side by side? Is that bad? Is that against the principle of being a good Canadian? I do not believe so. I see nothing wrong with the mechanics of it. Anyone in this chamber whose eyes are growing dim with age and who needs to look through his bifocals or trifocals, might care to look at this book. He could ascertain whether he finds it impossible to find out what the law is, when he sees a statute written in two languages. I do not think it is difficult. The mechanics of it are not impossible.
The volume lies on the table, and the hon. member for Acadia has not even looked at it. He has left the house in order that his eyes will not see it. Pick up the book, it will not offend you. Be Canadian, it will not offend you. All I can say is, at a time like this if we are really serious about what has been taking place at the conference during the last three days, the printing of the statutes in two languages is not a bad place for us to start. We can see that the people who print our law books print the laws in the two languages side by side, and this should be the next undertaking for the lawmakers and those who print law books.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate on the motion for second reading of this bill, because I was quite sure that after the fine federal-provincial conference just concluded, all members had fully understood and the bill would be passed without discussion.
But to my great surprise this evening, I found out that some western members have never understood anything about confederation and are still completely ignorant of the purpose of the new confederation that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson), with the help of the Quebec premier, Mr. Johnson, are trying to create.
I am becoming aware this evening of the fact that if there are extremists in Quebec, western Canada is on the point of beating every Quebec record.
We heard tonight the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) who is clearly against this bill. He was followed by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner),
February 8, 1968

and I think that we have there a sample of the opposition that the next standing committee will be up against when it goes out west.
All this is said, Mr. Speaker, under the guise of national unity. Well, national unity will certainly not come about through the extremist groups or separatist movements, because from tonight's discussions and speeches, I gather that the west is separatist, since efforts are being made to restore justice, whereas the east is separatist because an injustice was committed.
There lies the difference between the two theories of separatism which will certainly not bring the unity that the great majority of Canadians want.
I am happy also to notice that those are exceptions because fortunately, there is goodwill in the west. Otherwise, we might conclude that life in Canada is on the verge of coming to an end tonight. But, fortunately, as there are always exceptions to the rule, that gives me more hope that Canada, thanks to a renewed constitution, will become one of the most united and strongest countries ever known.
As far as the bill concerning the printing of statutes in both languages is concerned, it seems to me that that procedure will simply do justice to French-speaking Canadians in the west and throughout Canada, as well as to English-speaking Canadians. The province of Quebec has been respecting that rule for a very long time, and ever since I came to this house, the western provinces have been asked, not something impossible but simply to give French Canadians in the west what the province of Quebec guarantees English-speaking Canadians who are in a minority, that is give a national justice to both ethnic groups.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Acadia was trying to prove that the present bill was unfair, but now he dares not come into the house because he is ashamed, since he was given a bilingual copy of the Quebec statutes. In my opinion, such an attitude does more harm than good to Canadian unity. In the future, I would advise him to stay quietly in his dear "West" and to send as a replacement somebody less troublesome and with more understanding than himself.
The member for Acadia has stated that the Quebec premier considered this legislation on bilingualism as an aspirin. When the premier of Quebec spoke of an aspirin, I think, if I understood him well, that he felt the government was not offering enough, since it was giving only an aspirin. The hon. member for
Publication of Statutes Act Acadia even spoke of a baby-strength aspirin. Afterwards, it was seen that he could not keep even a baby aspirin down. How would you have him swallow the whole pill? He is incurable. In the new constitution, there will have to be established institutions to cure these incurables-they should not be imprisoned, for they do not deserve that-to treat and care for them, in order that they may walk in step with the other well-intentioned Canadians, who are willing to work towards a better Canada for all.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The hon. member also spoke of new Canadians and of their rights. He said that if we should be translating from English to French, we should also be translating into Ukrainian, Italian and Polish. This proves that he has never understood confederation. When the new Canadians came to Canada-we were very happy to welcome them -they promised to choose one of our two recognized languages. They took this oath on entering Canada. They renounced their ethnic origins and adopted a new mother country agreeing to speak one or the other of its two languages. I wish the hon. member for Acadia would get that into his head, if there is still room there.
French Canadians who migrated to the United States did the same thing as the new Canadians who came to Canada. They agreed to the conditions of their new country, the United States, and chose to speak the language of their adopted country.
I will not speak any longer, Mr. Speaker, but I wished to refute those two arguments put forward by the hon. member for Acadia who tried to prove to us that the use of both languages was impossible throughout the country.
He suggested that French was being imposed on the people in the west. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that all well-intentioned members have never thought so, and I would never venture to compel the hon. member for Acadia to learn French. Moreover, I think that he would be unable to, considering his attitude. It has never been suggested that French should be imposed. The only object of this bill is to do justice, to enable French Canadians as well as English Canadians to feel at ease before the various courts of the country. This does not compel an Englishspeaking Canadian to argue his case in French in a Vancouver court. The member for Acadia knows it very well. In the province of Quebec, we have bilingual judges and
6540	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act I am sure that a French Canadian does not have to argue his case in English. What we only wanted was to give justice to the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec. When an English-speaking Canadian wants to defend himself in court, he may do so in his own language.
What we want is social justice. I wonder whether the member for Acadia knows the meaning of social justice. To be able to defend oneself in one's own language in court, either in British Columbia or in Alberta, that is social justice. This does not mean that the people in the west will have to speak French, but it gives those whose language is French the same rights as those whose language is English.
When it is suggested that French is being forced upon people, I feel that this is a hypocritical argument. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is our duty to denounce those people so that the whole country may know who they are. It is time to single them out, so that Canadians may be able to distinguish between honest and dishonest people.
I do not wish to dwell any longer on this subject; as a matter of fact, I could deal with it for two hours. However, I shall be content with those few remarks, because I realize you are about to rise and call me to order, since my comments are somewhat beside the point. But I just had to denounce such views.
I also take this opportunity to say that we shall support this bill unreservedly, since it seeks mainly to do justice to the two ethnic groups which founded this country.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the beginning with as much sincerity as I can possibly muster that I hope this proposed legislation will not in any way drive* a wedge in the relationships between French and English speaking Canadians. I do not think this was ever the intention of the legislation.
I do not agree that the status of the French and English languages is being called into question by the introduction of this legislation. Neither do I agree with the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) in his opening remarks last November, that the present method of printing our statutes contravenes the British North America Act. That of course is not correct; the British North America Act merely provides that the Revised Statutes of Canada shall be printed in both the French and English languages. We have

