1969-06-18

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 18, 1969


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, to be known as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability, Incomes and Employment, be appointed to consider the reports of the Prices and Incomes Commission, with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the house; to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee; and to delegate to sub-committees any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House of Commons.
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee, seven of whom shall be required for a quorum.
That when a quorum is not present, the chairmen of the said committee or of its sub-committees be authorized to proceed with meetings for the purpose of receiving and printing evidence: and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,670-Mr. Yewchuk: (supplementary)
1.	What was the ratio of federal Civil Service employees to the total population of Canada in 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1968?
2.	What were the total expenditures for Civil Service salaries during the above years?
3.	What was the average income tax paid by Canadians during the same years?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1, 2 and 3.
Ratio	Total Expenditures	AverageFederal Government	for Civil Service	Income TaxEmployees to	Salaries	per CanadianYear	Total Population	($ Thousand)	(Dollars)1950	1	106	34,123	891955	1	84	45,792	1501960	1	88	62,895	1671965	1	94	82,866	2141968	1	87	116,031	264
Supplementary answer to the above Question which was tabled by the Hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the House of Commons on April 2, 1969 (House of Commons Debates, pp. 7425-6) supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is as follows:
(a) The amounts shown under the heading "Total Expenditures for Civil Service Salaries ($ Thousand)" should be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Year	
1950	355,161
1955	542,856
1960	760,929
1965	1,029,761
1968 (Jan-Sept only)	1,062,602

June 18. 1969
Questions
(b) The column setting out the employee-population ratios should be footnoted as follows:
"Based on estimates of population as at June 1 and on the number of employees as at June 30 in the year concerned."


LEGALITY OF HOUSING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did the government or the Department of Transport or any agency of government commission a study as to the constitutional legality of the recommendations by the Task Force on Housing?
2.	If so, who was so commissioned, and what were the results of such a study?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1 and 2. The Task Force on Housing and Urban Development requested F. R. Scott, Esq., formerly Dean of Law, McGill University, and W. R. Lederman, Esq., formerly Dean of Law, Queen's University, to make observations on the functional constitutional issues concerning housing and urban development in Canada. As a result a memorandum was prepared and submitted.


SASKATCHEWAN-RECEIPTS UNDER ROADS-TO-RESOURCES PROGRAM
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Under the Roads-to-Resources Program, what amounts has Saskatchewan received from the federal government for each year from 1958 up to and including 1967?
2.	Has the federal government any record of the amounts spent by companies in Saskatchewan as their one-third share of any approved access road and, if so, what is the amount for each year the program was in effect?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minisier wiihoui Portfolio):: 1. 1958-59, $750,000.00; 1959-60, $961,224.08;	1960-61,	$1,940,259.79;	1961-62,	$806,326.92;	1962-63,	$581,565.81;	1963-64,	$311,863.04;	1964-65,	$410,945.57;	1965-66,	$718,079.66;	1966-67,	$563,622.16;	1967-68,	$422,-
535.47; 1968-69, $33,577.50; Total, $7,500,000.00.
2.	There were no mine access roads constructed in Saskatchewan under the Road to Resources Program. However, under the Mine Access Roads Program which was in effect from 1946 to 1957, two mining roads were constructed in northern Saskatchewan. In each case the cost of construction was shared by the	federal	government,	the provincial
government and a mining company. The sum of the federal contributions was $75,583. The actual company expenditure is not on record in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources but is presumed to be i of total cost.

Stony Rapids-Black Lake Road: A 14-mile gravel highway from Stony Rapids to Black Lake. The road was built in 1950 to serve the Black Lake property of Nistro Uranium Mines Limited and facilitated the installation of heavy equipment. The total cost of the road was $26,750, the contribution of the federal government was $8,917.
Ace Lake-Black Bay Road: Fourteen miles long, this road, built in 1950-51 connected the Beaverlodge mine of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited with the port facilities at Black Bay on the Athabasca water route. Eldorado paid part of the cost of its construction and the federal government contributed $66,666.


TRANSFER OF TAXES PAID BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES
Mr. Forlin: 1.	Has the government received from Quebec a request for the transfer to the provinces of the taxes paid by telephone companies?
2.	What would be the value of such transfer?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: 1.	Enquiries made at the Privy Council Office and the Department of National Revenue, and a search of Department of Finance files indicate that no formal request to this effect has been received from the Province of Quebec.
2.	This information is not available.


REQUESTS FOR LETTER CARRIER SERVICE
Mr. Lalulippe: Will the Minister of Communications give consideration to requests made by municipalities for letter carrier service and more particularly by such municipalities which have made expenditures in order to fulfil the requirements of the Department in this respect?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minisier of Communications):: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned: Since March 1968, no new letter carrier delivery services have been established, because of the need to reduce governmental expenditures. Unfortunately, as long as the need to restrict new expenditures exists, provision of letter carrier delivery service in these communities will have to be deferred.


ADVERTISING FOR SUMMER STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Yewchuk: How much money has the Department of Manpower and Immigration spent on advertising as part of the program to further summer student employment and what was the result of such advertising?
June 18, 1969


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Summer 1968:
Amount, $72,000. Results: Reports received by the Department indicate that the program was successful. Between July 25, 1968 and August 29, 1968, Canada Manpower Centres registered 11,652 students and made 12,231 placements. In addition there were many thousands of casual placements in day labour for farm work, berry picking, etc. There is no doubt that increased publicity lead to a greater number of jobs being obtained through CMCs than was normal for the time of the year. Summer 1969: Amount, $200,000. Results: It is much too early to be able to provide results of the 1969 Summer Employment for Students Campaign.


ATHABASCA-AREA DEVELOPMENT AID
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many companies in the constituency of Athabasca have received aid under the Area Development Agency?
2.	How many applications for aid have been received by the agency from this constituency to date?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. None.
2. Five. One was approved but not proceeded with by the applicant; two were withdrawn; two were rejected-one because it was located outside the designated area and the other because it did not involve manufacturing or processing.



APPLICATIONS FOR SECOND CLASS MAILING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for second class mailing privileges have been received by the Post Office Department since September 1, 1968 and how many of these were from non-profit organizations- religious, educational, welfare, trade union, cooperative, ethnic, etc.?
2.	How many of the applications for second class mailing privileges received since September 1, 1968 have been approved and how many have been rejected by the Post Office Department?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	(a) 3779; (b) Information is not compiled in such a way as to indicate the number of applications received from specific types of organizations. To obtain the information requested would require the examination of individual files, would be time consuming and require undue labour and expense.
Questions
2.	2,476 applications have been accepted. 1,303 applications have been rejected.



SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRIAL MILK PRODUCERS

Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): 1.	What was the total amount of credits made available to the Canadian Dairy Commission during the 1968-69 fiscal year for the payment of subsidies to industrial milk producers?
2.	What was the total amount in subsidies paid to industrial milk producers in Canada by the Canadian Dairy Commission during the period from April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969?
3.	What was the amount per province?
4.	What was the subsidy rate per one hundred pounds of milk with a fat content of 3.5 for (a) 1967-1968 (b) 1968-1969?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The amount made available from the Agricultural Stabilization Account to the Canadian Dairy Commission for all of its activities totalled $134,845,000. This included provision for producer subsidies, storage, interest charges, advertising and all other activities of the Commission for the dairy support program.
2.	Direct subsidies to industrial milk producers, including export equalization holdbacks, totalled $117,662,580.17.
3.	P.E.I.,	$1,870,976.26; Nova Scotia,
$584,809.94; New Brunswick, $1,246,826.94; Quebec, $52,540,738.14; Ontario, $40,056,084.01; Manitoba, $5,203,951.55; Saskatchewan, $4,481,753.10; Alberta, $10,146,510.24; British Columbia, $1,530,929.99.
4.	(a) $1.21; (b) $1.31.



NEIL STEVENS-RECOGNITION TO PRIVATE PILOT

Mr. Yewchuk: Has the government considered extending any measure of recognition to private pilot Neil Stevens who recently won a prize in the Great Transatlantic Air Race?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: No.



PRIVY COUNCIL INFORMATION SERVICE

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does Privy Council Office provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by that Office for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?

June 18, 1969
Questions


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.



BEAUCE-C.B.C. TRANSMISSION TOWER

Mr. Rodrigue: Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation own a television relay transmitting tower in the Constituency of Beauce and, if so (a) where is it situated (b) in what year was it erected (c) what was the cost of the project (d) who carried out the work (e) what contractors took part in the construction (f) what was the value of each of the contracts (g) what is the power of the transmitter (h) what is the radius covered by the transmitter (i) which engineering firm prepared the technical report (j) what is its annual maintenance cost (k) are new studies under way presently concerning the site?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: (a) The C.B.C. owns a television rebroadcasting transmitter, CBVT-1, located adjacent to Highway 24, 2| miles northeast of St. George de Beauce; (b) 1967; (c) $56,227; (d) Work was carried out under supervision of C.B.C. engineers; (e) and (f) RCA Victor, transmission facilities:	$44,580; G. Morissette,
building: $3,400; improvements to property: $2,200; Land, legal fees, surveying: $4,144; Provincial sales tax: $1,903; (g) five watts;
(h)	Service is not omnidirectional hence there is no radius of service. St. George de Beauce is southwest of the transmitter and from south to northwest the estimated Grade A service is 3 miles; Grade B is eight miles;
(i)	C.B.C. engineering headquarters; (j) Approximately $2,000; (k) Further study by C.B.C. engineers shows that due to the terrain some areas receive an inadequate signal. An application has been submitted to the CRTC for the relocation of this station to overcome the problem while maintaining satisfactory service in those areas where the signal is now acceptable.
1.
Yarmouth County, Nova Scotia Kings County, Prince Edward Island Prince Albert, Saskatchewan Lac la Biche, Alberta Richibucto, New Brunswick



&quot;DON MESSER JUBILEE&quot;-CONTINUATION ON REGIONAL BASIS

Mr. McCleave: 1.	Would C.B.C. stations be free to negotiate for
the use of a show produced by a Hamilton television station without network affiliation with either C.B.C. or C.T.V.?
2.	If so, would any restrictions be placed by C.B.C. on its own stations as to the time such show could be telecast and, if so, what restrictions?
3.	Did C.B.C. offer to the Don Messer Jubilee the opportunity to continue their show on a local or regional basis and, if so, on what suggested terms and to what point in negotiations?
4.	Will any station or region of the C.B.C. ba showing the Don Messer Jubilee in the Fall-Winter season of 1969-70 and, if so, which ones?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	The only restrictions on C.B.C. stations would be that the program would have to be scheduled in a local time period to avoid conflict with network programming obligations.
3.	No.
4.	No arrangement has been made for C.B.C. local or regional scheduling.



NEWSTART PROGRAMS

Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Where are NEWSTART programmes presently in operation?
2.	What was the date of their commencement?
3.	What staff is involved in each NEWSTART and in what positions?
4.	What monies have been expended in each NEWSTART Corporation?
5.	What numbers of students have been involved in each NEWSTART?
6.	What provincial monies have been expended?
7.	What specific training projects are presently in operation and what is the research value?
8.	Have any programmes or projects developed by NEWSTART Corporation been implemented in the educational system of any of the various provinces and, if so, which ones?


Russell Clayton Honey: 2.	4.
		(as of
		1 June 1969
		$
29	June, 1967	1,438,10028	August, 1967	942,06510	August, 1967	865,0009	August, 1967	1,994,82227	May, 1969	10,000

June 18, 1969

3. 5. 7. 8. NewStart Corporations are autonomous, non-profit comapnies set up under the provincial legislation of the provinces in which they operate and requests for information about their internal management and operations should therefore be made to the corporations.
6. None. Under the federal-provincial agreements by which NewStart Corporations are formed the Federal Government assumes responsibility for 100 per cent of the costs.



SEED POTATO MISSIONS TO CANADA

Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	What attempts have been made by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to increase the number of seed potato missions to Canada in 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2.	What countries has the Department invited or encouraged to visit seed potato areas in Canada?
3.	Has consideration been given to sending seed potato missions for exporting purposes to countries outside Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is sponsoring a Seed Potato Mission from Israel during the summer of 1969 and is considering the possibility of a mission to South America sometime during this fiscal year. In 1968 the Department sponsored a Seed Potato Mission from Romania. In 1968 the Department also arranged visits to Venezuela and Cuba by a Department of Agriculture expert to look into plant health problems in seed potato shipments. The Department's Trade Missions Programme for 1970 is presently under consideration.
2.	The Department has invited a number of countries in which markets or potential markets for seed potatoes exist to send representatives to visit seed potato areas in Canada. The following have accepted: Greece, Argentina, Jamaica, Uruguay, Italy, Venezuela, Portugal, South Africa, Romania and Israel.
3.	Yes.



CIVIL SERVICE REORGANIZATION

Mr. Yewchuk: Is the government considering reorganization of the Civil Service?


Gérard Pelletier: No.



ALBERTA AREA DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Mr. Mazankowski: 1. Did the following companies In Alberta qualify for grants under the Area Development Agency: Becker Manufacturing, Phillips Wire and Cable, Saratoga Gas and Oil and Imperial Oil Ltd.?
Questions
2.	If so, what was the amount of grant in each case?
3.	In what year were the grants paid?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. One company only; Imperial Oil Limited.
2.	It is expected that two grants of 5 million dollars each will be paid in respect of two separate facilities.
3.	Not applicable.



SUBSIDY TO &quot;LES MINES MADELEINE LIMITEE&quot;

Mr. Cyr: 1.	Has the government paid, or promised to pay, a subsidy to "Les Mines Madeleine Limitee" of Ste-Anne-des-Monts, Quebec, through the Area Development Agency and, if so, what is the total amount of such subsidy or the sum paid?
2.	Did the company ask for financial assistance in any form from government for the opening new mining industry in Gaspe and, if so, under what programme has this assistance been given?
3.	On what date did any such subsidy begin and in what amount?


Yves Forest: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.



TASKS ALLOTTED TO CANADIAN FORCES

Mr. Robinson: What are the specific tasks allotted to the Canadian Forces and what is the breakdown of forces for each task?


Mr. W. D. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: At the
present time, the specific tasks allotted to the Canadian Forces are as outlined in the White Paper on Defence, tabled in the House of Commons, in March 1964. The forces allotted to these tasks are as shown at pages 839-851, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 23, of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, dated February 4, 1969.



KINGSTON, ONT.-WINDOW WASHING CONTRACT

Mr. Hales: 1. Did the Department of Supply and Services pay under contract the Acme Window Cleaners, Kingston, Ontario the sum of $18,430 for the period May 12 to October 31, 1969 for window washing at the Canadian Forces Base, Kingston and, if so, for what reasons were Base personnel unable to perform such services?

June 18, 1869
Questions
2.	How many buildings are involved?
3.	On what basis did the Department estimate the value of work done?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in three parts. 1. A contract was awarded to Acme Window Cleaners, Kingston, Ontario, for window cleaning at the Canadian Forces Base, Kingston, Ontario, in the amount of $18,430. Payment is based on spring cleaning at $9,065 for work to be completed by approximately June 27, 1969, and fall cleaning at $9,365 for work to be completed by October 31, 1969. The base establishment does not provide military or civilian staff to carry out services of this nature. In addition, it is considered more economical to carry out this type of work at urban locations by contract rather than by casual labour.
2.	128 buildings were involved.
3.	The contract was placed on the basis of the lower competitive tender received for performance of the work. The estimated cost was based on size, height and number of windows.



QUEBEC-CANADIAN FORCES TRADE SCHOOL

Mr. Robinson: Is it the federal government's intention to establish a French-speaking trade school in Quebec for Canadian Forces and, if so, what is the cost, how many tradesmen will be trained per month and how will they be absorbed into the Canadian Forces?


David Walter Groos: L'Ecole Technique des Forces canadiennes was opened at Saint-Jean, Quebec, on April 15, 1969. In view of the fact that only one course has commenced, an estimate of the costs involved, and the number to be trained per month is not yet available. On completion of training, these tradesmen will be absorbed into French-speaking units of the Canadian Forces. This will not preclude them, however, from future employment with English-speaking units.



CABINET COMMITTEES ON POVERTY

Mr. Broadbenf: What are the names of the two Cabinet committees co-ordinating the economic and regional aspects of poverty and what Ministers belong to each of the Cabinet committees as mentioned by the Prime Minister in Hansard of April 23, page 7857?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The arrangements made by the Cabinet for

the discharge of the business for which it is collectively responsible are matters for the Cabinet itself and are not customarily disclosed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1	How many leases does the federal government have with firms or individuals that are for a period of one year or more where the rental in question is between $10,000 and $50,000 annually?
2. Is each instance, what is the name of the firm or individual, what is the term of the lease, where is the space located, what is the annual amount of the rental and on what date does the lease expire?
Return tabled.


CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Peddle: 1	How many post offices and/or federal public buildings were completed, commenced, constructed or enlarged in Canada since the beginning of 1965 in towns or villages of less than 8,000 population?
2	What are the locations, total or estimated costs and populations served in each case?
3	What is the total floor space area of each such building?
Return tabled.


PROMOTION OF WHEAT SALES TO JAPAN
Mr. Mazanltowski: What, if any, promotional activities are being undertaken by Canada to convince the Japanese of the many uses of Canadian wheat (a) what agencies are involved in carrying out such promotion (b) is Canada successfully competing with other countries in relation to this matter?
Return tabled.



INQUIRY AS TO SECOND CLASS MAILING PRIVILEGES

Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What periodicals and publications in Canada as at April 29 enjoyed second class mailing privileges?
2.	What is the criteria applied in the granting of such privileges?
3.	Was the criteria applied in the case of each publication listed, or were there any exceptions or special cases?
4.	Where exceptional or special treatment was accorded, what are the names of the publications to benefit from such treatment and in each case what was the reason?
Return tabled.
June 18, 1969

Motions for Papers


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could have the co-operation of the government in answering question No. 2,047 which has been on the order paper for almost two months? It is a very simple and straightforward question and I should like an answer before the conclusion of this session.


Yves Forest: We will look into the matter.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 120, 162, 169 and 199 are acceptable to the government.



BACKGROUND REPORTS FOR HOUSING TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 120-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all background reports and studies prepared for the Task Force on Housing.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 162-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all standards on pollution established by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cow-ichan-The Islands):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the representatives of any organizations, companies or provincial authorities regarding the export of logs to Japan.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 199-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all arrangements, correspondence, etc., between the Government of Canada and the Electric Reduction Company regarding the establishment of a phosphorous plant at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay, Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.
29180-652*
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 198 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING POLLUTION AT PLACENTIA BAY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 198-Mr. Harding:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland regarding the pollution problem at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 198 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motion Nos. 142, 144, 154, 155, 156, 157, 171, 174, 182, 183, 201, 219 and 220?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.