DEBATES	February 8, 1968
for many years had that law on the books, and in all sincerity may I say I do not think it has brought about any strained relationship between the English speaking and French speaking people of Canada.
Although I think we have got along very well in the situation that has existed during the past number of years, I am prepared to agree that there may be some merit in the suggestion of the Minister of Justice and in his proposed legislation. There is already a law on the statute books that provides that the Revised Statutes of Canada are to be printed in French and English.
Last November, Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that the government would likely approve the recommendation being made by the commission. I am wondering whether this recommendation has yet been made and, if so, whether it would be too much to ask at this stage that we be permitted to see the new edition of the Revised Statutes of Canada printed in revised form. If the minister would present to the committee on justice and legal affairs the newly printed revised statutes, the members of the committee would be able to see how they look in this new form. I do not think we should chance compounding possible errors, but perhaps there are some improvements that can be made to our revised statutes.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I should like to see them to find out whether they are printed in type which can be easily read, whether they are printed on paper which is durable, whether the volume is not too cumbersome for lawyers to carry around and take into court. These are things which concern us, and in all fairness the minister should allow us to satisfy ourselves with regard to them.
I am not opposed at all to the principle of the bill. I do not think many of us on this side are opposed to the principle at all. We do express concern, however, about the form the new statutes might take, and this is a legitimate concern of anyone who has to work with the statutes. It is surely not too much to ask that this bill be referred to the committee before third reading so that an opportunity might be given us to see what has already been done in the printing of the revised statutes.
I have another suggestion which might pour oil on what appears to be troubled waters. I can picture that it might be to the
February 8, 1968

advantage of a French speaking lawyer practising in Quebec to have available to him statutes in both French and English. Personally, as a practising lawyer, I do not believe I would have occasion to use a volume printed in this way, but I recognize there might be others who could make good use of such statutes. I am not sure that the expense to this country would be so great that we could not print our statutes in English for the use of those who do not require the French version and, at the same time, print a volume in both French and English for those lawyers who feel they require it in order to practise successfully in the courts.