CANADIAN JAVELIN LINERBOARD MILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 142-Mr. Broadbent:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, agreements or arrangements between the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Canadian Javelin Limited, or its subsidiary, Melville Pulp and Paper Limited, regarding a new linerboard mill and wood products complex.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, no agreements or arrangements on this matter have been completed. While the production of papers will always be considered if and when an agreement or arrangement has been made with any company, it would be a breach of business confidentiality if information were made public before such a case is concluded. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

June 18, 1969
Motions for Papers


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



TEXAS GULF NORTHERN ONTARIO SMELTER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 144-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, agreements or arrangements between the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company, regarding a new smelter in Northern Ontario.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government with the customary proviso that no confidential information relating to the competitive position of the company concerned which has been given to the government in connection with an application for grant should be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 144 be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 154-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, arrangements, etc., between the Government of Canada and Golden Eagle Corporation at Quebec City, Quebec, regarding financial grants or incentives under the Area Development Incentives Act.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government with the customary proviso that no confidential information relating to the competitive position of the company concerned which has been given to the government in connection with an application for grant should be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 154 be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 155-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do Issue for copies of all correspondence, arrangements, etc., between

the Government of Canada and Irving Oil Corporation at Quebec City, Quebec, regarding financial grants or incentives under the Area Development Incentives Act.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government with the customary proviso that no confidential information relating to the competitive position of the company concerned which has been given to the government in connection with an application for grant should be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 155 be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 156-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, arrangements, etc., between the Government of Canada and Irving Oil Corporation at Saint John, N.B., regarding financial grants or incentives under the Area Development Incentives Act.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government with the customary proviso that no confidential information relating to the competitive position of the company concerned which has been given to the government in connection with an application for grant should be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 156 be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 157-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, arrangements, etc., between the Government of Canada and Gulf Oil Corporation at Point Tupper, Nova Scotia, regarding financial grants or incentives under the Area Development Incentives Act.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government with the customary proviso that no confidential information relating to the com-
June 18, 1969

petitive position of the company concerned which has been given to the government in connection with an application for grant should be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that Notice of Motion No. 157 be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 171-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the cost-benefit study, as prescribed by Treasury Board Manual Planning Programming Budgeting Guide, on the Defence Development Sharing Program referred to by Mr. D. Mundy, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on April 1, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) that he cannot accept this motion for the following reasons:
1.	At no time did the minister or officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce state that a cost-benefit study had been carried out on the defence development sharing program as prescribed by Treasury Board's planning programming budgeting guide.
2.	In accepting the hon. member's previous motion in this house on April 23, 1969, which was No. 101, it was agreed to produce a copy of a cost-benefit analysis showing sales resulting from defence industry productivity program support to Canadian industry.
This analysis, which the member has already received, showed the ratio between sales achieved and projected and government funds expended on all completed projects up to the end of 1967 under the defence industry productivity program. Furthermore, this analysis is exactly that described by an official of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in his testimony before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on April 1, 1969.
In view of this,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some reservations about the statement which the
Motions for Papers
parliamentary secretary is making now. It seems to me he is debating the issue. He should indicate to the house whether or not it is his intention to accept the motion. I understand that he has indicated he is not prepared to accept the motion. It is up to the hon. member to indicate whether he wishes it transferred for debate.


John Edward Broadbent: I ask that it be transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.
Transferred for debate under Standing Order 48.



GUIDELINES ON CAPITAL FLOW FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 174-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, agreements, etc., between the Government of the United States regarding guidelines on the flow of capital from the United States administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Exernal Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table exchanges of letters between the Minister of Finance and the United States Secretary of the Treasury dated March 7 and December 16, 1968 which contain all the essential elements of the arrangements between Canada and the United States with regard to guidelines on the flow of capital from the United States. These letters have already been made public but are being tabled again today for the convenience of the hon. member. All other correspondence with the United States on this matter has been by way of technical elaboration. Such correspondence represents confidential communications exchanged in the course of negotiations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States. On this basis I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: I withdraw the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



INFORMATION TASK FORCE INTERIM REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 182-Mr. Malher:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interim report of the Government Task Force on Information.
Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, motion No. 182 is for a copy of the interim report of the task force on government information. The report referred to was largely oral and not in
[Stage Direction]
June 18. 1969
Motions for Papers
a form suitable for tabling. However, the government will be receiving the final report over the next few weeks, and a decision will be made as to whether or not publication is in the public interest after there has been an opportunity to give the entire report careful study.
For these reasons I ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Mr. Mather:: I withdraw the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



INFORMATION TASK FORCE CONSULTANT STUDIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 183-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all consultant studies, questionnaire surveys and other background reports prepared for the Government Task Force on Information.
James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, the reports and papers asked for in motion No. 182 were prepared on a confidential basis. Therefore I ask that this motion be withdrawn.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order, may I ask that the matter be transferred for debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is in order and the item is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.
Transferred for debate under Standing Order 48.



CONTRACTOR BIDS ON COMMUNICATION SATELLITE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 219-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the contractor bids on the communication satellite by RCA Victor Limited and Northern Electric Co. Limited.
Eric William Kierans: The
two companies referred to in this motion, R.C.A. Limited and Northern Electric Company Limited, have not been requested to submit contractor bids on the communication satellite as procurement contracts have not yet been awarded. I informed the House of Commons on June 13, 1969 that officials in the Department of Communications were on that date instructed to open negotiations with these two companies on the procurement contract for Canada's domestic communication satellite. Under the circumstances I ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr, Speaker, I ask that it be
transferred for debate.
Transferred for debate under Standing Order 48.



LAUNCHING OF CANADIAN SATELLITE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 220-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the principles agreed to by Canada and the United States regarding the launching of a Canadian satellite.
Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the text of the public statement agreed to by Canada and the United States which sets out the details of an agreement in principle regarding the launching of a Canadian satellite was quoted in the house on June 13, 1969 (page 10016 of Hansard of June 13, 1969). Under the circumstances I ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


John Gilbert: I withdraw the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the proposed international development centre has been established by the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it expected that this centre will be established shortly? Has the Prime Minister any information he can give us with regard to progress in this direction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give the house any date on which it may be. I can say what has been said earlier by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-that projects have been prepared and are now being examined by the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about this if I had any idea when he would return. Is it contemplated that other countries will
June 18, 1969	COMMONS
participate in this international centre or will it be established and financed entirely by Canada itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The policy has not yet been determined in a final way by the government and therefore I should not like to announce it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Supply and Services regarding Canadair Limited in Montreal, which allegedly has laid off some 1,500 men since January 1 without any notice whatsoever. In view of the fact that this company is operating mainly on the basis of government contracts, may I ask whether there are any provisions in these contracts to safeguard the Canadian employees of this United States subsidiary and ensure that proper notice is given these employees who are being laid off?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know the details of the contracts as they may affect the security of employees.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that Orenda, the company at Malton which makes the engines for these planes, does give its employees notice and severance pay, will the minister make representations to Canadair to see that it gives the same treatment to its employees?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL HOLIDAYS


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the unfortunate events that took place in Sherbrooke recently the Prime Minister has been invited to Saint-Georges de Beauce to attend the celebration of St. Jean Baptiste Day-the feast of French Canadians-and I would like to ask him if he is seriously thinking of accepting that invitation?
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have not yet seen that invitation, but I was told before coming to the house that I had effectively received it, and I am most happy. Such an invitation is extremely welcome under the circumstances and certainly indicates that the population is standing firm. There are probably many Liberals and a few Creditistes there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will send my reply as soon as possible.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime
Minister.
As there are lots of Creditistes in Beauce, is he of the opinion and does he admit that those people are at least civilized?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Hon. Marlial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
The president of the St. Jean Baptiste Day celebrations announced this morning in Montreal that 10 countries would be represented in the St. Jean Baptiste parade and that 25 ambassadors would attend. He also added that he had not considered inviting any representative of the federal government.
As I know that this is an insult to French Canadians who are members of this house, could the Prime Minister, on behalf of parliament, protest strongly and officially against the attitude of the leaders of the St. Jean Baptiste society of Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it belongs to me to protest strongly. I understand that a private body is organizing those celebrations, but I quite agree with the hon. member and it seems to me that those who accept to participate in such a demonstration could well ask themselves how it is that they are invited if the federal government is not.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
June 18. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister advise the house what progress he has made with the provinces in arriving at an agreement in regard to a national securities commission, and when does the minister envisage that this house will be given either a white paper or an indication of the legislation to establish this commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are considering our position and having some discussions with the provinces. 1 hope to make some definitive statement after I have had some discussions with the government during the course of the summer.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he could convey to the Premier of Ontario the congratulations of this house or of the government on his sudden and spectacular conversion to the federal medicare plan, especially in light of his recent description of it as the greatest Machiavellian fraud ever perpetrated on the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Make sure you face the camera.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I always wait until the applause dies down. I have just given the cameraman a sign and I will now ask my question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made in Stockholm yesterday which was given wide publicity in the news this morning-I am sure that the Prime Minister is thoroughly familiar with it-that a good deal of hard bargaining is 

expected by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the negotiations between Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member now put his question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, now the picture has been taken I can relax and ask my question. In view of this hard bargaining that the Secretary of State for External Affairs expects in these negotiations, does the government expect that Canada will have to pay a high price for the privilege of recognizing Communist China?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the question as asked by the hon. member does not have argumentative overtones?


George Harris Hees: Then I will ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which is not argumentative at all.


Mr. Bell:: They might take another picture.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the Prime Minister by way of a supplementary question whether the government is examining the report which has been widely circulated today that Communist China is going to demand that Canada accept in the future a large quantity of textiles each year as the price for allowing China to be recognized by this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear. hear.


George Harris Hees: Turn the other way, Pierre.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister should now address the Chair.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can remember the answer, let alone the question. I think perhaps there is a link between the question the hon. member asked and the question of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). If I were to congratulate all those who have been converted to the governments' point of view I should have little time for anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister should hire some new speech writers to write some new speeches.
June 18. 1969	COMMONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether anyone with his back to the camera can be made to be heard. May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the United States government sought and obtained the permission of the Canadian government to transport across our territory germs and other materials to be used at biological warfare test centres in Alaska and Greenland?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question.
I think it ought to be asked of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, no such request has been received.


David Lewis: May I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are such flights being made over Canadian territory and do these flights carry very dangerous germs and other materials? If that is so will the minister make inquiries about the matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, under our
arrangement with the United States it is expected that before any such flights are made there will be consultation with Canada. I would therefore be rather surprised if the speculation advanced by the hon. member turns out to be warranted.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to gather from the minister's answer that the Canadian government until now has not been consulted on the matter at all?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, no permission for such flights has been sought.


David Lewis: That is no answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is presently visiting Scandinavia to carry the gospel of Canada's continuing interest in NATO to Finland and Sweden, that minister having been reported to declare that he did not go to Stockholm to meet Chinese diplomats, will the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister tell us the reason for the visit to Scandinavia at this time, when the session has a few days only to run and when the minister's presence is needed here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hillsborough.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is prompted by a reply given the other day to my question concerning the much needed extension of Charlottetown airport. Will the minister have another look at this very important and, indeed, urgent matter with a view to giving it a far higher priority than seemed to be indicated the other day?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisier of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to review the matter.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since we need adequate instrument landing facilities at Charlottetown or Summerside airports and since facilities at these airports are outdated and inadequate for the maintenance of proper jet service, will the minister reconsider his department's answer to the effect that the necessary new equipment will not be installed at the earliest until 1972 or 1973?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be pleased to look into that.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MEET LOWER PRAIRIE INCOME

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the minister has had ample time to study the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture on its western tour, what action is the government contemplating in solving the serious cash shortage of the western grain grower?


An hon. Member:: The minister has no answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that there was debate on this very subject which lasted all day yesterday and all evening. If he is asking the
June 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry minister to make a statement, I think that statement ought to be made on motions.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question not having been allowed, there cannot be a supplementary.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is asking his question because the minister gave us no answers yesterday.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I made adequate answer, Mr. Speaker.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to take your suggestion to heart and make a statement on motions about this matter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will consult Hansard at pages 10262 and 10263 he will see there an indication of the government's
position.


Gerald William Baldwin: So far as an answer is concerned, those pages are a complete blank.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is the minister now in a position to answer the question that was addressed to him in his absence last Friday by my colleague for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). It was about funds of the National Arts Centre. Is the centre short of funds for advertising, adequate protective staff and other purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no immediate recollection of that question having been asked. It seems to me that type of question ought to be placed on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour could check Hansard for last Friday and you will see that the question was asked. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Stanbury) said that the minister would be in the house on Monday to answer it. In view of publicity that has been given to certain allegations I think there is urgency to the question.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the directors of the National Arts Centre that there is no financial problem at all. On the contrary, I was told this morning by the director about the unexpected success achieved at the box office. The fact is that where it was expected that 65 per cent of available tickets would be sold, 86.6 per cent were sold. Accordingly, the Centre had enough funds to finance its own advertizing for its opening festival. I was also told that security guards were available in sufficient numbers. Security problems arise rather from lack of experience, but the situation is being corrected and is improving every day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister satisfied that there are sufficient funds for advertising and other purposes in the months that lie ahead?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl
Richmond): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Secretary of State who answers to this house for the C.B.C. maintains that there are no difficulties so far as the budget is concerned for the arts centre, will he make sure that the C.B.C. is accurate in its news reporting?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will there be sufficient advertising funds for programs to come two weeks from now, after the present showing at the National Arts Centre of "Anne of Green Gables" and "Johnny Belinda"? These shows do not require advertising, being of great excellence.



AGREEMENT ON EXPORTS OF CRUDE TO U.S.

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. The question has to do with one department of government. Since the Canadian Petroleum Association indicated in evidence before the committee last evening that the 1967 agreement which gave the United States the right to cut back exports of Canadian crude petroleum was kept confidential, may I ask whether since that date any agreement of a confidential nature has been signed with the United States having to do
June 18. 1969	COMMONS
with exports of crude petroleum from Canada to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot cover from my personal knowledge all that period since 1967. I think the hon. member ought to direct his question to the appropriate minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think the Prime Minister misunderstood the question. Has a new confidential agreement that has been kept from the oil industry been made with the government of the United States about exports of crude petroleum?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Prime Minister replies I must remind the hon. member that questions ought to be directed to the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put the question to the Chair, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: That is understood.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not hear my question. I should like to ask it of the Prime Minister. Since 1967 has any confidential agreement that has been kept from the oil industry been entered into with the United States, under which the United States is to cut back exports of crude petroleum from this country to the United States? Does the Prime Minister not want to reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question was not directed to Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the increasing number of reportedly defective railway cars found at the Belleville C.N.R. terminal, including a lack of proper brake pipe testing, will the minister take immediate steps in the interests of safety to delay the removal of any carmen at the end of June until such time as an investigation is conducted by the Board of Transport Commissioners ?

Inquiries o} the Ministry Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I suspect that is entirely outside my responsibility, in terms of the removal of employees, however I will be glad to look at the question and convey the hon. member's representations to the C.N.R.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Possibly the minister may wish to take it as notice and give me an answer tomorrow. Was Joseph Duffor hired by the Special Committee of Poverty in the other place? If so, on what basis was he selected for this position?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is a question which ought to be placed on the order paper, if it is in order at all.



COMMUNICATIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yesterday the hon. member for Wellington-Grey was ruled out of order when he attempted to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question concerning the appearance of Dr. Solandt, Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, before the Canadian Transport Commission in support of the application of the Bell Telephone Company for a rate increase.
In view of the fact that the public interest is involved to a considerable extent, and the importance of knowing on whose behalf and with what authority Dr. Solandt appeared, I ask the President of the Treasury Board if he will ascertain and let the house know as soon as convenient whether Dr. Solandt appeared on behalf of the Science Council of Canada, on his own personal initiative, or with the authorization of the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I am glad to see he is here in the house in spite of the roster for today. Now that
Inquiries of the Ministry Denmark has joined Sweden in banning the use of d.d.t. in agriculture, forestry and horticulture, can the minister advise whether his department is studying the reasons for such a ban in these Scandinavian countries?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have this under constant review. We are also very keenly aware of the great benefits in lowering the cost of production that d.d.t. has for our farmers in Canada. We must also take that into account.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are discussions being held by the Department of Agriculture with other government departments which are interested in pollution control?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. Since the matter of the roster has been mentioned, will the Prime Minister assure the house that he will not take disciplinary action against-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot rise on a supplementary at this point. Perhaps he may have a legitimate question in a moment. I draw to his attention that this is not a supplementary.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the news reports of last Friday that the premier of one of the provinces may well contest the legality of the official languages bill in the courts, is it the intention of the minister to introduce amendments to the bill when it comes before this house to restore the provisions of the bill which were deleted or amended following his meeting with the Attorneys General of the provinces earlier this year?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems the hon. member is asking a question about a matter which will be considered later today. I suggest the hon. member cannot in this way anticipate an order of the day.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the 
DEBATES	June 18, 1969
Prime Minister and ask him if representations have been made to him to have the federal Department of Labour join with the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland in an attempt to settle the iron ore strike in Quebec and Labrador? This affects not only workers coming under provincial jurisdictions, but also dock and railway workers. What action is the Prime Minister taking with regard to these representations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am informed I did receive a telegram to that effect this morning. I referred the matter to the Department of Labour.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary to the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Labour. Has an approach been made to the Premier of Quebec and to the Premier of Newfoundland indicating the willingness of the federal government to lend its good offices to settle this six week old strike? If so, what was the reply of the respective premiers?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the minister on June 9 indicated the government's willingness to enter into this, and to mediate. The province of Quebec agreed with this, but not the province of Newfoundland.



COMBINES


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the proper statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that receipts by farmers of present prices for beef are fair and reasonable, and the difference of opinion expressed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will the minister say now whether he is contemplating prosecuting under the Combines Investigation Act? The information available today is that while wholesale prices of beef have risen 13.6 cents a pound over a period of time, chain stores have raised' their prices from 25 cents to 40 cents a pound. Is the minister going to take some action in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of the government will be delighted with the endorsement from the right hon. gentleman, and the acknowledgement that the Minister of Agriculture is a
June 18, 1969	COMMONS
great fighter on behalf of the interests of the department; also the acknowledgement by the right hon. gentleman that the Minister of Agriculture has properly put the case before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members and the minister that we are running short of time. I see large numbers of members waiting for a chance to ask questions.


John George Diefenbaker: That kind of answer-


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the right hon. gentleman in a moment. I remind hon. members we are running short of time.


John George Diefenbaker: After the prelude of nonsense, will the minister say whether for once he is going to be a responsible minister and protect the Canadian consumers by taking action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DRUGS-PRICE FIXING BY B.C. PHARMACISTS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister say when a report is expected from the combines investigation branch on a matter recently referred to that branch by the Minister of Welfare of the province of British Columbia, namely the legality of the $1 fee being charged welfare patients for their drug prescriptions by the British Columbia Professional Pharmacists' Society?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister. I think that question might be placed on the order paper and discussed at the time of adjournment.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister which I am sure he is expecting. Will the Prime Minister assure the house he will not take disciplinary action against the five cabinet ministers who defied his orders and came into the house today to carry out their duties, even though we know there are ulterior reasons for their doing so?



EDUCATION


Mr. W. C. Scoit (Vicloria-Haliburlon):: My
question is for the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Health and Welfare. Has the minister received any correspondence from boards of education requesting that the youth allowance be extended until the completion of students' secondary school courses, regardless of age?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Not that I can recall, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-DISCUSSION AS TO AGENCY TO CO-ORDINATE ACTION

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was there any discussion at the recent constitutional conference with respect to the establishment of a special federal agency to co-ordinate the many ways in which the federal government is involved in the field of human resources development, or education?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL HOLIDAYS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is just a short one for the Prime Minister in order to clarify information for visiting school groups. Will next Tuesday, June 24, St-Jean-Baptiste day, one of the days on which this house normally does not sit, be recognized as a holiday by the house as usual?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.



FINANCE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister advise whether the grant in respect of the Black United Front in Nova Scotia will be paid directly to the front, or directly to the county of Halifax to supplement their own program?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the matter of a grant and the manner of payment is still under consideration by the government, the Secretary of State and so on.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the
June 18, 1969

Inquiries o/ the Ministry cause of the delay arises out of the fact that the government is now considering an interim grant as opposed to the full $100,000 at the outset?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was ever any question of a full lump sum grant initially. It was always in terms of a phasing over a period of years.


Mr. Forresiall:: Then, could the minister give some indication whether this matter will be resolved before the house recesses for the summer?


John Carr Munro: It is hopeful, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Solicitor General. In view of the statement by Professor Stuart Ryan of Queen's University that the new federal prison at Millhaven which will be the replacement for the Kingston penitentiary is a glorified hole of bulletproof glass and stainless steel which we should all be afraid of, will the minister make a statement on motions and refer this matter to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not be disposed to dignify in that way the statement the hon. member has just made. But if there is any concern about the institution I would be very glad to answer any questions I can on that subject.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister make a statement on motions with regard to the serious matter the professor has pointed out to the Canadian public.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries which revolves around a question I asked him concerning the effect of d.d.t. on our freshwater fish. Because of the importance of this would the minister make a statement on motions with regard to his findings in this matter.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very impor-

tant matter. I do not want to create any unnecessary alarm about d.d.t. in Canadian lakes, because it is not a threat, but a factual answer is required and I will consider making a statement on this important subject.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware of the difficulties reportedly encountered by the Premier of Newfoundland in obtaining a visa to enter Red China? If so will this be the subject of negotiations at Stockholm and what steps will the government take-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even at this point I do not think the question is in order.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State whose department is responsible for the holding of citizenship courts. Could the minister explain to the house why the time of meeting of these courts has been changed from the evening to the day time, at considerable inconvenience and expense to new Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much if this question is in order. Again I must repeat what I said yesterday about its being a little difficult to indicate to hon. members that questions should be placed on the order paper. However, even realizing this I doubt whether all questions can be asked at this time. I think this is a question which could easily be placed on the order paper.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that there are further reports of outside dragging activities in northwestern Newfoundland which are causing damage to and interference with fishing operations, would the minister indicate whether it is his intention to increase patrol operations in that area to overcome this unhealthy situation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the fisheries protec-
June 18, 1959	COMMONS
tion officers in the area have been alerted to this problem and I am awaiting a report.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, although I was beginning to run out of steam I kept on rising. Last Tuesday the Minister of Transport told the house he hoped to make a statement on motions with regard to air traffic control within a day or two. Will the minister say when we may expect a statement on this subject which is so important to the safety of those who travel by air.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have asked for a great many statements. I made one yesterday on the matter of auto safety. I would not like to hog the show, so I will put off this statement for a couple of days.


Charles Humbert Thomas: When the minister makes this statement would he also table the second volume of the Robinson report?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the economic use of jumbo jets is brought into question I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is considering delaying the opening of the jumbo jet airport in Quebec until a decision is made with regard to the airport itself?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is supplementary to the question left unanswered by the Prime Minister. Does the Minister of Finance endorse the idea of spending $500 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money on an airport to service aircraft which may not even go into service?


Edgar John Benson: we do not have jumbo jets we will have supersonic jets.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister give us a little further information on the important matter which arises out of his answer yesterday that the federal government does not intend to discuss a constitutional amending formula until there has been agreement on a "certain number of questions of substance". Could the Prime Minister tell us what he had in mind when he mentioned a certain number of questions. Did he have in mind particular areas in respect of the constitution or is this a quantitative measure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether this question is not a debate. However, we have a few minutes left before the end of the question period which might be used for the purpose of a reply from the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Go ahead and ask your jumbo question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the Prime Minister would reply, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the amending formula has not come under consideration yet in the discussions between the federal and provincial governments. Government policy on this particular aspect will be formulated and announced in due course. We have not yet reached any conclusion on the kind of amending formula which could be used for either amending the total constitution or various parts of the constitution.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister give us any more indication in terms of time when the government of Canada might be making the proposal or inviting the provincial governments to discuss an amending formula.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have always taken the position that the question of the mechanics of the amending formula itself would be at the end of the agenda, but of course if the provinces do not agree with this-and in certain cases they have asked that we study certain things other than those which we propose- we would be open to representation in this regard.



PRICE STABILITY, INCOMES AND EMPLOYMENT POSSIBILITY OF SITTINGS OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE DURING SUMMER RECESS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, before Orders of the Day are

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
called I wonder whether I could direct a question to the acting house leader.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can only direct a question to the acting house leader with the unanimous consent of the house since the question period has expired.


James Aloysius McGrath: It concerns the business of the house. I assume I have consent to ask the acting house leader whether it is the intention of the government to bring forward a measure to set up a special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons dealing with the stability of prices and incomes, and is it the intention of the government to have this joint committee sit during the recess?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that is a far more involved question than the order of business coming before this house.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved:: That Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended in Clause 12 to read as follows:
"12. In accordance with and subject to the provisions of this act and the terms of any agreement that may be entered into by the Governor in Council with the government of a province as described in Section 15, the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council may from time to time by proclamation establish one or more federal bilingual districts (hereinafter called 'bilingual districts') in a province, and alter the limits of any bilingual districts so established."


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, there may be some difficulty in connection with the amendment he has moved, but at the same time it appears not to present any difficulties from a procedural standpoint. In view of all the circumstances, the hon. member may wish to proceed with the amendment.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like to 
point to the Chair and to the house that during the first meeting of the special committee on the official languages bill, it had been clearly understood and unanimously agreed that everything possible would be done to hasten the printing of the minutes of proceedings and evidence.
This had been agreed to and it had even been resolved, then, that special measures would be taken to give priority to the printing and distribution of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, since we are getting near the end of the session, and we must expedite the business of the house.
Well, not a single report of the proceedings of the special committee on the official languages bill has been printed and handed to members of parliament yet.
Therefore, I object strongly at the very beginning of this debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: -if we do not have in our hands-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: -the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the said committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and tell him that I am assured that the said reports have been distributed to all hon. members. It may be the distribution system of the hon. member that is at fault.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), who was a member of the special committee on the official languages bill at the same time as myself, at one time, has not received any copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee.
For my part, I have not received any and I can assure you that my distribution system is operating smoothly.
Members of parliament have the right to receive reports and considering that we are now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and tell him that copies of the report are available. He has only to ask for one and he will get it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thus far this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the proceedings have been marked by an air of cordiality, if not conviviality. Just before I get into the substance of the
June 18. 1969

matter before the house perhaps I might suggest that it would be a good idea to have the television camera in parliament every day if we could create the atmosphere and the high level of attendance we experienced today. Certainly I do not want to detract from the prevailing spirit as we begin to discuss what is regarded by all members of the house as a basic and critical matter to the future development of Canadian nationhood.
Unfortunately, under the new rules one of the problems faced by members during the debate at the report stage is the necessity of submitting amendments well before the matter is discussed in the House of Commons. Those of us who have been around for some years know that under the old rules we became accustomed to the privilege of bringing forward amendments during the course of the actual debate in the house. For that reason I can appreciate the comment Your Honour made that the amendment I propose to clause 12 of Bill C-120 may trespass upon areas of responsibility which devolve almost exclusively upon the provincial governments in Canada.
I have been giving some thought to this matter and I am reminded that last week in Ottawa there began a series of important discussions on the relationship between the federal and provincial governments in areas of joint responsibility. As I understand from what news has become available about those discussions, up to the present moment there has been a considerable degree of progress in respect of the distribution of responsibility as between the federal and provincial governments, particularly in fiscal areas where the problem of joint responsibility overlaps on spending programs.
The point I am trying to emphasize in the amendment gives the provincial governments an important say in decisions regarding bilingual districts in Canada. I hope that it will also be a subject for discussion at the continuing conference between the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. I understand there is to be a document produced by the Prime Minister in due course in respect of this matter which may clarify the issue, certainly so far as fiscal matters are concerned.
If we are to draw any conclusions at all from the statement of the Premier of Ontario about the agreement which has now been reached on the question of medicare, there is
Official Languages
now a clearcut pattern established as to respective areas of responsibility in joint programs. The Premier of Ontario has summed up the situation in a significant phrase, that he anticipated that with the changing emphasis on federal-provincial responsibility there will be no more medicare fiascos of this kind. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding has unnecessarily delayed their implementation of this important program for people in certain provinces.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In respect of this amendment, what I had in mind was the spirit that operated to a magnificent degree last week when the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Quebec were able to agree upon an entente cor-diale which will go a long way toward solving the problems of bilingualism and bicul-turalism in their respective spheres of influence. This is the sort of spirit I would like to see prevail among all provincial governments because this entente cordiale, arrived at by mutual agreement of the provinces concerned, will, I believe, ultimately reduce the tensions which exist within the body politic of Canada. These tensions are always present because we are a geographically large and an ethnically, culturally and economically diverse nation.
I should like to point out in passing that this spirit also prevails in other provinces. In 1966 the province of Manitoba, of its own accord and without any legislative coercion from Ottawa, took the initiative of providing educational services in areas of substantial minority groupings. This does not only apply to French speaking areas; certain privileges have been accorded to areas of other cultural predominance because of the nature of the mosaic which exists in western Canada.
I am not a lawyer, and I was going to obtain a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in this respect, but he can read Hansard and see what I have in mind in this regard. It would seem to me there is general agreement that l'esprit de la loi is much more important than the letter of the law with regard to linguistic and cultural rights. One of the reasons there has been so much controversy in certain areas of Canada is the overtones of compulsion which inevitably arise from Bill C-120. This is of special concern to western Canada and other provinces of similar cultural make-up wherein many minorities are involved.

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
I refer in passing-this strongly motivated the amendment I have put before the house this afternoon-to the fact that there is rapid progress toward transferring responsibility in respect of what might be recognized by all members of the house as the ethnic group which has been most seriously ignored and violated from the standpoint of its fundamental rights. I refer to our first Canadians, the Indians and Eskimos. We know there is a move under way that will gradually transfer to the provincial level the major responsibilities for ensuring first-class citizenship status to our native population. This policy has been agreed to on both sides of the house. In view of this transfer of responsibility to the provinces, I believe the provinces should have a special concern and voice in these matters. This, of course, applies also to other ethnic groups.
As I lock at the other amendments on the order paper I am reassured to find that we will have an opportunity to debate this matter under another amendment which deals with the problems of multiculturalism and multilingualism in western Canada. As I indicated in my opening remarks in reply to your question, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to introduce a discordant note as we begin this important debate. Certainly I do not wish to trespass upon any area that would be regarded as a provincial matter. I do not wish to interfere with provincial affairs. I agree that this matter should be left to the continuing constitutional conference, which I hope will arrive at a formula that will make it easier for the people of every province of Canada to feel at home in all other parts of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister from Manitoba, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), speaks in the same accents, because he said recently that he is more concerned with interpreting western Canada to Ottawa than he is Ottawa to western Canada.
I agree heartily with that statement, because we sometimes feel there is difficulty in communicating a viewpoint which some of us who come from western Canada regard as being peculiar to the west. I do not mean that westerners are peculiar, but they do have a peculiar viewpoint in this respect.
During the course of the debate it has been suggested that westerners are bigots in matters pertaining to civil liberties, cultural and linguistic equality and all the other matters

raised in the debate. I deny this most vehemently. Members from western Canada are, above all else, most tolerant. Because we were raised in a climate of minorities we have achieved an amazing degree of the spirit of Canadianism out of a diversity that appears on the surface almost insurmountable.
In bringing these remarks to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me, in the light of Your Honour's comment, in the light of what happened at the meetings last week in Ottawa and the entente cordiale achieved by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, that the provinces are quite capable of looking after their own interests in this respect. I would therefore leave them to take whatever action they feel is necessary.
I think our chief concern at this time, as we face a fundamental issue of confederation, is to emphasize the necessity of national unity. National unity in Canada can be achieved only out of great diversity and by emphasizing those things which all Canadians have in common. I trust that each one of us will be aware of the situation. We are forced by government action into a debate on a matter that is very delicate. It involves a confrontation in extremely sensitive areas, and it is my hope that as the provinces and Ottawa continue to negotiate they will work out a satisfactory formula in the spirit of the law rather than from the standpoint of the letter of the law that will take into consideration the rights of all the minorities in this great country of ours.
o (3:20 p.m.)
With those remarks in mind and so as not to precipitate a confrontation at this moment, and certainly not to dilute the spirit of good will and amity that has been generated thus far this afternoon, I ask for the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Dinsdale) withdrawn.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before Your Honour puts the next amendment, may I put forward for your consideration the question of the exercise of discretion which Your Honour has under the appropriate Standing Order with regard to the calling of votes on amendments which may be considered by the house from time to time. In
June 18, 1969

view of the date of adjournment, would Your Honour give some thought-and hopefully "there will be some discussions on the matter among the house leaders-with regard to deferring the votes in one or two groups so that "the house may know well in advance when the votes will take place. I ask Your Honour to consider this now before we come to the end of the first motion, and in the meantime I hope that the house leaders will be able to meet.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in complete accord with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River. It was my intention to suggest to hon. members that perhaps there should be an exercise of the Chair's discretion in this way and that the vote or votes be deferred until negotiations between the house leaders take place.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take it, because it was the procedure followed on the bill on the Criminal Code, that the amendments now on the order paper have been examined by you and are in order, so that we can prepare ourselves accordingly?


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that if my recollection is correct in connection with the bill on the Criminal Code, rulings were made on amendments as they were reached, although we considered groups of amendments and rulings were made on those. But I might say, if it would be of assistance to hon. members, that these proposed amendments have been examined as closely as possible and in so far as the Chair can judge they appear to be in order. However, this should not be taken as a ruling because it may well be that hon. members on one side or the other may want to raise a point of order when these amendments are moved and, of course, arguments either for or against the procedural points would have to be considered by the Chair at that time. I might say that in a preliminary way it appears that the amendments are in order.
At present the Chair will put for the consideration of hon. members the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid).