An hon. Member:: And print one in French for Mr. Cowan.


Melvin James McQuaid: Above all I would suggest to the minister that before we go into committee he should allow us to take a look at the revised statutes, as printed in accordance with the new set-up. I do not think this is an unreasonable resquest and I hope he will accede to it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am not rising to make a speech at this point. I rise on a point of order to assist the minister, if he wishes to do so, to reply without closing the debate. My hon. friend from Kings (Mr. McQuaid) has suggested that the minister undertake not to proceed to final reading of this bill until members have had a chance to examine the revised statutes in the new form, and see what they look like. At present we are talking in the dark, we do not know what this new volume will look like. We have been assuming that it will be printed in English on one side and in French on the other. But that is not what the proposed new section 11 says. It reads:
The statutes of each session shall be bound, If practicable and convenient, in one volume.
We do not know what the intention is. If the new statutes are to be identical with the Revised Statutes of Canada, let us have a look at them. I believe that if they are readable are understandable, a majority of members of this house would be agreeable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member said at the outset that he wished to raise a point of order. He has not done so. I assume his intention was to ask a question of the minister. We are not in committee and normally, if the minister were to reply, he would close the debate. However if there is unanimous agreement to allow the minister to reply-
Publication of Statutes Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the house for its permission to deal with this very slight point by way of answering a question. I certainly do not want to close the debate, because there are other things I should like to say. The suggestion is a reasonable one, but there is a difficulty about it; it is that this bill does not deal with the revised statutes but with the annual statutes, and in a sense much of this debate is out of order. However, if people wish to have an idea how the annual statutes might look by seeing how the revised statutes will probably look, I would have no objection to showing an extract from the revised statutes more or less in the form in which we have them, provided this can be done fairly quickly. This is a matter of information, not of debate, and if the house leader could arrange for the standing committee to see this material I would have no objection.
In the course of asking his question, the hon. member read the following from the proposed new section 11:
The statutes of each session shall be bound, If practicable and convenient, in one volume.
This merely means that if all the statutes of one year can be bound in one volume they shall be so bound. It is not relevant to the language question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I suggest to the minister that we might give this bill second reading, and then, if the house is willing and he is prepared to do so, one of his colleagues could by leave move that the bill be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs, so that we could have a look at the matter we have been discussing here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion but I do not wish to get sidetracked. If we were to refer this to the standing committee it would not be for the purpose of discussing the bill but merely for taking a look at the physical appearance of the statutes.


Mr. Fulion:: w'e would have given the bill second reading and then a motion would be moved to refer the matter to the standing committee on legal affairs for further study.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the only purpose were to consider the physical appearance of the statutes I would have no objection. But there are
February 8, 1968

Publication of Statutes Act only two clauses in this bill and, if I read the temper of the house accurately, there is a general desire to make progress. I could have copies circulated to hon. members, of course, and if they wished to look at these examples before third reading it seems to me this would be much simpler.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are other questions
involved here-not the question of printing the statutes in the two languages alone, but the whole change-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if we might return to the debate. There are still 20 minutes left before ten o'clock and there are a number of speeches to be made. Perhaps the subject just referred to could be discussed overnight between interested hon. members.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I believe we are speaking here on a very profound issue, although at first glance it may appear to be a superficial one. Some of us are a little worried about the reaction in the country.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The British North America Act spells out certain fundamental rights, and I for one do not want to reduce them by the slightest degree. In fact, following upon the constitutional conference and its controversial arguments, I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the house to concede a great deal more than has been written into the B.N.A. Act so as to give people their place in the sun.
This legislation is a very small concession to our French speaking brethren throughout Canada. All it does is permit printing of the statutes in English and French, either in one volume or with both languages on the same page, so that they can be easily understood. I myself do not want to be controversial in this matter. I would like to be fully understood by my French speaking colleagues. I beg all Canadians to learn English as well as French. At the present time I am studying very hard to learn French. I take French lessons twice a week and from them I hope that my life will be culturally enriched.
I would dearly like to be able, in my own inimitable way, to express my feelings in the language of my French colleagues, a beautiful language, and certainly equal to English in every way in the cultural field. However, the very fact that feelings run high when we mention the subject, even in connection with