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan) moved:: That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by deleting subclause (1) of clause 14 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(1) As soon as possible following the completion of each decennial census, or, in the case of the
Official Languages
decennial census taken in the year 1961, forthwith after the coming into force of this Act, the Dominion Statistician shall prepare and send to the Clerk of the Privy Council a return certified by him showing the population of each of the provinces and census districts in Canada, categorized according to the official languages spoken as a mother tongue by persons resident therein as ascertained by that census, and as soon as possible thereafter the Governor in Council shall, pursuant to Part I of the Inquiries Act, appoint not less than twelve persons, being representative of residents of the several provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as commissioners to constitute a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board for the purpose of conducting an inquiry as described in section 15."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a comparatively simple but, in our opinion, very important amendment to the proposed bill. If hon. members examine clause 14 of the bill as it is now drafted, they will notice that the clause provides in subclause 1 that as soon as possible following the completion of each decennial census the Governor in Council shall, pursuant to Part I of the Inquiries Act, appoint-and these are the important words:
.-not less than five and not more than ten persons, selected as nearly as may be as being representative of residents of the several provinces or principal regions of Canada-
It goes on to say that the Governor in Council shall appoint them:
-as commissioners to constitute a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board for the purpose of conducting an inquiry as described in section 15.
This board will be set up to conduct an inquiry into whether or not any particular area should be designated by the board as a bilingual district. The government, in its wisdom I suggest, during the committee stage of the debate on this bill accepted a proposal submitted by us that this inquiry should include at least one public hearing when the advisory board sits in the various areas to determine whether or not a particular area should be constituted as a bilingual district. Having conducted a public hearing, presumably it will decide whether or not a district should be established as a bilingual district. Our suggestion is that in carrying out a function as important as the actual determination of whether or not an area should be established as a bilingual district this advisory board should be composed of representatives from each of the provinces of Canada and from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
We hear a great deal from the government these days about participatory democracy. Surely this is a way in which the provinces will now be able to really participate in the

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
determination of the question of whether or not bilingual districts should be set up in particular areas. I wish to remind the house at this stage that according to the report of the B and B commission eight of the provinces of Canada can have within them bilingual districts: parts of Ontario, parts of New Brunswick, parts of Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and possibly one district in Alberta. So that even today practically every province of Canada can be affected by the decision of the advisory board. This is why we say that in arriving at a decision as important as this one every province of Canada and the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be represented on that board.
I agree that today there are two provinces-perhaps Newfoundland is a very good example-where there would not be a bilingual district, according to the provisions of this bill. But let us not forget that by reason of the mobility of the population we do not know whether in five or even less years' time Newfoundland may not also qualify as a province in which bilingual districts may be set up. Tremendous expansion is taking place nowadays in the Labrador area. It is possible that French speaking people from Quebec will see fit to move there. So Newfoundland may be affected by this bill at some time in the future even if it is not affected by it today.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We contend that in the interest of fairness every province should be represented on this board. I know it will be argued that it is sufficient to allow representation to regions of Canada. The bill now says the board shall consist of not fewer than five and not more than ten members. It does not even say that every region must be represented. I do not think this is satisfactory in the case of a board which will perform so important a function.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has stated that the proper functioning of this legislation will depend to a great extent upon the co-operation of the provinces. I agree. I hope this plan will function and I hope the provinces will co-operate. Indeed, I am confident we shall obtain co-operation from them. We seriously suggest that as a means of obtaining this co-operation every province should be represented on the advisory board.
It may be objected, as I mentioned earlier, that there are provinces which will have no 
bilingual districts, and that for this reason there is no need for them to be represented. It has even been suggested in committee that such provinces might attempt to boycott the idea of bilingual districts. I dismiss this suggestion as irresponsible. I am confident that the provinces are interested in the principle underlying this bill and that they will not attempt to boycott the setting up of a bilingual district if one were contemplated in accordance with requirements of the legislation.
We need the co-operation of all the provinces, and one of the best ways of obtaining it would be to make sure that every province is represented on the advisory board, the board which will decide whether or not a district shall be a bilingual district. The board will reach a decision of this kind presumably after it has conducted public hearings. What could possibly be wrong about requesting that every province should be represented on this board?
Acceptance of this proposition would not result in an unwieldy board. After all, a board with ten or 12 members is not an unwieldy body; much larger boards have been set up under parliamentary rules and are doing an effective job. Indeed, far from making the board unwieldy we would be making it participatory because every province would be represented, and this is as it should be.
I do not propose to speak at further length.
I shall close simply by recommending the amendment we are proposing.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member put forward a similar amendment before the special committee which studied this bill. After a good deal of discussion, it was not adopted. The government feels there was a thorough examination-and a fair examination-of this bill by the special committee.
Twenty-nine amendments to my count were accepted by the committee. Admittedly some were introduced by myself. Between 10 and 15 were introduced from the government side, five or six at least were introduced on behalf of his party by the hon. member who has just spoken, and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was responsible for the others.
We intend to take the position at this stage of backing the committee report. We feel that if the committee system is to expand and prosper, and if the effectiveness of the role of
June 18, 1969

the individual Member of Parliament is to be increased, the government and, indeed, all parties should pay the proper attention to committee reports. Having regard to what I believe was the good will from all sides shown during the committee proceedings, we intend to support this report.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question before he continues? It concerns the introductory remarks he has just made. He talked about making the committee system work and told us that various amendments were considered in committee, some of which were allowed and some of which were voted down. Are you really saying that any amendments which have been placed on the order paper by members of the opposition will automatically be voted down at this stage because they were considered by the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to do this again, but perhaps the hon. member will keep in mind that he ought to address his remarks to the minister through the Chair.


John Napier Turner: I might say that where an amendment in the terms proposed here, on report stage, has been proposed in similar terms in the committee and has been given thorough scrutiny and discussion, the government takes the position in the main that we should accept the committee report in that respect. It may be that some of these amendments were not proposed in the committee in which case there will have to be a fresh discussion in this chamber.
The purpose of this amendment is to make of the advisory board a strictly representative institution, one upon which every province and territory would be represented. This is underlined by the speech the hon. member has just made, and his reasoning is set out more fully in the record of the committee at pages 220 to 228. The amendment sets a minimum figure of 12 members but no maximum figure, and we think this is objectionable in the sense that it might conceivably lead to a very unwieldy board.
As the hon. member admitted, it is not at all certain that every province will have a bilingual district. Newfoundland and British Columbia would not if the recommendations of the B and B Commission are followed. The bill now provides that members be selected as nearly as may be as being representative of the various principal regions and provinces of Canada. In the bill as it reads there is
Official Languages
already ample flexibility and room for ensuring that the regions of Canada are adequately represented. We do not believe that the bill would be advanced and the law improved by adding the inflexibility of a provision that each province be represented on the board. Those, in the main, Mr. Speaker, would be the reasons for which we would recommend to the house that the amendment be rejected.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. McKinley:: Would the minister permit another question? I wonder whether the minister would try to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet to operate in the same manner when we reach the report of the committee on agriculture.


Mr. Horner:: Transportation too.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that I heartily disagree with the minister's statement that, because the house is faced with the report of a committee that has worked very hard on a bill, the house, the government or anybody else ought to accept the report-period. I think the minister cannot have thought about this matter very carefully because it seems to me to be a most illadvised remark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: If the suggestion were followed it would totally destroy the value of this stage of a bill. Why have the report stage of a bill if the house has to accept automatically everything presented in the report of a committee? Obviously, in view of the new set-up of our committees the intention of the report stage is to give all members of the house an opportunity to deal with a bill and to move amendments. In this way the collective wisdom of all members of the house replaces the collective wisdom of a number of members of the house. This may not always be better wisdom but it does give wider representation. I hope that the minister did not mean what he said in this regard.
Second, I frankly tell the house that some of my colleagues in the New Democratic party caucus have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), though I am not one of them. I fully appreciate the sincerity of the thought behind this motion, but I suggest to hon. members, to my own colleagues and to others that the motion is really not a good one, and for two main reasons.

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
Let me take the more important reason first. There are some provinces from which it might be considered wiser to have two representatives on the advisory board. If I may, I should like to name those provinces. I think it would be very advisable for the future of Canada and for the workings of this advisory board to have Quebec represented by an English speaking as well as a French speaking member, and to have Ontario represented by a French speaking as well as an English speaking member. If you had only the one member for each province then obviously you would limit Quebec to one French speaking member, because the majority of the people in that province are French speaking, and Ontario to one English speaking member for the same obvious reason. In the case of these two large central provinces, where in Quebec there is a large English speaking minority and in Ontario a large French speaking minority, I respectfully urge the government to consider it advisable to permit each province to be represented by more than one member.
I also suggest that it may well be an additional advantage in regard to the working of the bill and the welfare of Canadians that instead of having one member for each of the three prairie provinces, if I may use that area specifically-, there be representatives on the board of some of the minorities who live in the prairie provinces. It may well be much more important to the working of this bill and the purpose the bill is trying to serve to have a member of Ukrainian or German background on the board rather than a member for each of the three prairie provinces where the general situation and attitudes are very similar.
It seems to me that to provide rigidly that there be one member from each province and from each of the two territories is not a good idea in terms of what Canada really requires and what the function of the board will be. It is not a board that will carry on inquiries over a wide spectrum; it will be concerned merely with the consideration of the census and matters related to the establishment of a bilingual district.
I can see arguments on the other side, and I frankly admit that I am not without difficulty in opposing this motion. I can well see, as some of my colleagues have indicated to me with a great deal of validity, that there will be great value in bringing on to the board representatives of provinces that are not likely even to have federal bilingual districts-

the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for one pressed this point upon me-in order that those provinces are brought into the workings of the act in the way in which the hon. member for Cardigan intends. If one were to do that, the board would have a membership even greater than 12.
Personally-and here I come to my second reason for feeling unhappy about this motion-on principle I oppose the notion that every federal body and federal instrument has to be representative of each province and territory in Canada. I think it is about time that our federal institutions concern themselves with the quality of representation rather than with the geography of representation in every case. There are a great many institutions, including even cabinets, that could benefit from a little more quality and a little less geography. That is probably true of this cabinet, as it has been true of other cabinets.
Personally, I cannot support the amendment because of its rigidity and the requirement that there be one member for each province. If the government were to make allowance for the points I have made, which in my view are more important than representation from each of the provinces, then the government would have to add to the 12 members proposed by this motion. I think it is more important to have a representative on the board of the large minority group in Quebec as well as another representative of the large minority group in Ontario, along with people who can express the views and wishes of other minorities in western Canada that are larger than the minority that speaks one of the official languages.
With this kind of representation, which as I say is much more important to me than any sort of mechanical provincial representation, the board might consist of 15 or 18 members instead of 12. I am prepared to place the responsibility for these appointments where it belongs, on the government.
Perhaps this is another opportunity as we start our discussion of the report stage for me to repeat what I said in the first speech, I think, that I made on this bill and also two or three times in committee. This bill will be a blessing rather than a catastrophe only if the government acts in a way that is sensitive to the needs of Canada's future and the needs and wishes of Canada's people-all its people everywhere. This bill will be a blessing rather than a catastrophe only if the government
June 18, 1969

is aware constantly of the fact that its implementation will require some years of education, with positive attention being paid to the removal of misunderstanding and prejudices across the country. This bill will be of value to Canada only if the government is sensitive to the need to remove the fears of employees of the government and of its corporations and agencies, as well as those who may want to become employees of the government and its crown corporations in the future, and applies this law with sensitivity to the factors I have outlined.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This bill will work only if the government has sense enough to appoint members to the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board who will in fact be representative of the various sections of this country as well as the various minorities to be found right across Canada. This bill will be of value only if this government will have the intelligence and sensitivity to appoint as commissioner a person who understands what makes Canada tick and what are the various streams and currents in our country's life, and if it will avoid, as I have said more than once, replacing one injustice which we are trying to remove with a new injustice which will merely serve to divide this country all over again. No words in the bill will accomplish this.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We must be concerned about the spirit of the law.


David Lewis: Yes. The spirit of the law will be important. You may have 12 members on the advisory board to represent every province and territory and they may be a bunch of copper-headed, obstinate, adamant, insensitive people who will ride roughshod over the situation. If that is the case the bill will have accomplished nothing. It will not have given us anything of value.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the hon. member a question? How does he distinguish between the rule of law and the rule of a person who may be a dictator? As I understood him, he said that nothing has been written into the bill to protect any of us. Surely we prefer to be ruled by law and not to be ruled by people who may be dictators.


David Lewis: It must be my fault that the hon. member for Calgary North did not hear me. Or perhaps he was listening to a more important conversation. I do not know. I did not say at all or suggest at all what he says I said or suggested. I said that the quality of
Official Languages
the people who will serve on the board and act as commissioner is an important consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know.


David Lewis: It is most important to see that the right kinds of people are appointed. It is the way in which the government will approach this matter and the way in which the minister responsible for implementing this law will approach it that is important. If the minister responsible for implementing the law, whoever he may be, is an obstinate, copper-headed bull in a china shop and appoints people who display a like attitude, then this law will be a disaster. But if the government and the minister and the people appointed all approach this law with the sensitivity it requires, then I believe we shall have taken a tremendous step in removing an important grievance from which some of our people have suffered for a century. That is why I support the principle of the bill.
To make further reply to the hon. member, I was trying to say that the quality of the people who take over the job of actually administering the law is not something you can write into the bill. Whether you have 10 members or 12 members on the board will not in the end make much difference if the kinds of people appointed are people who will implement the law in the wrong way.
I am prepared to place the responsibility where, in my view, it lies. Hon. members will be here as Members of Parliament and parliament will be here. If the government approaches this law in a way in which some hon. members fear it may-I have not seen enough evidence to warrant that fear but I am as watchful as any other hon. member-we shall take appropriate action. My colleagues and I will be as watchful as any members of the house to make sure that this law helps Canadian unity and does not hinder it, that it unites us and does not divide us, and that it does not place any Canadian at an unnecessary or unjust advantage vis-a-vis the government and vis-a-vis employment in the public sector, whether that employment is in the Public Service or in a Crown corporation. But the responsibility lies with the treasury benches. I am prepared to leave that responsibility where it lies and to speak to the people of Canada when the time comes if that responsibility is not carried out as it ought to be.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I cannot support the amendment.

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
Some of my colleagues who are sympathetic toward it may well support it. It is not the kind of amendment on which the principle of the bill rests. I cannot support it for the two reasons I have given. First, it is rigid. It is wrong for federal institutions to be rigidly representative of geographic areas when they ought to be flexibly representative of the quality of the people of the country, as that quality is related to the purposes of this act. Second, I believe there are areas which ought to be represented by more than one member so that minorities as well as majorities can be represented in the province in question. Also, there are minority groups in this country which need to be represented on this board much more urgently than every one of a group of provinces displaying similar histories and similar attitudes on the part of their peoples.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering an amendment put forward by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), to amend clause 14 of the official languages bill, as reported to the house by the special committee on the official languages bill.
This amendment concerns membership on a certain Bilingual Districts Advisory Board. To place the discussion in its proper context, I will recall that clause 14 of the bill, as brought back before the house by the special committee on the official languages bill, a group which, incidentally, deserves to be congratulated on its efficient work, a good demonstration of the importance of national unity at this time provides for the appointment of five to six commissioners.
The number is not specified. The text reads, in part, as follows:
-not less than five and not more than ten persons, selected as nearly as may be as being representative of residents of the several provinces or principal regions of Canada, as commissioners to constitute a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board-
Now the honourable member for Cardigan has probably noticed that Canada includes not a certain number, but a definite number of provinces. He also noted that the census in Canada does not cover merely a few, but all provinces.
He probably felt-I imagine these were his motives'-that the question of establishing bilingual districts was of concern to the whole nation and should not merely arouse the interest, but also require the participation of 
every Canadian province in this great undertaking of bilingualism throughout Canada, under the official languages bill. Consequently, he proposes to make a slight change in clause 14, to make it a bit more specific, which reads as follows:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
-appoint not less than twelve persons, being representatives of residents of several provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories,... to constitute a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board-
I heard the remarks of the mover of this motion, as well as those of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and, to my mind, their arguments were very weak.
From the parliamentary point of view and in the spirit of the official languages bill, I feel that the reply of the Minister of Justice-even though he did excellent work as well as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier)-was unsatisfactory and weak in the face of the argument set forth by the member for Cardigan.
Let us say that I was more in favour of the motion of the member. After having heard the member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I no longer have any doubts; I am completely in favour of the amendment and hope the majority of my colleagues are also. The argument of the member for York South-who is bent on opposing the amendment-is weaker than that of the minister. In addition, the reasoning of the member for York South is wily and does not follow either the spirit or the letter of the amendment of the member for Cardigan.
I want to restore the debate in its true context, briefly. We must not fall into sentimentality. There has been too much of it with regard to confederation, bilingualism and Canada. That is why we are so far behind in solving the problem of national unity. It is time to come back to earth in order to build a great Canada where everyone's interests will be respected.
It is precisely in this perspective of respect for individual interests that I speak in this manner because, in short, the confederation is composed of different provinces which are rather different one from another geographically, culturally, psychologically and traditionally.	.
Therefore, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan is more in accordance with the image of Canada as it should be and as we all want it to be. Clause 14 of the bill seems to grant the governor in council a power which I would term discretionary in some fields.
June 18, 1969

I do not fear the governor in council-far from it-we trust him but since the making of national unity is a national endeavour as well as that of bilingualism, according to the wording of the languages bill, in which every province must co-operate closely, permanently, it goes without saying that each province and the Northwest Territories should have a representative on this Bilingual Districts Advisory Council in order to express the opinion of their citizens about the analysis of the results of the census which has just been taken, according to the preamble of clause 14.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of clause 14, one can read, and I quote:
As soon as possible following the completion of each decennial census, or, in the case of the decennial census taken in the year 1961, forthwith after the coming into force of this act,-
And here, Mr. Speaker, is what I would like to bring to the attention of this house:
-the coming into force of this act, the Dominion Statistician shall prepare and send to the clerk of the Privy Council a return certified by him showing the population of each of the provinces-
This is exactly how clause 14 begins-
-of each of the provinces and census districts in Canada, categorized according to the official languages spoken as a mother tongue by persons resident therein as ascertained by that census.
Following production of that return by the Dominion Statistician, it is proposed to entrust the Privy Council with the setting up of that Bilingual Districts Advisory Board which will conduct inquiries and gather statistical data in each province.
If we accept the introductory statement to clause 14, as the minister is urging us to do, the analysis of the statistics in each province would enable the government to follow population movements between censuses and to determine whether conditions have changed in bilingual districts and whether the creation of a new bilingual district has become necessary. It seems to me desirable for each province to be represented, but not, as the hon. member for York South suggested, by two citizens from Ontario because this is an English-speaking province, or by two persons from Quebec because this is a French-speaking province. It should rather be, as the hon. member for Cardigan pointed out, and rightly so, by one representative from each province, who could analyze the statistical data and determine to what extent that bill may apply.
Mr. Speaker, I should not like to delay the debate any further, but I wanted to make my views known with respect to clause 14. Even though we support that bill, in which we take
Official Languages
pride, the fact remains that clause 14 leaves much to be desired. And I shall quote it in part:
-shall appoint not less than five and not more than ten persons, selected as nearly as may be as being representative of residents of the several provinces-
And I would like to conclude my remarks on this point.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice as I did the broadmindedness, the compliance of the government when it says:
-persons, selected as nearly as may be as being representative of residents of the several provinces or principal regions of Canada-
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is too vague. At times, five members will constitute the Board, at times six, seven or ten members. Who will decide? The Governor in Council. Who is interested in that question? All the residents of Canada, all the Canadian citizens, essentially, all the equal partners in confederation.
If the provinces are equal partners in confederation, Mr. Speaker, the number of members on the Advisory Board must not be determined, in the establishment of bilingual districts, simply upon the mood of the governor in council according to whether he will feel great one morning or will base his decision on the result of the census.
If the provinces are equal partners, if each of them has its say in connection with bilingualism, national unity, it seem obvious to me-and the government and its representatives should recognize it-that each province, in that capacity, should have its say, and not have the right to veto. It is not necessary to have, as the Secretary of State pointed out in the committee, another constitutional conference, a second parliament, or to duplicate the work of the committees, because this committee considers a very specific matter, that of the establishment of bilingual districts.
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the provinces must have their say, because it seems to me-and this is my last argument- that we are studying the Constitution at this time. Everybody hears of the famous constitutional conference. What outcry would be raised not only among opposition members but even among government members, if, upon creating such a constitutional conference, the government said: There will be between five and ten representatives of the various Canadian provinces at the constitutional conference.
10326
Official Languages

June 18, 1969
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In fact, the revision of our constitution must concern all the provinces which should be present as equal partners.
The establishment of a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board is, to my mind, a related question. There is no question of creating a second parliament or a second constitutional conference, but merely of recognizing bilingual districts.
Mr. Speaker, just as it would not be logical for a constitutional conference to invite only five to ten officials, at the discretion of the governor in council, neither would it be logical to ask only five to ten persons, at the discretion of the government, to sit on that Bilingual Districts Advisory Board.
In concluding, I would like the government to study the proposal of the hon. member for Cardigan. I want to congratulate him on his willingness to co-operate with the government, while attempting to improve the law which should serve the interests of all Canadians.
It is therefore quite logical and fair that each province be represented, as well as the Northwest Territories, on the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house very long. I simply wish to start by complimenting the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who has shown glimpses of the wit and discernment which I am sure will some day make him a great parliamentarian, particularly when he supports amendments offered by this party. I think he has put forward very succinct and valid reasons for his and his party's support of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid).
I should like first to deal with the merits of the substance which have been more than enumerated by the hon. member for Cardigan and the hon. member for Lotbiniere and point out two or three areas of discussion which may not have been dealt with. I must also say I am very surprised that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) made such a weak defence. He did not direct his attention to the merits of the substance of the matter. His defence in effect was a procedural one which I propose to demolish to the extent it has not been demolished by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
The hon. member for York South, who is the only member so far to take up the cudgels for the government or attempt to rationalize

the government's position, has made a very fine philosophical statement which is the sort of thing which might be offered during a lecture to justify under certain circumstances not having a detailed type of representation on certain federal boards. This might be delightful, but we must live with the situation as it exists today where secondary governments are now comprised of provincial governments to the extent that there are 10 of them in confederation. We can forget all about what the hon. member for York South said in that type of approach because we must get down to the realities of life in respect of this bill.
The government, for reasons which it must have considered adequate, has directed the attention of the advisory board by clause 14 and also clause 15, because we are referred to clause 15 by clause 14, to the need to negotiate with provincial governments. If the advisory board had been set up in terms of a direction to the Governor in Council to appoint an advisory board of not fewer than and not more than ten members and to refrain from in any way trying to identify the areas from which the personnel on the board should come, then the hon. member for York South in making his representation on behalf of the government would be making a fairly good case. But the government did not do that. The government did not stop there. A board is mentioned with representation from the several provinces or principal regions. There is an indication of a recognition of the fact that because of the peculiarities of this legislation and the way it is to be administered it is desirable to have this brought about.
The government recognizes the Canadian system half way. Clause 15 points out very plainly in respect of the advisory board:
-and after holding such public hearings, if any, as it considers necessary and after consultation with the government of each of the provinces-
That is subclause 1. Subclause 2 in effect goes on to constitute the board as the agent for and on behalf of the government to negotiate draft agreements and to implement parts of the principles which are involved in this bill with the provincial governments. That being the case, the government itself in this bill has made the case for the proposal made by the hon. member for Cardigan; the government has justified it. I am not saying that each member from a province constitutes an ambassador or minister in negotiating separately and severally with the provinces, but
June 18. 1969

there is a case made by the government legislation for there to be a type of at least provincial representation, and of course I add representation from the territories as well.
I think the government has made the case for us by pointing out that there will be these instructions to the advisory board to negotiate draft agreements. I believe it is a condition precedent to the effective functioning of such a board that there should be from each province and each territory a person well acquainted with the conditions which prevail in that particular area who is prepared to carry his views and representations to the advisory board as he sees them so that when the board then negotiates with the provinces under clauses 14 and 15 it will have a point of view. Certainly after the discussions have been completed there will be a consensus, but that consensus cannot be brought about unless it has been brought forward through the representatives. For this reason I must dismiss the argument advanced by the hon. member for York South on behalf of the government. I hate to insist on using that expression, but it has been so apparent I must insist on it. I urge that the amendment of the hon. member for Cardigan, supported by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, should receive the sympathetic consideration of the house.
I am pleased to collaborate with the hon. member for York South in attacking the minister for what I consider to be his inadequate defence. Knowing his capacity for delivering ingenious arguments I can only concede that his failure to deal with this matter on its merits indicates he understands that there is no defence on the merits. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I am sorry for him for having to put forward the weak fabric of defence which he did. If we accept at face value what the Minister of Justice said-and I agree here wholeheartedly with the hon. member for York South-the whole purpose of the committee system and report structure vanishes; it goes down the drain..
In the committee on procedure and later in the house-I am driven to resort to this because the minister raised the issue-we looked at the question of whether or not the discussion and vote on an issue in a committee would prohibit the matter being raised again in the house. It was decided by those hon. members who reviewed the procedures of the house that we should not follow the practice in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and that the disposition of an amendment before a standing committee
Official Languages
would in no way prohibit an opportunity for that amendment to be brought back into the house at the report stage to be discussed, debated and the question put. I shall not go into the reasons for that because they are on the record. The reasons are adequate and should be final. If this is not accepted, then quite obviously the rather unique procedure which the house has devised for dealing with matters at the report stage will vanish; it will be of no use for any member of the house to put forward an amendment and bring it into the house for discussion at the report stage.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This will mean that the committees will be a battleground. That is what they should be in part-I do not deny that-but one of the most important purposes of the establishment of the committee system was to give an opportunity to the members to question, scrutinize, seek information and ferret out the facts and then come back into the house and put up the kind of argument in respect of important issues which should be put up, based on information they had been able to obtain at the committee meetings.
This has had an ancillary benefit which in my opinion is good. The proceedings of committees are not as partisan at all times as we find necessary in the house. I am not against partisanship. That is what we are here for in part, but the committees are not as partisan. I suggest to Your Honour and the members of this house that if what the Minister of Justice has suggested is accepted, and it will be accepted if it is voted upon and that is the only defence the government puts up, it will mean that the committees will become highly partisan. The issues directed to the committees will be issues dealt with by the government through constant and continuing consultation with its own members on the committee. The opportunity for a far more objective and reasonable examination will vanish, and great damage will have been done to what we are now groping in this house to achieve.
I hope the minister will reconsider. I think this amendment is a very reasonable one. I hope he will use the intelligence and wisdom I know he possesses and stand up and say that after reconsideration, having listened particularly to the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), he is withdrawing his objection and agrees that this amendment should carry.

June 18, 1963
Official Languages


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Vicloria):: Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid).
I was on the committee and I realize that this amendment similar to the one that was defeated there. I believe that there might be some advantage in again calling the attention of the government to the point stressed in that amendment. As far as I am concerned, and for the reasons I have already put forward in committee, I shall vote against the amendment.
A while ago, the hon. member for Cardigan, behind the scenes, so to say, referred to what he called an irresponsible statement. I see that he is smiling. Evidently, I felt that his remarks were directed against me, since I was really the person concerned, but he did not see fit to point to me as such.
Mr. Speaker, it is always dangerous to quote words out of context and, in a way, I rise on a question of privilege, because I would like to clear up this matter.
When I spoke on the amendment in committee, in an attempt, such as I am making today, to reconcile the views of the hon. member for Cardigan and those of the government, I said:
It seems to me that we are determining that there shall be one representative of each province, as well as one representative for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The following situation could well happen with regard to the committee. The representatives of the provinces that do not have any bilingual districts or have very few bilingual districts would overwhelm the representatives of the provinces with several or even many bilingual districts.
In this way they could,-
That is the representatives of the provinces that do not have any or have very few bilingual districts.
-in this way, they could, simply through their numerical strength, thwart the will of the minority to establish bilingual districts.
That is the statement the hon. member was referring to a moment ago and he qualified it as irresponsible.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of committees is to consider, scrutinize in depth all the possible effects that any legislation or regulation will have, and it is in this spirit that I dealt with this subject. I did not say that could be done. I depend on the government's judgment to appoint committee members who will have an open mind and who will interpret the law not according to

the letter but to its spirit. It is in this sense that I gave that example.
I do not hold to it too strongly, but here is what I said:
In my opinion, we should try above all to ensure a representation of districts in Canada rather than of the provinces as such.
You will agree with hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that we are now moving towards regional rather than provincial representation, in many fields. I know that there are now many federal committees and commissions on which all the provinces are not represented, but which are working out well all the same. Those committees represent regional or private interests, and they have to settle regional or private problems. For that reason, there is no need for a representative from every province.
Furthermore, I said to the committee:
-this Is the important point.
Regional, instead of provincial representation.
-on the other hand-
-and that is in keeping with what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said a moment ago.
-I would fear this: if there were only 5 commissioners, for instance,-
As under the law the governor in council is authorized to appoint five to ten of them.
-we could appoint two from Quebec, one English-speaking and one French-speaking, two from Ontario, again one French and one English, and one representative from the Atlantic provinces, which would make five.
A minimum of five on one committee.
So, the West would not be represented-
There is in the West a significant Frenchspeaking minority that would not be represented on that committee. And I just cannot see what there is to gain by appointing one representative for each province of Canada.
This is a struggle with numbers which would lead us nowhere. The hon. members of the opposition have all spoken-some with much eloquence-in favour of this legislation, and now they are all fighting over the matter of numerical representation.
It seems to me that it is wrong for them to insist on this, and I would urge them to vote for this legislation as reported on by the committee and to vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan.
June 18, 1969


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere want to ask a question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Will the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria (Mr. Corbin) permit a question?


Eymard G. Corbin: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: In view of the fact that he recognizes that any member of a committee has the right and the privilege to look more closely into a subject, I would like to ask him if he does not recognize that hon. members should have the same right?


Eymard G. Corbin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite catch the meaning of the question. Would the hon. member put his question
again?


André-Gilles Fortin: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
In his speech, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria pointed out that on a committee, a member may look more closely into a matter, but at the same time he said that it was a pity that hon. members should dwell on such petty details as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan.
So, I would like to ask him if he does not recognize that the house, too, has a right to study a matter thoroughly in the same way as he recognizes that the members on a committee have that right?


Eymard G. Corbin: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, but so far, all the members who have taken part in the debate are those who took part in the study in committee, and they did not break any new ground. Thus, in my opinion, we are wasting our time.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
tEnglish]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I believe some aspects of this amendment have been overlooked in the debate so far and should be brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith). It was interesting to hear the speech of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I found it strange that a person with his background should rely so heavily upon the spirit and intent of the legislation rather than concerning himself with the law. Laws are made to
Official Languages
safeguard justice, to ensure the fair treatment of all people. I ask the hon. member to think back several years to the time when the leader of a country did away with laws, forgot about the spirit and intent of the law and ruled severely against a minority group in that country.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member suggest that this amendment was really not necessary. He said the responsibility in this regard rested with the government and it did not really matter what safeguards were written into the bill because they would be no good if the spirit was not there. That was a rather interesting argument from one of his background. We have only to think of Hitler, who disregarded the laws of Germany and the safeguards written into them and ruled very severely against a minority group in that country.
It is my sincere belief that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) constitutes a definite improvement of the bill. As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested, clause 15 of the bill brings this question within the sphere of the provinces. Clause 15(3) provides quite clearly that the provinces shall be consulted in regard to this question. It may be necessary to draft an agreement with the provinces in order that the purpose of the bill is carried out. The hon. member for Peace River dealt capably and at length with this matter.
The bill sets out criteria which provide that the government shall to some extent listen to the views of the provinces on this question. The amendments sets out that there shall be at least 12 people appointed as commissioners of a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board. The amendment does not limit the number to 12. If the hon. member for York South believes that minority groups in the central provinces should have representation on the board, I interpret the amendment as allowing for more than 12 members to be appointed. If it is thought that a board of 12 would be unwieldy, I would remind the house that in connection with another bill we amalgamated three or four boards and created a board of 17 members. It was not thought that this was unwieldy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member's argument is valid.
This bill was considered by a committee of the house. I should like to quote a statement made to the committee because I believe it is in error. I refer to Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 1 of the Special Committee

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
on the Official Languages Bill. At page 51 thereof we find the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) making the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, I might take a remark that might be useful to Mr. McQuaid when he drafts his amendment. There are only eight provinces who have bilingual districts according to the recommendations of the Bilingual and Bicultural Commission, which means that ten was deemed to be a sufficient number to have all the interested provinces in the group. Now, I just say this for information.
If this is the foundation of clause 14 of the hill, it is very weak. It is a weak foundation because bilingual districts were set out by the B and B Commission on the basis of census districts within the provinces. This bill does not do that, because clause 13 quite clearly provides the following:
A bilingual district established under this act shall be an area delineated by reference to the boundaries of any or all of the following, namely, a census district established pursuant to the Statistics Act, a local government or school district, or a federal or provincial electoral district or region.
A school district may be a very small area containing few people. One can easily see that under this bill there will be no province in Canada, including the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, that will not have a bilingual district if the letter of the law is carried out and the criterion of a school district is used. The B and B Commission specifically spelled out that a census district was to be the criterion, and as a rule a census district is a large area. If, as suggested in Committee Proceedings No. 1, the foundation for clause 14 is based on that premise, it is a false and poor premise because clause 13 destroys the premise.
The Minister of Justice said this matter was debated in committee and therefore the house should agree to the findings of the committee. This is a very weak defence. Committees are appointed to investigate questions and obtain information regarding the application of a piece of legislation, but the final and conclusive drafting of the legislation rests with the House of Commons. It must forever rest with the House of Commons because here all the people of Canada are represented. Committees sometimes exclude certain groups of people, areas of the country and those who represent huge areas and think in specific ways. Therefore the findings of a committee are not binding on the House of Commons and should not be accepted by the Minister of Justice. Committees do not always consider
IMr. Homer.]
legislation in a fair and just way, and therefore legislation should not be based upon the findings of a committee.
The Minister of Justice, of all people, should not make the kind of statement he did. I know the minister attempts to be fair in most cases, and I am sure that on reflection he will regret having made that statement. Perhaps in the not too distant future he will tell the house that he has taken a different view of this question. It is my firm belief that the provinces have a direct concern in the legislation now before us.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is all well and good for the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) to say that we are now getting around to the stage of dealing with Canada by regions. I noted the Prime Minister's remarks with regard to regions at the last federal-provincial conference. Dealing with Canada as a place divided into regions is, to me, in direct contravention of the B.N.A. Act. Certainly we have not yet reached that stage. We still have provincial boundaries, regardless of whether this is right or wrong. Perhaps the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria wants a union of the maritime provinces. I do not know his thinking in that regard.


An hon. Member:: He does not want it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he does not, then why promote it? That is just what he was doing in his remarks this afternoon. It is my firm belief that each province wants a representative on the board who it feels will look after its interests. I also believe that each province should know who that representative is and whether or not he is protecting its interests. The decisions of the board will affect the province, will affect the provincial educational system and will affect the municipalities. Eventually, working agreements will have to be made with the provinces in the later stages of the application of this bill. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) knows that to be a fact.
It is my belief that a resident of the province can serve a useful purpose in participating in the discussions which the board will be having which will affect his province. Who knows a particular province better than a resident of it who is responsible to it? It is all well and good for me, a resident of Alberta, to be made responsible for the province of Ontario, of which, incidentally, I am very fond, but I do not think the people of Ontario
June 18, 1969

would particularly like me to sit on this board on their behalf.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because I am not likely to know the province as well as someone who resides in it, and I would not know the specific areas which will be affected by this legislation as well as one who resides in that province.
There is no reason whatever why the government cannot accept this amendment. If they believe in a participatory democracy, if they believe in subclauses 2 and 3 of clause 15, there is no reason why they should not accept the amendment. If clause 14 is drafted on a premise which, as the minister suggests at page 51 of the proceedings of the committee, is based on the recommendations of the B and B commission that only eight provinces will have bilingual districts, then I suggest that that premise is false because clause 13 contradicts it. I see an hon. member over there shaking his head. I would like to hear him explain why clause 13 does not contradict that premise.
I read the report of the B and B commission in that regard. The report says specifically that districts will be established on census divisions and not according to the size of school districts, municipal districts or provincial or federal ridings, and this is what this bill deals with. If the government wants to promote the idea that it is interested in bringing this legislation into being and fully recognizes the uncertain mood that exists in this country with regard to this legislation, then in all fairness to the house it has no alternative but to accept the amendment. If the government wishes to disregard the suspicions about this legislation in these areas, if it wants to ride roughshod over these feelings toward the bill, then it must bear the consequences. If the government wants to choose representatives from the five or six major provinces and one member from the mari-times and one member from western Canada to make up the proposed membership of five up to ten on the board, then I believe it will only add to the suspicions that are rampant across the country concerning this legislation.
The minister can sit there with a studied look on his face as if he did not care about what is being said in the house. This legislation is under his jurisdiction and it is his duty to pay attention to the mood of the public of Canada as a responsible official and an elected representative. If he wishes to sit
Official Languages
in sullen silence and disregard this amendment, then I can only conclude that he does not care. He is like Pierre, he does not care. As I have already pointed out, clause 14 is based on a false premise. Clause 15 directly involves the provinces, and there is no one in the house who can honestly say that his province does not want its own representative to sit on the board. It seems to me that the issue we are debating this afternoon is a very important one because of the unrest and the suspicions which exist in the country today concerning this legislation. The government has an opportunity to set those fears and concerns at rest by accepting this amendment.
I am pleased to see the Minister of Justice come into the house; I am sorry that I have nearly concluded my remarks and I would hate to have to repeat them for his sake.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Gérard Pelletier: Dispense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Finally we have a comment from the studious minister. As I was saying before the Minister of Justice came in, I was disappointed with his remarks.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no, not again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will try to be brief.


John Napier Turner: I will read the hon. member's remarks in Hansard.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is this bill a laughing matter across Canada?