a minor measure like this, indicates how deeply the feelings of some people are held.
It seems to me that to emphasize our differences is bad. I would like to emphasize those things which we have in common. I hope the minister is bringing forward this proposal as something to which English speaking Canadians can opt in. We will do that if this is a real opportunity to join him in his desire to make Canada one united country from coast to coast. If this small request of his is a positive approach toward giving our French colleagues their historic cultural rights, then in the spirit of unity I can do no less than take my seat and wish him well. I am going to vote for this bill. I do not care whether the French version is printed in one volume or in two. I am going to take the positive approach, believing that the spirit I have outlined is in conformity with the faith our ancestors had 100 years ago, and which is far from dead today.
I listened to the proceedings at the constitutional conference and heard very deep feelings expressed. But I was a little disappointed that there was not more emphasis on what we can do together, instead of on individual rights. I beg those members who feel deeply about their right to speak French, something which is enriching our Canadian life, that when they go home to their constituencies they advise their own people that English, whether they like it or not, is the language of commerce. It is the language of access into the warp and woof of economic society.
When they ask their young children to speak English, or to learn English, they will only be doing as I did when I insisted that my children learn to speak French. I believe in practising what I preach. I have seen to it that my three daughters have a working knowledge of French, something which I wish I had achieved earlier. I think the French language and French culture can be spread across the whole of Canada at very little extra expense. I for one think nothing can be lost by having our statutes, federal and provincial, presented in a manner that can be understood by French and English speaking Canadians.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a few moments during this debate when I felt we were in the middle of the debate to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) referred at the beginning of today's sitting, namely the debate on the future of the constitution and our confederation. Having looked at the terms of this bill it
February 8, 1968

seems to me that all we are really dealing with is a practical matter of housekeeping.
The bill does not say anything about how exactly the statutes are to be printed. It merely says that the house would give authority to the governor in council to decide as to the particular and precise form in which they would appear, while making it clear that the statutes must continue to be printed in both the English and French languages.
Of course the minister's statement when introducing the bill made it clear that the idea of having the two language versions appear parallel on a single page was in his mind, and in the mind of the government. It seems to me this is the kind of subject we could better deal with in committee, when we could question the minister closely on the government's intentions and get on to the real practicalities of what would be a useful way of having the statutes printed for reference by parliamentarians, by lawyers in the courts, and by Canadian citizens generally.
This is the way some of us think we should proceed. We should not try to settle the whole future of confederation when dealing with a bill which has to do with the practical matter of internal housekeeping in our printing establishment.