An hon. Member:: You are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is an interesting remark by the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Don't provoke us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not worry about provoking hon. members. What I worry about is the representation that my constituents will have on the board and about the way in which the application of this bill will affect my province. I certainly do not worry about whom I may provoke.
I suggest that this amendment should be accepted. It seeks to amend a clause which is based on a false premise. As found on page 51 of the committee's proceedings the Secretary of State made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, I might take a remark that might be useful to Mr. MeQuaid when he drafts his amendment. There are only eight provinces who have bilingual districts according to the recommendations of the Bilingual and Bicultural Commission, which means that ten was deemed to be


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), let me say first of all that I know full well that the words spoken by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) were spoken with sincerity. He expects the government to stand up and be counted, and to maintain the respect in which it was held when the last election was conducted. At that time the government was expected, when introducing this legislation, to be truthful to the rest of the nation. I can assure the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) that what the hon. member for York South said very plainly was that as members of this house we would ensure that the rights of every individual in this country are well looked after. I am sure every hon. member of the house, particularly every responsible member, realizes that the hon. member for York South is fully aware of the situation in this country and that he fully understands the general principles of this bill, recognizing that this measure is something the nation must have.
Having said this, let me add that there are members of our party who do not agree that this amendment is a bad one. I am one who believes that the amendment is entitled to support. If we are to be a true democracy, the people of the entire nation ought to be represented on any board which is set up. In this connection I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Western Producer of June 12. It outlines clearly the position we are likely to come to unless we broaden the representation on this advisory board. The article states:
The controversy over the official languages bill indicates that Canada is not yet a nation in spirit. It is still a collection of regions whose isolation from one another is both geographic and psychological.
The editorial continues:
There is evidence that much of this regional opposition has been based on misunderstandings. Also, many Canadians are preoccupied with pressing "bread and butter" problems such as inflation, housing and sagging wheat sales. Naturally, they regard cultural legislation as a luxury at such a time.
The government should realize that if it sets up a board of the kind proposed without making provision for proper representation from the provinces across this nation there is bound to be misunderstanding. It is bound to
June 18. 1969

Official Languages
result in a further lack of communication have been made. In this regard I need only between the various parts of Canada, refer to what happened in the committee on although the need for effective communica- Transport and Communications. The evidence tion has never been greater. I am familiar speaks for itself. I cast no reflection on with the situation in western Canada. Western- individual members serving on committees ers believe the cabinet is responsible for a but I believe that if this legislation is the failure of communication in connection with most important which the government has to the serious agricultural situation there. I do offer-and it seems that it is-hon. gentlemen not propose to drag the subject of agriculture opposite should have had their top cabinet into this debate, but I think it can be used for men on that committee, giving direct expresthe purpose of drawing an analogy. If the bill before us now is passed in its present form without provision being made for proper representation on the board we are asking for trouble over this issue just as we are asking for trouble, and do have trouble, with regard to agriculture.
I accept the principle of this bill in its entirety. Hon. members who are supporting the amendment are merely asking that there be true representation on the advisory board.
I do not think this is asking too much. I was disappointed to hear the minister suggest that what was done in the committee would dictate the procedure at the report stage in the house. I may say I took exception to the small size of the special committee which studied this legislation. My personal view is that a committee as small in numbers as the one which studied this bill could not really be representative. I was also disappointed to find that the government had asked many younger Members of Parliament, people for whom I have the highest regard, to serve on this committee, because I realized that the dictation comes from the front bench. Those people should stand on their own feet.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has just said, in substance, that we younger government members receive instructions and even orders from the government or from the minister.
I wish to go on record as disputing the validity of this statement and I will even say that I personally presented an amendment quite out of line with the views of my government, which proves my ability to do my own thinking and to stand on my own feet.


John Leroy Skoberg: The hon. member is to be congratulated if he did propose such an amendment, but during the time I have been attending committee meetings I have seen too much evidence that members on the government side change their minds after decisions
sion to their views.
The west is vitally concerned, Mr. Speaker, about its representation both in Ottawa and elsewhere. The west is vitally concerned about the degree of recognition accorded it by eastern and central Canada in particular. Things are going on which make the west highly suspicious of anything the government does. I do not necessarily believe that any member of the cabinet would deliberately bypass issues affecting western Canada but in today's situation it is very important that every board, every committee and every advisory body set up by the government should be truly representative of the entire nation. If hon. members opposite are prepared to invite separatism they can certainly do it by refusing representation to the west on an advisory board such as the one the government is proposing to set up at the present time.
We recognize that the board will have considerable power. We recognize also that the commissioner to be appointed will have considerable power. The government has, I realize, written safeguards into the bill, but I think it is of great importance that the commissioner should be familiar with the situation in every province of this nation. Let us avoid a situation developing in which the west can say, once again: We told you so.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It is easy for me to address public meetings in my constituency and support the principle of the language bill, and this I do at every opportunity. But it is very difficult to convince the people in the west that their wishes are being taken into account. I urge the government to consider the points I have made and to ensure that the commissioner is fully familiar with the wishes of the entire nation, not just one particular segment of the country.
If we are to bridge the communication gap, I suggest, that the only way to do so is to adopt the amendment that is before the house at this time. I believe that the entire nation, but certainly the people in the west,
10334

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
are quite unfamiliar with the circumstances surrounding the languages bill. Again I should like to quote the editorial in the Western Producer:
-public misunderstanding and economic worries -the federal government must accept much of the blame. For months, the government failed to explain the need for the language bill and its limited scope.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the ministers who will be responsible for the implementation of this bill and the regulations to be drawn up after its passage to realize there is still a selling job to be done in the west. I am sure there are circumstances in that area completely unknown to the ministers. A situation that is really not improving can still be remedied. The general consensus in the west is that there is an appreciation of the two languages concept. People in the west appreciate the British North America Act and agree there is no reason the young people should not learn two languages. I agree that it is the young people who should learn two languages rather than starting at the top and working downward. This is a point I have made before. If the government is prepared to make the effort there is still time to reach a complete understanding on the languages bill, but to date nothing has been done.
I suggest that if this motion is defeated by the government, we may see a move toward separatism that will be unparalleled. I am sure that no member of this house wants to see that happen. Certainly I would be the last to do anything to incur the disfavour of the people of this nation. We should make all citizens feel they are part of Canada instead of dividing them between east and west.
Personally, I do not think the motion before the house is asking too much. I believe it will give the provinces of British Columbia and Newfoundland representation on the advisory board. Then if a bilingual district is ever created in either province, the representative concerned would be entirely familiar with the circumstances. He would be in a position to know the ins and outs and would have the experience so necessary in establishing a bilingual district under this bill. I can see no reason for members opposing the motion, particularly if they bear in mind that at the moment those two provinces do not have the required percentage necessary to establish a bilingual district. However, in the event that a bilingual district were created in the future, the representatives of the two provinces will be able to do a much more effective job than someone unfamiliar with the circumstances.

Surely the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) is not asking all that much that it cannot be approved by the government.
My final words are that if we do want to create a communication gap one way to do so is to leave out two provinces from the ambit of any legislation passed by this house. All legislation passed by the house concerns the people of this nation, and in return for their tax dollars they are entitled to have equal representation on any advisory board that is set up by the government.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members know that during the last debate I was in favour of the principle of the bill before us.
But at that time, I had mentioned to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) that the public should be as much informed as possible on that bill.
When I said that the minister had to inform the public fully on all aspects of the bill before us, I was right, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) complained recently that the implications of the official languages bill have not been understood all across Canada. In fact, the previous speaker has just stated that the message has not been construed in the same manner in western Canada.
I know that the members of my party have also made this exception during our discussions on this bill.
I was not very impressed this afternoon by the warnings of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to the effect that the amendment moved by my colleague had to be defeated.
Indeed if the minister claims that committees are in a position to solve the whole problem, it means that the bill, at the report stage in the house, cannot be amended in any way. In my opinion, this principle expounded by the Minister of Justice is wrong.
True, the role of committees is to consider the legislation submitted to them, to do the research and to obtain the information. But hon. members also have the right, the duty and the responsibility, at the report stage to move amendments in order to improve the bill under consideration.
I wonder why the government rejects the amendment before us. It does not affect at all the principle of the bill, but simply purports to give the provinces responsible for setting up bilingual districts the right to appoint
June 18, 1969

representatives on the Commission and on the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I said at the outset, the Prime Minister complained that the newspapers did not give adequate information to the people about the bill. At that time I had also told the Secretary of State that he should' do all he could to inform the population about the consequences of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the Advisory Board living in the province involved will know best the problems of the bilingual districts. As I said earlier, I do not see what valid argument the government can put forward to reject the amendment we moved this afternoon.
Obviously, sections 14 and 15 must be seen in the same context, and if we want the population of the provinces which will have to take part in the establishment of bilingual districts to be well informed on the sitting up of those districts, the best procedure would be to appoint representatives of each province on the Advisory Board.
The hon. member for York South said this afternoon that for committees and commissions, we must stop seeking a geographical representation and we should particularly try to get men of ability. I told him that to take geographical boundaries into consideration does not exclude the possibility of making a good choice. To me, the argument of the hon. member for York-South is very weak.
Even if we ask for a geographical representation, so to speak, on this Advisory Board, nothing prevents us at the same time from appointing proficient people.
I would like to hear the Secretary of State put forward a more convincing argument than that of the Minister of Justice this afternoon to show us that our amendment is worthless.
The previous speaker of the New Democratic Party, as well as Creditiste members told us that our amendment was valid and should be incorporated in the legislation in order to ensure that the provinces will be adequately represented on the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a reasonable and logical request which would help the government to make the people better understand the substance of the bill now under consideration for the establishment of bilingual districts.
29180-654J
Official Languages
I therefore urge the Secretary of State to put forward more serious arguments indicating that our amendment is not worth anything, that it would not serve the interests of the provinces, that it would not facilitate understanding and the establishment of bilingual districts. I would ask all those who have heard the points made by members of this side of the house to consider them thoroughly before rejecting the amendment.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker,
I had the opportunity to sit on the committee which studied this legislation, and I approved a very similar amendment that was being discussed: I should therefore like to support also the amendment before us.
Furthermore, I should like to start by calling your attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) which, in my opinion, are shallow, not to say irresponsible. Therefore, as the question of my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) indicated, if we do not have in the house the same opportunities to look fully into a bill or some clauses of a bill, we might wonder what we are doing here.
Ten or fifteen members of a committee cannot have the infused knowledge required to make decisions on behalf of 264 members, all the more as a member of the committee might be absent when a clause is being considered. As the N.D.P. and the Ralliement creditiste have only one representative each, it might happen that the views of their electors are not expressed on account of their representative's absence. And that can happen. Therefore, it is extremely important that we make a thorough study here in the house of some disputable points, for instance the one before us.
I cannot understand the position taken by the government. The very existence of Canada seems to be denied. The true nature of Canada appears to be ignored. Indeed, is not Canada a confederation of the ten provinces and the Northwest Territories? Is that not Canada? If so, then, let us take that fact into account while considering a legislation as important as we are led to believe.
Mr. Speaker, my argument is based on the fact that we have to ask ourselves what Canada is. Then, if Canada, from a geographical point of view, is made up of ten provinces plus the Northwest Territories, it is only normal that the Advisory Board be made up of commissioners from each province and the Territories. That would be quite normal.

June 18, 1369
Official Languages
The objection raised is that the western provinces, which do not comprise enough French-Canadians, would be more or less interested in the project.
Mr. Speaker, as we do not know what the future holds in reserve for us, in what direction the population might move suddenly, it is always safer to provide for all contingencies.
I remember what happened in committee in that respect and I should like to give the same example I gave at the time.
In Newfoundland, at the present time, the French-Canadians represent 7/10 of 1 per cent of the population and, therefore, it is impossible to establish in the province a bilingual district. On the other hand, in Labrador-a territory which accounts for a large portion of the Newfoundland territory and where a tremendous development project is being carried out at Churchill Falls, the labour force comprises 60 or 70 per cent of French-speaking Canadians from Quebec.
So, if those people decide to remain there, they become Newfoundlanders until such time as the geographical error placing Labrador in Newfoundland is corrected. At any rate, we are faced, in the meantime, with that situation, and a bilingual district may well be created in Newfoundland, in the Labrador region. Then, it would be perfectly normal that the Advisory Council include a member from Newfoundland as from every other province.
That is, I think, a more constructive way of promoting better understanding and, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has often repeated, all the more so as this bill is only concerned with federal institutions.
But, where the establishment of bilingual districts is concerned, territorial limits are involved and that comes under provincial jurisdiction. And, as there have always been conflicts, which have often proved to be unproductive, between the provinces and the central government, it would not be advisable to leave the door open to more, when this can easily be avoided.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The government appears to fear the reaction in certain parts of the country. If such fear is being entertained with regard to a bill that is considered to have priority, the following conclusion is unavoidable: either the country is not ready to accept such legislation, or the government is not daring enough nor dynamic enough to obtain acceptance of the two official languages. Possible reactions
IMr. Matte.]
should not be feared, and I think it would be the best way to reassure those who, are now having difficulty in recognizing certain things, and I understand them very well.
Obviously, where there are very few French-speaking people, where other ethnic groups are much more numerous than the French-speaking minority, it is very normal that there should be strong disagreement and that the majority should not understand why a French-speaking minority should be given special privileges or rights.
Of course, one could build an argument around this but it is not the purpose of my remarks. I just want to come back to the amendment to say that I feel the government should accept it. I cannot see what difference it would make if it were accepted.
It is already provided that there will be from five to ten representatives. If this amendment were adopted, the number would be set at 12. I fail to see anything very serious there. I do not agree with the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria who kept harping on the matter of number. Indeed, he seemed to want to minimize that matter by saying that it was wasting time, that it was useless to dwell on a matter of number. I suggest it is much more serious than all that. I agree it is a matter of number, but it is also important to know what the number represents. It is not the number as much that is important, because it is already provided there will be as many as 10 representatives. Then, by including the Territories, we would want by this amendment to increase this number to 12, in order to reflect Canada's true image. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that is not dallying over numbers; it is an extremely important question. Representation on the advisory board must reflect the image of Canada.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising at the present time is simply to put on record certain references from Book I, The Official Languages, which is the first report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I think there may have been some misunderstanding about whether the bilingual districts recommended by the commission would correspond in every case to a census division. Hon. members will find at page 107 of Book I a reference under the heading, "Determining Boundaries of Bilingual Districts":
To achieve this in a given area it is necessary to decide on rules for setting the boundaries of
June 18, 1969

bilingual districts. We shall use the census division as the statistical base for discovering linguistic clusters, at least in an approximate sense. It is not technically an administrative division, since it is used only for the census-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I would like to point out he is not in his seat.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I continue:
-but it is a more accurate and stable base than most administrative divisions. One of its purposes is to report upon Canada's linguistic make-up; using it, we can follow locally from census to census the development of each official language group.
I now quote from the bottom of page 108:
However, none of these census divisions will necessarily form a bilingual district. Although the census division indicates the presence of French and English speaking minorities within a given area, it does not show their distribution. For example, two neighbouring divisions, A and B, might have official language minorities forming 20 and 3 per cent of their populations respectively. On closer examination we may find that the minorities are not distributed at random; for example, most of them might be living in only one part of the area. We can express the situation graphically as follows:
Then is shown a graph and the report continues:
If we chose the census division as the basis for creating a bilingual district, all of division A would likely become bilingual, and all of division B would remain unilingual. Our diagram shows that most of the members of the minority live in one section of division A and in the adjacent part of division B. Should official bilingualism be imposed on the unilingual parts of the former, and the bilingual fraction of the latter be ignored? We do not think so. In such a case, all of the area marked in black, excluding the rest of the divisions A and B, should become one bilingual district. This theoretical example-simpler than the actual situation in most cases-shows how the census division will help determine the bilingual district, although in the end the boundaries of the two might be quite different.
That is the end of the quotation, Mr. Speaker. I put it on record simply to avoid any misunderstanding about the recommendations of the Royal Commission.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate and support the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) which has already received basic support from many members on this side of the house. Having delayed entry into the debate on the bill respecting the official languages of Canada, I now wish to take part at this point
Official Languages
because I was one of those who had no hesitation on second reading in feeling that this bill was important enough to send it to committee for the committee to do constructive work and have it come back to the house with amendments to be dealt with here.
The committee has done constructive work. The bill is now back before the house with some amendments. As we begin studying these amendments it is, quite frankly, hard to comprehend the position of the government and, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), and the interjection of the parliamentary secretary, although undoubtedly meant to illuminate, really was not germane to what has been said in this debate about what this amendment does. It is difficult to comprehend the position of the government on this amendment. The government, for some reason or other, has dug in its heels and is suggesting that the present clause 14, appointing not less than five and not more than ten persons to a very important advisory board, reflects the true identity of Canada. The men who administer this act will really have to work.
As one catalyst taking part in this debate, I do so because of the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in the house this afternoon that because this amendment was dealt with in the committee the debate is res judicata. That argument is so weak and flimsy it amounts to straw and I will not waste any more of my breath on it. I hope when reading Hansard tomorrow I will be able to arrive at a different interpretation than I have placed on the minister's argument. However, that is not my main point.
I will refer later as to why we should be on guard about this type of loosely worded clause which affects Canada as a nation because this bill is called an act respecting the official languages of Canada.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) here. I was amazed to hear his reasoning. However, I will deal with that later.
Having dismissed the minister's argument as straw, I will now come to the whole purpose of this bill as it is being promulgated, proclaimed and debated in many areas of the country. The purpose of the bill is to unite the country from coast to coast. We all know, and would be naive not to admit, that there are worries and concerns from coast to coast about the purpose and principle of the bill. My friends and colleagues from the west, including the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), as well as members from

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
Quebec, I imagine, have no monopoly on the concern and worry in taking a good principle and implementing it into legislation. Sometimes the difference between principle and practice is really the difference between the pulpit and practice. It is sometimes hard to practice what some people preach.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This bill refers to the official languages of Canada. When I last looked at the map Canada stretched from coast to coast, from Newfoundland to British Columbia. It did not consist of the maritime region, the Quebec region and the Ontario region. And when you get to Ontario do you take northern Ontario, do you take Toronto, Ontario, and do you take southwestern Ontario? It did not consist of the breadbasket of this land, the three prairie provinces, and it certainly did not consist only of British Columbia. It consisted of the ten provinces.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Crowfoot, and other hon. members and I are talking about a communication that is supposed to help unite us. All of us in this chamber recognize and appreciate that there is sincere concern about implementing this principle. So it is difficult to understand why the government is suggesting that we can have a board of not less than five and not more than ten which supposedly reflects the national boundaries from coast to coast. All this amendment suggests is that there shall be a representative from each province, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. The Secretary of State might have some objection in regard to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. However, basically coast to coast each province should be represented. This is the basic reason we exist as a nation and is the very fact of the existence of this nation called Canada.
The minister interjected with his argument of straw by saying that the matter is res judicata because it has been considered by a committee and thus cannot be considered in this house. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that if we accept that type of argument the whole committee system will grind to a halt. I suggest that the face of the bill itself, the very title of the bill, the reason the Secretary of State went to western Canada to preach about the bill and the reason the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has given for introducing the bill, indicate that the purpose of the bill is to help make Canada one country from coast to coast. When the government suggests such things as participatory involve-
[Mr. Nowlan.l
ment, the politics of involvement and the politics of participation, why then when we set up this advisory board should we eliminate parts of this country, provinces of this country. This is beyond all comprehension and understanding. The very name of the bill implies ten provinces. I must say that so far as I am concerned, having had no discussion with the hon. member for Cardigan, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory might be in a different position, but those areas are part of this country too.
In respect of the argument of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) I should like to say I can remember a recent federal-provincial conference when headlines blazed out across the country saying that the Premier of Newfoundland, a province which evidently does not have a bilingual district, was in support of the principle of bilingualism. Abraham Lincoln said many years ago that it is easy to be tolerant and that the racial problem in the United States as he described it then was in direct ratio to the numbers in the country which had the problem. For Mr. Smallwood of Newfoundland, with no bilingual districts, it might be very easy for him to say, if you chose to believe him, that Newfoundland will now be bilingual.
Most of us saw Mr. Smallwood either in the conference or on the television screen. We were most impressed by his contribution to the earlier debates when without any hesitation at all he was one of the first premiers to endorse the principle set out in this bill. No one then suggested and no headline then suggested that we should discount Mr. Smallwood and his little province because that province is only one of ten and is situated on the east coast and does not even have a bilingual district. That in effect, with a little twisting but not much, is the argument of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria. He comes from New Brunswick and I come from Nova Scotia. New Brunswick has a very strong, healthy and constructive Acadian group reflecting one of the majority languages. But Nova Scotia also has bilingual districts reflecting both the majority languages set out in this bill.
I must say, without any aspersion on anyone who might be appointed from New Brunswick, that I would feel much more happy and much more involved and Nova Scotia would feel much more involved if there were a representative from Nova Scotia on this board to look after the boundary lines and problems in respect of joining up bilingual districts in Nova Scotia rather than have that
June 18, 1969

delegated to someone who, albeit well-intentioned, albeit objective, albeit a man of competence, reasoning and objectivity, would still be a New Brunswicker. Sometimes in Nova Scotia we do not accept holus-bolus what someone outside the boundaries of Nova Scotia proposes.
The bill is not based on regions. It is based on Canada. Canada consists of ten provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. To go back to the federal-provincial conference when, quite rightly, the papers made much of Mr. Smallwood's position, Mr. Smallwood as a Canadian came forward and stated his proposition long before some of the other premier's did. No one then said that his words were hollow because Newfoundland does not have a bilingual district. Why, then, should a member rise in this house to say that the inoffensive amendment of the hon. member for Cardigan, suggesting that each province be represented from coast to coast, should not be accepted because we are going to revert to regions? This bill is supposed to unite the country. Yet in respect of the first amendment put forward concerning the board that is supposed to implement the bill and supervise it we are dividing the country.
The very words spoken on this side of the house reflect some concern that, instead of pulling this thing together and getting on with the principle and away from some of the nitty-gritty and some of the detail, the Secretary of State and others, perhaps ideally in the classroom and academically, think it might be nice to have the phrase "not less than five and not more than ten" to reflect the regions. One result of this, Mr. Speaker, will probably be that some members on this side of the house from east and west, probably because of the size of the areas they represent, will be left out of this advisory board. We would like to contribute and participate.
One thing that has been paradoxical in respect of this parliament since the election a year ago is that the politics of participation have become the politics of non-participation in so many areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In the last election the Prime Minister did not promise much but I will give him credit that the one area in which he did promise something was that there would be an official languages bill. But he did not say there would be a board to which some provinces might contribute and to which other
Official Languages
provinces might not contribute. He talked about participatory politics and said that this would help unite the country. I say that the very composition of this board cannot do anything but create division in the country.
If I had any doubt at all in my mind about this I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to look at the make-up and composition of their own cabinet. I am only sorry there are not more members from Ontario in the cabinet today because if I need any support at all for any fears or apprehensions I have about the loose and vague wording of this clause it can be found in the cabinet in which there are five members from Montreal and two from the city of Toronto. From the reading I have done I suggest that the ministerial representation is more out of balance than it has been since confederation. I suggest that on a population basis metropolitan Toronto is the most under-represented area in our country. Yet we are supposed to take this on faith and good will and close our eyes to some of the practices of the federal government, close our eyes to the principle of the bill, close our eyes to the title of the bill which refers to Canada, and say, "O.K., not less than five, not more than ten". On an amendment which is so simple on the fact of it I cannot understand why there cannot be some tolerance and moderation because what we have been told, and it is so, is that the advisory board will be so important to the success of the bill.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I hope that the minister will reconsider and that the government will do the same. What is the fear? The government appoints officials to various boards and has been doing so for many years. I understand these commissioners will be appointed under the Inquiries Act at pleasure. Perhaps one might interpret this as meaning that they will be appointed after a decennial census, but as I read the Inquiries Act they will only be appointed at pleasure. If something goes wrong the Governor in Council can always replace them.
It seems to me that government appointed boards have been operating fairly effectively in the last two years. There do not seem to be too many problems in respect of division of opinion, certainly very few about which the public hears anything. The amendment is an attempt to extend the clause to include all provinces, but it seems to have run into a roadblock. I sincerely suggest that unless there is a moderation of the clause by the amendment, which I submit is sensible and relatively simple on its face, then the many

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
fears that Canadians have in respect of the successful implementation of this bill will not be assuaged.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill because I think it involves a matter which goes far beyond party lines. We are trying through this bill to make a series of judgments as to how best we can carry out the spirit of this legislation. As the last hon. member who spoke pointed out, this will add greatly to the unity of this country.
It is rather unfortunate that the committee had to be small and that we could not all be members. With a large number of us as members of the committee I think there might have been greater understanding, a greater exchange of opinion and views. However, that lack could not be helped. The committee had to be small for various reasons.
So far as the implementation of this measure is concerned, this is one of the most difficult, delicate and dangerous pieces of legislation we are likely to pass in this session. For this reason there are differences of opinion among the members of all parties. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) pointed out that among his colleagues there are those who do not see eye to eye with him in respect of this amendment. I am one of those members, I shall go into my reasons in just a moment. Surely even those on the government side must be prey to these anxieties and differences of opinion. The minister should not take pride in having assumed a stance and maintaining that this stance must be defended at all costs. I think it is up to us to pool our best thoughts and judgments as to the effect of this bill across the country.
Let me point out one of the dangers of the bill. We are inclined to believe that the big central provinces are the provinces mostly concerned and affected by this languages bill. Perhaps at this moment it is true that they are more directly affected. Consequently I go along with what the hon. member for York South said, that there should be provisions for two members, one English speaking and one French speaking, from each of the central provinces to make sure there is a complete representation of feelings on this board. It would be even better in my opinion if there could be members who spoke both English and French. In this way I think we would have good representation, and this should be our aim. There should be a complete understanding of the provinces on the part of those people who are chosen.

Let me turn now to my strongest objection. In our anxiety to make sure of complete representation for the central provinces which have these difficulties and have to work with this measure from the beginning, we should not be blind to the fact that it is equally important to make sure that the rest of Canada is represented on this board. This is not a matter which concerns only Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and parts of Manitoba. This question concerns all of Canada.
It is our hope that everyone in Canada will increasingly be able to feel chez soi, no matter what part of the country they may find themselves in. Mobility is increasing. It is our hope that the curtains, iron, bamboo and the rest, which have existed in various parts of Canada will be removed and that we shall become one people. I do not mean this in the melting-pot sense but in the sense that we shall be free to go back and forth across this country as our own.
I urge the minister to include a representative from British Columbia on this board. I come from a province which is as yet almost untouched by the necessity of dealing with this problem. That is precisely why I want British Columbia to be represented. As the years pass British Columbia is bound to be drawn closer and closer to the rest of the country. Some of us do not like to face the facts of our geography, but it is true that because of the geography of British Columbia we are already much too far away from Ottawa to obtain the best kind of unity. British Columbia is much too far away from the Atlantic regions to obtain the understanding we need. If there is more truth than poetry in some of the jibes that British Columbia is in danger of becoming a separatist province, the reason is in large part related to our geography. The Rocky Mountains are not only a geographical barrier, they are a psychological barrier. I want British Columbians to feel from the beginning of the implementation of this languages bill that they are in on the ground floor.
From the beginning the people of British Columbia should know what is going on and should feel that they are a part of this measure, even though this problem does not touch us at this time. If we are in on the ground floor the task of those of us who come from British Columbia will be much easier. It will be much easier to explain the languages bill to our constituents if we can go now and say that because of the composition of this board a representative from British Columbia will be included. The people will then have a stake in
June 18, 1969

Official Languages
this effort to knit Canada together. If we will depend upon the commissioner. I make leave them out and have three or four mem- this plea to the minister. I suppose the combers each from Ontario, Manitoba and-	missioner will be French speaking and I hope
he will be bilingual, but let him be somebody Mr. McQuaid: Would the hon. member per- j1Q ^as ^vec^ for a little while in western
mit a question?


Donald MacInnis: Yes.


Melvin James McQuaid: In respect of the argument the hon. member is now making, would she admit that this also applies to all the other provinces in Canada and not just to British Columbia.


Donald MacInnis: I agree absolutely, yes. I had thought that these arguments had been made so well on behalf of the Maritimes and other parts of Canada that I did not have to include them in my remarks. I do not want to get British Columbia in first. I want to be a Canadian first among fellow-Canadians from Victoria all the way to St. John's.
I think the danger lies in the fact that by leaving out parts of Canada these people will feel to some extent that the bill does not apply to them, and it will become increasingly more difficult for those of us from those areas to explain why they should be interested. We must remember that taxes from British Columbia will help to finance the implementation of this measure just as will the taxes from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and all across Canada. We will pay these taxes gladly if the people themselves understand this measure and believe in it. Let me urge the minister to let us all be a part of this from the beginning.
Some of us from British Columbia and from the Maritimes know that it is not easy to get the co-operation of a lot of people in our provinces because they live too far away from the great French culture in Canada to understand it. Some of us have had the good fortune to be able to get a little entrance into this culture. We have enjoyed it and want to make it ours. I want to make it British Columbia's culture together with our English speaking culture, but it will be very hard to do this if there is not a representative of our province on the board which will be responsible for administering the official languages bill.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
May I say one further thing, Mr. Speaker. These remarks may not come within the ambit of the amendment under discussion, but if I make them now it may save my speaking again. I believe that a great deal
Canada. The commissioner should be a man familiar with many parts of this great country. It is not enough that he be an Ontarian or Quebecker; he should have lived in the west for a while.


An hon. Member:: What about the
maritimes?


Donald MacInnis: I do not mind if he has also lived in the maritimes; that would improve the picture.

Now I would like to conclude by quoting some remarks made by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) who said: Everyone must be led to accept both languages. It is not the number that counts: it is the certainty that everyone will be included, that every part of Canada will be represented.

The hon. member for York South has rightly said we deplore the fact that in order that the program be properly administered it must be chopped up into provincial compartments. However, at this stage I do not think there is any other way of making sure that the program is properly administered. We must depend upon provincial boundaries and seek representation from within those boundaries. Some day these boundaries may fade away and become regions; I hope they will if this proves to be a better way of achieving the purposes of the bill. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again urge the minister to make sure that the province of British Columbia is represented on this board.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say on this amendment. I wonder why the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) does not simply say whether or not the amendment is acceptable to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Two of my colleagues have spoken this afternoon on this matter and I have listened closely to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), and some members from the Maritime Provinces.

June 18. 1969
Official Languages
The purpose of the amendment is to make the Board truly national so it will comprise members from across Canada. There should be at least twelve of them. If there are only five, some areas of Canada will not be represented on this Board.
The government, posing as the champion of national unity, from coast to coast, should accept that we stop discussing this question, and on behalf of national unity, that each province, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories be all represented on this Advisory Board. I do not quite understand the attitude of the Secretary of State. I am sure that he must want very much that this Board should reflect Canada faithfully.
So let us appoint no less than 12 commissioners. If we need 15, as suggested earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, let us appoint 15. Two from Ontario, 2 for Quebec and so on for the other provinces.
According to some hon. members, the problem is related above all to our central provinces, but we say that it relates to all provinces. It was interesting to note this afternoon the interest hon. members were giving to this most important issue of passing the official languages bill.
When all the provinces feel at home, when they have their say in the matter, when a commissioner may express the opinion of the people of hisi province, I sincerely believe that national unity will be better understood, better implemented, better respected. Eventually, the unity must not be only that of Ontario or Quebec, but also that of British Columbia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta, of all the provinces, of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
I endorse the opinions expressed by my colleagues, this afternoon, as well as those of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. She spoke as a staunch Canadian. Besides, she is proud to say a few words in good French, in the House of Commons, and I congratulate her. Moreover, she has national unity at heart, on behalf of her province, as we have it at heart, on behalf of our province.


Mr. Ritchie:: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made on Friday last, June 13, the sitting of this house stands suspended until seven o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the sitting of the house was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 7 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). I feel that the government should give serious consideration to accepting the amendment in order to allay the fears and suspicions that the legislation, which is of an administrative nature, might be wrongly administered. I think the matter of bilingual districts on which this board will rule will be one of the most contentious and difficult portions of the bill to administer. I do not believe that the members of the B. and B. Commission were aware of the problems that these bilingual districts will cause, nor do I think that the government has thought very much about this problem.
Bilingual districts must of necessity be mostly in rural areas. I will have a bilingual district in my riding, and having considered the matter I should like to recount some of the problems that will most certainly occur. I feel that if the representation on the board is changed, there might be a better understanding and a better meeting of minds among people in the bilingual districts. In my area there is a provincial riding in which, according to the last census, 28 per cent of the population is French speaking. However, this district could be expanded to include the whole of the federal riding, about three quarters of the population of which would still fall within the 11 per cent requirement for a bilingual district. This means that many residents living as far as 200 miles away, and many ethnic groups speaking other languages than the two main official languages, will fall within the bilingual district.
Many problems are likely to occur. First of all, there is no definition of bilingual districts and much will depend on the interpretation of members of the advisory board. Right within the small area in my riding which will constitute the bilingual district there are people who are neither French nor English but of Ukrainian origin who will be subject to the proposed regulations. These people are already becoming very concerned about who will man the post offices and various federal offices and about whether or not these posi-

June 18, 1969

tions will be occupied by bilingual people from outside their community.
I should like to say a word or two about the difficulties faced by the census takers in deciding what is the mother tongue of the various people in the area. I can think of one particular family in my riding in which the father is French speaking. He married an English girl and their children speak English, so that the whole family now speaks English except when the father visits his parents. What will the language of this family be considered to be under the census? It is quite obvious that there is no rule about it and much will depend on the opinion and interpretation of the census taker.
I envisage also great difficulties in drawing up these bilingual districts. I am sure that a person appointed from each province will help in doing this. There is also the matter of provincial rights and provincial acquiescence. After all, there is no point in drawing up a bilingual district unless the province is willing to back up the area with a massive program of education to help out the minority group in retaining its language. During the course of the last ten years it has been my pleasure to interview, every day in the course of my work, two or three familes among the French minority community in my riding. I have always been interested in the language problem so I asked them to tell me what then-reaction is to living in a largely English environment. I heard many interesting comments. Some of them wish to retain their French culture, others feel it is not worth their effort. One very interesting person, a woman with six children, said that she felt only English should be spoken as a main language.
9 (7:10 p.m.)
When I suggested to her that to be bilingual was valuable and that one should not give up the possibility of knowing two languages, her answer was: We must live in an English world and my children must learn English in order to get jobs. So unless the provinces are willing to back up bilingual districts by massive programs of education there is a risk of creating intellectual ghettos. It is often said that the problems faced by rural people arise largely because of the lack of education. We shall be faced in the rural areas with the task of upgrading the educational qualifications of minority groups so that they may be equal to the challenge of the practical world of economics and of technology outside. If this amendment were passed, considerably more co-operationi would be likely on the part of the provinces concerned.
Official Languages
Clause 14 states that five or more persons will be appointed to the board representative of the several provinces or the principal regions of Canada. The definition of a region is so vague as scarcely to be worth considering. Five people could be appointed from somewhere north of the Arctic circle and still represent various regions of Canada. They could1 be appointed from five suburbs of Toronto or Montreal, or from Winnipeg or Newfoundland. The phrase is so vague as to be of little value; it means that almost anyone could be appointed. The government could appoint five people from one particular region, despite the fact that this would nullify the idea behind, the clause which, I suppose, is to give representation to people familiar with the problems which the institution of bilingual districts is likely to raise. If we are to have a board, let us at least have one whose members are familiar with the difficulties likely to be encountered in each of our provinces; let us not have one on which members from eastern Canada are called upon to determine whether and in what circumstances bilingual districts should be set up in western Canada.
It has been said that the government will use its discretion well, and appoint a representative group. The minister may very well do this. The minister will not always be in his present position. Some other minister, some other government, will be in power, and they may think upon different lines. It seems to me, therefore, that the present muddy definition embodied in the words "principal regions of Canada" should be spelled out in much clearer terms.
In some ways, this is an interesting experiment, a most unusual case of a minority forcing its culture, to some extent, on the majority. This may be disputed. French Canadians may say it is time their culture was recognized, and that in the past severe discrimination has been shown against them. They may honestly feel this to be so. But regardless of whether they do or not, many people will not accept their contention. This attitude is creating the risk of division in our national life, and the situation is likely to become worse as time goes on. When families find that then-sons and daughters are not able to enter the civil service or the armed farces as easily as once was the case, passion and unreason take over. Sometimes the antagonism is unreasonable, but it is genuinely felt.
The attempt to force a minority point of view on to the majority will be resisted