Mr, G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make. The first thing that strikes me is that it is not the language in which we print a bill, but what is in it, that is most important. After sitting here for almost five years examining some of the monstrosities that hon. gentlemen opposite have perpetrated, I can say they look equally as bad in French as in English. I do not think having them printed in English and French at the same time could possibly make them any better.
During my practice of law over the last 38 or 39 years I can think of only three or four occasions when it would have been useful to have had the statutes printed as the minister now proposes. As a matter of fact in my province of Alberta, ever since it was carved out of the Northwest Territories, it has been the custom to have a bilingual judge in the supreme court and a bilingual judge in the district court. These have been excellent judges, fully capable of hearing cases involving French speaking people, and able to translate from one language to the other without the assistance of an interpreter.
Publication of Statutes Act
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I recall one of the very earliest judges, when I was a student-and I am referring to His Honour Judge Noel. His knowledge of the law was not what it might have been, but he was a splendid man. I see my friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) listening. I have heard him speak on this subject before, and I think he is inclined to agree with me. I remember when I was a young student listening to His Honour Judge Noel speak in English with that delightful accent which made his sentences of imprisonment so much easier for my clients to take. While acquitting a man who was charged with having stolen a pig Judge Noel gave an explanation which is just as good in English as it was in French. He said, "Well, it was such a little pig".
In my area there are a number of French speaking people and I can recall three occasions when we found it necessary to try to find a federal statute which was printed in the French language in order that the persons involved might have the opportunity to read it. It may be that in the future more and more people will be fluently bilingual, and it will be found helpful if the statute books are printed in both languages with the same spacing on the pages. This might also be desired in respect of the provincial statutes. However, at the present time we are not sure of the necessity for this. I do not think it is an issue which is grave enough to justify talk of separation.
I have just come from the north, in my part of the country, where I had an opportunity to meet with a great many people and discuss this situation. I found that there is a great deal of sympathy and understanding as well as a desire on the part of the people of western Canada to try to be reasonable, cooperative, compassionate, and work out the sort of arrangement which will require cooperation on both sides. The processes of history are such that nations are not built in a day. We must make sure that we do not lose the battle today.
On the question of separatism, I might say that in my part of the country we do not like what we see when we look to the south. I remember our sending a delegation to British Columbia when Mr. Bennett was asked if he would like to take the Peace River country into the province of British Columbia. At that time one of my friends said that he preferred the devil he knew to the devil he did not know.
6544	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act
However, I believe this measure might be adopted. Having been a practitioner lor a good many years I can see an occasion in the future when it might be helpful to have it. This, however, has not been the experience in the past. But I am prepared to go along with it. I think it would be desirable if we had a model of the revised statutes, such as the minister suggested. It might be that if this were referred to the standing committee the matter could then be referred back and dealt with without difficulty. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to this proposal, after second reading.


Mr. Churchill:: Would not the hon. member wish to see the revised statutes in their complete bound form, so that the type of paper and the general format could be examined, rather than a proof sheet from the printer?


Mr. Baldwin:: I have seen the statutes. I have made a point of examining the statutes of the province of Quebec. I have seen them on many occasions. I assume that after having examined a specimen I would not need to see the whole statute.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I were to tell the hon. member that the form we are contemplating for the statutes is the same form as that in which they appear in the province of Quebec, by and large, would he not think it would be sufficient to go to the library and look at the statutes? In that way we could save the time that would be involved in going to the committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think in the process of democracy one of the virtues of having a standing committee is that, while one member may have his own views, it is the committee, which includes representatives from all sides of the house, which makes the report to the house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member not realize, as the hon. member from the New Democratic party said, that the amendment which is before us does not give the government authority to use any particular form, and therefore any example we would present would merely be an example and would not be binding.

DEBATES	February 8, 1968


Gerald William Baldwin: If the minister appeared
before the committee and gave his undertaking I for one, if I were a member of the committee, would accept such an undertaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it the wish of the house that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General what the order of business is for tomorrow, please.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to call item No. 61, second reading of Bill No. S-32; then item 50, the second reading of Bill No. S-28; then item 51, second reading of Bill No. C-190 and then item 57, second reading of Bill No. C-197.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the house leader tell us what might be in store for Monday.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am afraid I cannot be very helpful to the hon. member, except to add that possibly we will resume consideration of item No. 43 and then continue with the list I have already enumerated.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, on January 23 I was astonished to receive from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) an uncommunicative, curt, abrupt reply to my simple and direct question relating to red circled public servants. My question which appears at page 5841 of Hansard was as to-
-whether the government has under immediate consideration a lump sum payment for those public service employees who are red-circled or other modifications to relieve the hardships of the classification review program?
The reply, couched in haughty and cavalier terms, which have become characteristic of the President of the Treasury Board, was:
Without in any way admitting to the facts contained in the statement that my hon. friend has made I should simply like to answer his question by saying, no.
February 8, 1968

No, no-that is the only answer one gets from the government to any representations on behalf of public servants, present or retired. Unfortunately it is typical of the indifference, the insensibility which the government has displayed toward that unhappy and luckless group of public servants caught in the red-circling program.
That program has caused more resentment, discontent, indeed bitterness and deep-seated anger among a very large number of public servants than any program of which 1 have ever known. The resultant loss of morale will have lasting effects upon the future of the whole public service. Deliver a blow to a public servant's morale, to his pride in his work and service, and the mere removal at a later date of the grievance does not heal the bruise or restore his morale to the status quo ante.
My question was prompted by the knowledge that early in January, 1968, the Public Service Alliance of Canada had made vigorous representations to the Treasury Board that a lump sum payment of 4 per cent be granted to every employee in the administrative and administrative support categories who, on October 1, 1967, were still red-circled. The curt and blunt refusal of the President of the Treasury Board illustrates with what disdain and superciliousness he has treated serious representations by the largest public service organization, how impervious he is to sensible and logical arguments, how unconcerned, unfeeling and callous is the government to the plight of the red-circled employees.
The recent across-the-board increase is no answer to this problem. Indeed it is the strongest argument in favour of the action sought by the Public Service Alliance. When he replies, I should like the parliamentary secretary to be most explicit in making clear that the recent general increase is no solution or assistance for the red-circled employee.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that action taken by the government in November, 1966 is an exact precedent for the proposal I now make. Then a pay supplement for red-circled employees was authorized, such supplement amounting to a 4 per cent lump sum payment of the salary rate as of September 30, 1965. This was intended to provide financial relief to offset the increases in the cost of living for the period October 1, 1965 to October 1, 1966. Since October 1, 1966 the increase in the cost of living has been about six points. Consequently, if the government was right in providing a 4 per cent lump sum payment in
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion 1966, the case is now irresistible and unanswerable for a new lump sum payment designed at least to maintain the real salaries of red-circled employees.
It is no answer to say that the number of red-circled employees has been reduced to about one half the number that existed in November, 1966. If the Treasury Board had done its job, there would be none by this time. This festering sore in our public service would have been totally eliminated.
Some departments are much worse than others. I consider, for example, the discrimination against employees in the checking and refunds branch of the Department of National Revenue, or among the classification of buyers to the Department of Defence Production, constitutes a reproach, a burning shame to the public service. I could mention other branches; branches in national defence, the post office and many other departments where large numbers have been and are still prejudiced.
I point out, as I have done on many occasions in the past, that the fault is not that of the red-circled employee. The classification of his position was established, not by himself but by the old civil service commission. How it can be alleged that the old commission was so dead wrong in so many thousands of cases in past years, but the enlightened gentry of the Treasury Board are infallible today, passes my understanding.
It is the individual public servant who must pay the penalty for the mistakes of others, with resultant breakdown of morale, grave loss to the public at large and deplorable impairment of the public interest. The real answer is to divorce the red circle from the present incumbent; to allow the present incumbent to enjoy all the normal increases and other benefits but to reduce the status and classification of the position effective only when it is next filled. I recognize that a lump sum payment would be only a palliative, but at least it is a measure of justice for the red-circled. On that basis I urge it upon the government.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to reply to the humble, modest, moderate and reasonable hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pourquoi?


James Edgar Walker: I understand that since the answer of the President of the Treasury
6546	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Board (Mr. Benson) to the hon. member's question on January 23 last, perhaps unbeknown to the hon. member there has been a request relating to this matter from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents the great majority of public civil servants. This request is now being considered by the staff of the Treasury Board and will in the near future be the subject of discussion with officials of the alliance, who are the proper people with whom the matter should be discussed.
I cannot say more on the subject at this time except that perhaps in arriving at a decision the Treasury Board will have to bear in mind the imminence of collective bargaining for the groups of employees concerned. I also point out-and I might say that the hon. member anticipated this-that the recent 3 per cent increase for approximately 100,000 civil servants, voluntarily initiated by the government, will have the effect of further lowering the increasingly reduced number of employees who may still be in red-circled positions.
I should also like to add that it is positions that are red-circled, and I think the hon. member for Carleton does something less than justice to this subject when he speaks about red-circled employees rather than red-circled positions.



EDUCATION-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN TEACHING IMMIGRANT CHILDREN

David Lewis: 
Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) urging the government to be of some assistance in providing education for the children of immigrants is obviously a good one. What strikes me, personally, about the matter is the fact that in the few years I have been around parliament, representing a riding as I do which is one of the more cosmopolitan ridings in Canada, and having a good deal of exposure to the aspirations and requests of those newly arrived in Canada, I must say this question has never really arisen. I am not aware of its having been raised by anybody in our immigration committees, when we were discussing immigration problems. Perhaps' this is because the people who arrive in this country with young families have never really made the education of their children an issue. I do not believe many
representations have been made in the constituencies, or surely one member would have raised this point before. Perhaps these newly arrived people feel that their children are young enough to be integrated into the school system and, by working harder than native born children, can soon catch up. This problem has never been in the forefront before.


David Lewis: It is now.


John Carr Munro: Yes, it is now. This does not necessarily mean it is not a problem to which we should give attention and to which we should give assistance. I think it is worthy of consideration. I know the minister's attitude is to get the proper facts and figures in relation to the number of children, teachers and facilities available in order to determine what our program should be in this particular area. This will take some time. I believe the minister has had talks with Mr. Davis, the minister of education for the province of Ontario, in connection with assistance for this type of thing. I feel that the province is involved to a degree in this whole venture. Certainly the research facilities they have, in terms of educational facilities and so on, would be required, so I think the whole area requires co-operation with the provinces. To my knowledge, there has been at least one meeting between Mr. Davis and the minister concerning this problem. They are working on it now to see whether or not something can be done.
As to numbers, and how misleading they can be, my attention is called to a headline in the Toronto Telegram for February 8, 1968 which reads, "18,000 Immigrant Children just a Guess." Apparently the school board started to look into this figure and became rather incensed at the looseness with which figures had been quoted. I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from this article:
Toronto school trustees are looking for 18,000 new Canadian children who were suddenly at a committee meeting yesterday.
The children, according to statements made last week by board of education chairman Ying Hope, need special English classes but aren't getting them because Toronto can't afford it.
The poor English is not mine in this case, it is the Toronto Telegram's.
Yesterday's new Canadian committee meeting learned, however, that the figure was a guess and that school officials don't really know the annual cost of special English classes.
The article goes on to say that the board does not really know the number involved. The chairman was asked where he got the
February 8, 1368
0548	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion figure from, and he said he heard it from somebody. I continue quoting:
Mr. Lowes said the board at no time has said it did not have enough money to cope with the new Canadian program.
There appears to be a new category of students, he said, who have been through the special language program but could benefit by further language classes.
The board felt it was supplying special language programs now and thought they were sufficient. If there are some who want additional educational training, they probably should have it. The board has never heard this figure-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John Carr Munro: I will conclude by saying that something should be done and we are prepared to look at the problem to see if further assistance can be given.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
INDIAN AFFAIRS-CANCELLATION OF SCHOOL PROJECT, CAPE CROKER RESERVE Mr. John Loney (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, on February 7, as reported at page 6465 of Hansard, I submitted to Your Honour that the question I had put to the minister of Indian affairs was indeed urgent. It is now my intention to substantiate my contention that immediate action must be taken to reverse the decision of the department of Indian affairs to cancel the construction of the proposed separate school at the Cape Croker Indian reserve.
The situation that the Indian people are protesting, Mr. Speaker, is best described in this article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette for February 6. It was published on that date under the heading "Indian parents protest school" and reads as follows:
Parents of 90 Roman Catholic children at the Indian reserve here, 40 miles north of Owen Sound, are threatening to take their children out of three buildings which have been used as a school for the last 10 years although they have no water or toilets.
May I correct one point here, Mr. Speaker. There are water and toilets, but there is an inadequate water supply.
The parents plan a protest meeting February 12. They claim federal funds slated for construction of a new school this year have been withdrawn.
Fred Purser, Bruce county Indian agent, said government funds have been cut back despite definite "promises" to build the school this year. 

Joseph Akiwenzie, chief of the Cape Croker band, said the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is "beating around the bush" and "has been promising the school for 10 years."
Rev. O. H. LaBelle, parish priest of the reserve, said records kept by a teacher at the parish hall three years ago showed that the oil heater in one building rarely provided a temperature as high as 60 degrees.
"Most of the time the temperature was 50 degrees and small children were forced to draw their feet up on the seats to keep warm," he said.
"They also had to go outside in the cold to unheated toilets."
This house will agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed a deplorable and unnecessary situation. I must say, with respect, that the departmental officials are aware of the existing accommodation and of the need to provide proper and comfortable facilities conducive to an atmosphere of learning. Until the last few weeks the parents of the children concerned were willing to accept temporary accommodation. Weather conditions, coupled with a deterioration of the three buildings now proven to be inadequate, has moved the parents to protest the circumstances.
My contention that there must be immediate action is supported by a statement of the director of education for the Indian affairs branch. The statement was printed in the Telegram for February 7, appeared under the heading "Ottawa to insulate school", and says:
The federal government has ordered an emergency supply of insulation to keep children from shivering in 50-degree temperatures at the Roman Catholic school on the Cape Croker Indian reserve near Owen Sound.
According to Hansard for February 7 I have already stated that the matter is indeed urgent. This article supports that claim in its reference to the fact that the federal government has ordered an emergency supply of insulation. The article continues:
Students have been wearing snow boots and leggings in the school, a converted church hall, to keep warm.
The building's only source of heat is a single oil stove.
Robert C. Davey, director of education, Indian affairs branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, said yesterday the insulation should reach the school "within the next two or three days."
"We've bypassed the procedure of calling for tenders because of the need for immediate action"-
I reiterate, Mr. Speaker-the need for immediate action.
At the outset of my remarks I stated it was my intention to substantiate the need for
February 8, 1968
immediate action. Mr. Davey said he learned of the problem at the school when he received a letter last week from a parent at the reserve. He is reported to have said: "Last fall, when the hall was converted into a classroom we added insulation, a heating unit and storm windows. We did not know these changes were insufficient."
In making representation on behalf of those concerned at Cape Croker, my argument is that these stop-gap measures can no longer be continued. This case goes back to 1958 when a decision was made to construct a new school for both Protestant and Roman Catholic children. Later the plans were altered and a smaller school for Protestant children was completed in 1964, the understanding at that time being that when a building site had been chosen a separate school would be built. In November of last year, according to the information provided me, departmental officials consulted the sisters who staff the schools and put forward plans for the proposed new school upon the understanding that construction would soon commence.
Now the department has reconsidered its intention, claiming that other projects take precedence. I ask the minister to explain to the parents concerned and to the people of Cape Croker what priorities take precedence over the proven need for adequate educational facilities and accommodation by the children of this Indian reserve.


Arthur Laing: It has not
been my privilege to visit Cape Croker but this is probably understandable because I believe we have 2,200 Indian reserves in Canada. I have been on a number of them.
This arises from resentment on the part of the people on that reserve because other areas are being given priority over them when it comes to improving the capital plant needed for education, housing and so on. I believe every member of this house is aware that at the present time we are by comparison spending a fantastic amount of money on Indian affairs. The budget given me in the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion current year for Indian affairs was $122 million. In 1945 it was $5 million. This year we are spending $58 million on education alone. I would defend this because I think it is the first place to spend money in Indian affairs. We have in the current year expended $9,600,000 on the improvement of buildings and in the coming year we intend to build about 84 schoolrooms on the basis of need, taking priority over Cape Croker.
Cape Croker is an area where there are about 80 people presently housed in three buildings. Unfortunately one of the buildings, I am told, is an old church hall the age of which is almost equal to the age of our nation itself. We are doing the best we can to keep it warm during this cold weather and it is our intention in the following fiscal year to build a school there. We have not cancelled anything. We have postponed construction because we are extending our program with respect to Indian affairs. An example is Indian housing, which we have spread, now, over seven years instead of five years, in the amount of $112 million.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I want to assure the hon. member that we are making tremendous improvements on Indian lands and I believe most hon. members are fully aware of this. We have built this year 2,000 houses on Indian reserves. We have put electric light into more than 4,000 Indian houses in the last two years and we have installed sewage and water facilities in some 58 reserves. The difficulty is that when one group of people sees this going on they want to benefit by the same sort of expenditure. I have here, for instance, a wire from the British Columbia region telling me that in other places we are providing Indian houses with gold plated bath tubs. This, of course, is a sort of envy. All I can tell the hon. member is that we are doing the best we can and Cape Croker has a priority, but we have 84 schoolrooms with a higher priority.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.



Friday, February 9, 1968