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
strongly regardless of its legality or even of its righteousness in the opinion of the minority. For this reason, the manner in which the act is administered becomes all important. I strongly suggest the government could help toward the better administration of these provisions by appointing a member to the board from each province. The provincial members could act as watchdogs; they could help the board by setting guidelines. I do not know whether or not this experiment will succeed. This is an issue which will be with us for many years, indeed, for the lifetime of many of us in this chamber. I urge the government to consider seriously the amendment which the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) has put forward, believing that if adopted it would go some little way toward improving the bill and making it more acceptable to people in various parts of Canada.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I want you to fully understand that I support this amendment presented by my hon. friend from Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). I was disappointed in the statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) this afternoon as to the degree of consideration he felt he could give to our amendments at this time in the light of the committee's recommendations. If this is the practice which is to be followed, if the government is unwilling to accept any amendments after a report has been made by a committee, then I suggest that debates here in this chamber are no more than an exercise in futility.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) told us that the outcome of this legislation would depend upon the goodwill and good sense of the governments who administer it. He referred particularly to the advisory board. He was treading on safe ground there. It was rather like coming out in favour of motherhood. After all, what government or business is not better served when intelligent people administer its affairs? But following his argument through, the implication is that we could do away with many of the safeguards we possess.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I realize that there would still be robberies and murders whether we had a police force or not, but most of us still believe we should have laws and means to enforce them in society as it is today. Representation of the provinces on this board is, or should be, one of the most important features in this bill. If we do not accept the amendment put forward by my hon. friend

and fail to give each province and territory in Canada representation, we shall find ourselves contributing to regionalism and even to separatism.
In the past the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has come out in favour of the one nation concept. He has declared himself in favour of a just society. There has been some doubt as to the character of the one nation or of the just society, but it is difficult to imagine what benefit would result from lumping Canada together in regions, perhaps giving the prairie provinces one representative or giving other regions more than that. Certainly, the rejection of this amendment would only assist greatly in the cause of those who would divide the country. It would definitely bring on more regionalism than we have at present.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
One of the members in the course of the debate quoted from Volume I of the B and B commission report. Let me quote from page 109 of Volume I of that same report as follows:
If we chose the census division as the basis for creating a bilingual district, all of division A would likely become bilingual, and all of division B would remain unilingual.
There is a graph on this page to which the report refers. It continues:
Our diagram shows that most of the members of the minority live in one section of division A and in the adjacent part of division B. Should official bilingualism be imposed on the unilingual parts of the former, and the bilingual fraction of the latter be ignored? We do not think so. In such a case, all of the area marked in black, excluding the rest of divisions A and B should become one bilingual district.
In effect, this shows it would not only be possible to set up bilingual districts with a 10 per cent minority but it would be possible to set up an adjacent bilingual district with a possible two or three per cent minority group. I think this is one weakness which certainly deserves consideration. Certainly, when we could have bilingual areas as small as school districts, being two or three per cent of the total area, it would be possible to have adjoining school district areas on a bilingual basis in other provinces. These would then become a provincial concern because education is within provincial jurisdictional. In light of this fact, it would seem almost impossible to even entertain the thought of not giving every province representation on this board.
June 18, 1969

Let us compare this situation with the regional concept as it relates to the agricultural industry. Some 90 per cent of the problems of that industry today stem from exactly the same concept proposed in this clause. We have in this house political representatives from agricultural communities. The number is certainly not numerically equal to the number of representatives from other segments of our society. As a result, the views and pleas of the representatives of agricultural areas are often virtually ignored. I should like to appeal to the minister to take these views into consideration.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to speak briefly in support of the view expressed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) against the amendment. I find it difficult to do so after listening this afternoon to the eloquent speeches in favour of the amendment by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and others.
I certainly would not want to widen the differences between my colleagues on this very sensitive subject.
I think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this amendment. The bilingual districts advisory board I am sure will carry out its functions which, as I understand it, are to determine whether or not a district shall be bilingual. It does not matter much whether the board is set up under the formula in the bill or under the formula advanced by the amendment. After all, the bill does enjoin the Governor in Council, in setting up the committee, to take as a basis for selection a representation as equally proportionate as possible in relation to residence in a particular province.
Indeed, such an injunction is probably unnecessary because it would be a very unwise cabinet that did not advise the Governor-General to take account of the different regions in different provinces. This has been the traditional way of doing things throughout Canadian history, without tying anyone down to a rigid formula. Although I say it is possible to exaggerate the importance of the issue of the amendment to the original bill, it seems to me if there is a principle involved here it is the principle that we should, in setting up federal boards and federal organizations, have regard primarily to qualifica- it. tions. We should have regard to the necessity of not setting up rigid provincial representation. We should not get into the habit of thinking that a board or tribunal set up by
Official Languages
the Parliament of Canada is not truly representative of the interests of various provinces because it does not happen to have a representative of any one particular province.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
It would be desirable, and I am sure the Governor in Council will bear this in mind, to see that a province like British Columbia-for which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way made such an eloquent plea-was represented on this board. I am sure the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) will take her plea into account in recommending this to his colleagues. I agree thoroughly with what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and some others have said. Much will depend on the calibre of person who is appointed commissioner. I do not think too much will depend on how we select the members who are to sit on the bilingual districts advisory board. In setting up a board like this we should not even think along parochial lines. We should not be concerned primarily with whether so many of the board come from British Columbia or this province or that. After all, in this house there are many people who eloquently and admirably represent their own constituencies as well as their own provinces. In this house we think of ourselves first and foremost as Canadians. Our primary consideration is the welfare of all Canada. I, therefore, suggest that if we adopt the theory behind this amendment we shall not be adopting a truly federal approach to this question. Therefore, although I support the bill, I will vote against this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All those in favour of the motion will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: As agreed earlier, this vote will be deferred.

June 18, 1969
Official Languages


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Until when, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will look at the Standing Order, he will see that that is in the discretion of the Chair. The suggestion was made this afternoon that there will be consultations between hon. members. Possibly all the votes could be taken together after we have considered the different amendments. This would be done for the convenience of hon. members, of course.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-21, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to which the concurrence of this House is desired. I also wish to inform the House that there is a message informing this House that the Senate have agreed to the amendment made by the House of Commons to Bill S-26, an Act to prohibit the Advertising, Sale and Importation of Hazardous Products, without any amendment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.
Melvin James McQuaid: That Bill C-120, An Act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by deleting clauses 28, 29, and 30 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"28. (1) An investigation by the Commissioner under this Act shall be conducted in private except as otherwise provided for in subsection (3).
(2)	It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing but he may allow any person or any department or other institution concerned in an investigation, and shall allow any person or any department or other institution complained against in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
(3)	The Commissioner shall not make a report or recommendation in respect of any person, department or other institution so complained against until that person, department or other institution, as the case may be, has been given reasonable notice of the complaint and has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in public or

in private as that person, department or other institution may elect.
(4)	Parliament may,
(a)	of its own volition, or
(b)	upon the recommendation of the Governor in Council, regulate the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in the exercise of his powers and duties.
(5)	The Commissioner may direct that information relating to any investigation under this Act be received or obtained, in whole or in part, by any officer of the Commissioner appointed as provided in section 21 and such officer shall, subject to such restrictions or limitations as the Commissioner may specify, have all the powers and duties of the Commissioner under this Act in relation to the receiving or obtaining of such information.
(6)	The Commissioner shall require every person employed in his office who is directed by him to receive or obtain information relating to any investigation under this Act to comply with any security requirements applicable to, and to take any oath of secrecy required to be taken by, persons employed in any department or other institution concerned in the matter of the investigation.
(7)	The Commissioner has, in relation to the carrying out of any investigation under this Act,
(a)	the powers of a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act; and
(b)	the power, subject to such limitations as the Governor in Council in the interests of defence or security may prescribe, to enter any premises occupied by any department or other institution of the Parliament or Government of Canada and carry out therein such inquiries within his authority under this Act as he sees fit."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this amendment I shall repeat what I said on second reading of this bill. The bill itself is a purely administrative one. If you study it from clause 1 to clause 41 you will not escape the conclusion that the bill is of a purely administrative nature and lacks what is commonly known as legislative intent.
For a moment, I should like to refer to some provisions of the bill. In doing so, may I point out that all the powers contained in the bill are already possessed by the executive. Consider, for example, the power to issue and promulgate official instruments and documents bilingually. The executive already has that power. We must also consider in this category the power to provide bilingual services to the public. Those services already are being provided. Consider also, Mr. Speaker, the power to make agreements with a government of a province to proclaim the establishment of a bilingual district; the power to constitute Bilingual Districts Advisory Boards under part 1 of the Inquiries Act and to authorize a board to draft agreements with the governments of provinces. Consider also the power to establish an official languages commissioner. A commissioner can now be appointed under
June 18. 1869

the authority of the Inquiries Act. The Inquiries Act now gives the government authority to appoint a commissioner who is to investigate anything the government feels ought to be investigated.
There has been some minor and, I suggest, rather inconsequential effort on the part of the government to give the appearance that parliament as well as the executive is participating in this administrative policy. There is the provision, for example, that parliament shall hire and fire the languages commissioner through the Governor in Council. I think every hon. member of this house is well aware how empty any reference to parliamentary control is in this provision. If anyone were to study the bill in detail he would find that that is so. This is an administrative bill and it will, when passed, be administered entirely by this government. I am in favour of the provisions of this bill, mind you. All the same I suggest very seriously that unless this law is administered properly the government is going to be in very, very serious trouble. Except in very rare instances the manner and degree of governmental administration of this bill will not be reviewable in the courts. The government has attempted to meet this problem by creating an official languages commissioner who is to be the so-called languages ombudsman. He is to have some over-all say in the quality and effectiveness of the government's administration of this law.
It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, for me to stress the importance of this official who is to be the commissioner of our official languages. What I think I should stress is the importance of our having some control over this man who is charged with such an important task. The way he performs that task will affect the destiny of Canada and touch the lives of a great many Canadians. It is in this area that I take exception to this bill. I take exception to the power that parliament has vested in this one man who is to be the commissioner of languages.
I want to deal for a few minutes with clauses 28, 29 and 30 of the bill, as they now appear. Clause 28(1) reads as follows:
Every investigation by the Commissioner under this Act shall be conducted in private.
That is one provision I cannot swallow. For the life of me I cannot see why an investigation shall-not may-be conducted behind closed doors. This is a very, very serious matter. Our courts recognize today that this is a very serious matter. Even today, our courts
Official Languages
hesitate before holding trials behind closed doors. The days of star chamber are over, Mr. Speaker. Unless there is some very good reason for not holding inquiries in public, they ought to be held in public. I agree that special circumstances may arise in which the commissioner, in his discretion, may decide that it is better to hold the inquiry in private. But for the government to enact a provision saying that the commissioner shall conduct investigations in private is tantamount to enacting a travesty of justice. I see no reason for this provision. Discretion should be left with the commissioner, of course. There may be cases where a person against whom a complaint has been made feels that in order to clear his name there should be a public hearing. He should have the right to ask the commissioner for a public hearing so that the public may learn perhaps that he has been unjustly accused of something.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I know that the government spokesman in the committee said that the commissioner is not conducting a court, and I agree it is not a court. But I do not agree that the powers of the commissioner are quite as frivolous or trivial as the minister would have us believe. I should like to put on the record a statement made by the Minister of Justice during the hearings on this bill in committee, as reported at page 367 of report No. 5. This is what the minister said the commissioner is empowered to do:
The Commissioner is an investigator.
I think I will be able to show later on, Mr. Speaker, that he is very much more than an investigator. The minister continued:
He proceeds in a purely administrative fashion; his object is not to prosecute or lay charges, or to assess blame or guilt. His job is simply to ensure that the departments of government, as institutions, are fulfilling the purposes and the spirit of this proposed act. It is not his function to decide or to adjudicate upon the rights or obligations of any individual. It is just not his duty and not in his power.
I should like to compare that with the statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) when he appeared before the same committee and spoke of the powers of the commissioner. This is what the Secretary of State had to say, as reported at page 35 of report No. 1:
The specific task of the official languages Commission, as I see it, is to make sure that the provisions of the law are enforced, that nobody is lagging behind, that there is truly an effort to enforce this bill as efficiently as possible within the delay set by the bill for the government, in the last clause.
1D348

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
So, according to the Secretary of State, the commissioner is charged with the enforcement of the law.
The advisory Committee on bilingual districts and the Governor in Council according to this clause have authority to determine the bilingual districts, while the Commissioner rather has the authority to make sure that this law is enforced.
I do not agree with the statements made by the ministers of the Crown. I venture to suggest there is not a man or woman in the public service of Canada today who is not going to be terribly afraid of the powers of this commissioner, and I think with some justification. This commissioner does not just conduct an investigation; he conducts an investigation with power to report and to make recommendations.
Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that a complaint is made to the commissioner that a civil servant employed in the Post Office Department in a certain area is not carrying out the provisions of the act. Do you mean to tell me that that man will not be called on the mat to give an account of why he is not carrying out the provisions of the act? Of course, he will be.
The commissioner is empowered to make a report and also to make a recommendation. This is why I contend that this employee of the Post Office Department has the right, the inherent right of everybody who is charged with a serious offence, to be heard in public. Why should the charge be heard behind closed doors? The charge should be heard in public and the public given the right to listen to the case. In such event the person accused-I use that word advisedly because the man may be accused of not carrying out the provisions of the act-will be satisfied that he is being given a fair hearing and can rest assured that those interested are able to hear his side of the case.
The government has seen fit to prescribe that the commissioner shall conduct his investigations in private. No discretion at all is left to him; he must conduct his investigations in private. The motion before the house, which I hope will meet with the approval of all members of the house, provides that if a man whose conduct is being investigated requests that the inquiry be conducted in public, there shall be a public hearing; that he shall have the opportunity to present his case not only to the commissioner and the chosen few who might be invited to hear it, but to everybody who may be interested. I think this is only fair and in accordance with just practice. I think hon. members will find that
[Mr. McQuaid.l
the courts are very reluctant to conduct hearings behind closed doors; a very strong case indeed has to be made before a judge will decide to exclude the public.
I draw the attention of the house to clause 28 (2):
It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing-
I ask the house to note those words.
-and no person is entitled as of right to be heard by the Commissioner-
Did you ever hear, Mr. Speaker, anything so ridiculous? Surely, if a man is going to be charged-and I use that word advisedly-as a result of a complaint laid against him, then according to the principles of justice he should be entitled to the right to be heard. How can the government possibly take that right from him?
No doubt the minister will reply that the commissioner is not conducting a court or conducting legal proceedings. I agree. But again I remind the members of the house that this commissioner has the power to make recommendations and to report. I do not think anyone would seriously challenge that there is not a man or woman in the public service today who would not be terribly afraid of the tremendous powers of this commissioner.
The government then tries to correct the situation by making this provision in the clause:
-but If at any time during the course of an investigation it appears to the Commissioner that there may be sufficient grounds for his making a report or recommendation that may adversely affect any individual or any department or other institution, he shall, before completing the investigation, take every reasonable measure to give to that individual-
-the chance to be heard. This provision does not help a person against whom a complaint has been made because it uses the words "if.. .it appears to the Commissioner" during the course of an investigation that there are sufficient grounds for making an adverse report. At that stage it would be too late, I suggest, for the man to be heard.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Why should he not be there from the very beginning? After all a complaint has been made against him. Surely, it is only fair and just that he should be entitled to sit in on the hearing from the very time the investigation begins. But, no; it is only if it appears to the commissioner-he is the man who will exercise the discretion and who will perhaps suddenly make the decision in the middle of the
June 18, 1969

hearing-that he may have to make an adverse report against this individual that the individual would be called in three quarters of the way through the proceedings. Surely, that is not the time to call in a person against whom a complaint is lodged. Did you ever see a court of law conducted in this way where an accused is called in about three-quarters of the way through the trial? Surely not! There is absolutely no justification for a provision like this. The amendment which we are suggesting tonight tends to correct the injustice in so far as public hearings are concerned and in so far as the right of the person against whom the complaint is lodged to be there from the very beginning and be represented by counsel if he so wishes.
Surely, a person against whom a complaint is made has the right to be at the hearing from the very beginning so that he will be in a better position to prepare his defence. Is there anything unreasonable about a request like that? Is there any particular reason that the government cannot go along with a request like that? I suggest there is absolutely none. What are they trying to hide? Why do they not want this man to have the right to be there from the very beginning? These are the questions to which I would like to have answers.
We asked these questions in the committee, but the officials and the ministers who were present at the hearings were not able to give us adequate answers. All they would tell us was that these are not judicial inquiries; that they are courts of procedure. I agree, but without fear of successful contradiction I say that this may affect an individual's employment in the civil service. If a complaint is successfully raised against him it could mean his employment and his very livelihood. That is the reason we say he should have an opportunity to be heard and that is the reason we say he should be called in from the very beginning, not when the commissioner makes up his mind that perhaps he might have to make an adverse report against this man.
It cannot be done in that way. Our system of justice does not work in that way. I implore the members of the government to try to correct this obvious injustice. You have the power to do it. I believe this will be of great concern to the people of Canada if you deny these people the right to be heard1, a right which is not denied even to the worst
Official Languages
given the right to be heard, that he be given a fair trial and that justice be done.
Now, let me refer to clause 30 which reads as follows:
The Commissioner has, in relation to the carrying out of any investigation under this Act, power (a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath, and to produce such documents and things as the Commissioner deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration of any matter within his authority under this Act, in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record;
This commissioner is given the same power to conduct an inquiry as is given to a judge of a superior court of record and yet a person who may be affected is not given the same right to be there and be heard. How can this procedure possibly be justified. Clause (d) gives the commissioner the power to administer oaths. Then, clause (c) reads:
-to receive and accept such evidence and other information whether on oath or by affidavit or otherwise as in his discretion he sees fit, whether or not such evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law;
Mark these words, "whether or not such evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good gracious.


Melvin James McQuaid: If there was ever a travesty of justice this is it. Why should this commissioner, in whose hands lies probably the livelihood of a public servant, not be bound by the regular rules of evidence. As I interpret this clause this man can be compelled to give evidence against himself. Did you ever hear anything like that in this day and age?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the just society.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Pelletier society.


Melvin James McQuaid: This will not go down well with the people of Canada. We implore the government to amend it. It will not destroy the principle of the bill. Personally, I am completely in favour of the principle of bilingualism-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Melvin James McQuaid: -in so far as it affects the government service in bilingual districts. But I cannot for the life of me go along with this proposal, and I do not think any man who gives it any serious throught can go along
criminal brought before our courts. We are not asking anything unreasonable in this with it. Ini our amendment, we are suggesting regard. We are asking only that a man be that this man should be given the power that

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
is given to a commissioner under the Inquiries Act. Heaven knows, they are wide enough. But at least they have been in effect for some considerable number of years. I do not know when the Inquires Act was first passed, but we have been working under the Inquiries Act for some considerable number of years. Certain practices and precedents have grown up in respect of this act, as they have in respect of other acts in our courts. The commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act may not be legally bound by, but feels he is required to follow, the practice or precedent which has been built up over the years. We suggest that if this language commissioner were given the same authority as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act this should be sufficient.
Why should this commissioner have more authority? Why are we asking that this man have more authority than someone who has been appointed under the Inquiries Act? I want an answer to that question and I think the people of this house and the people of Canada want an answer to this question. Why is this man to be given more authority and more power than a commissioner under the Inquiries Act? The Inquiries Act in part I, section 4 reads:
The commissioners have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.
What more power could a man possibly want unless he wants to be a dictator?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was Pickersgill's
ambition.


Melvin James McQuaid: Surely this power is wide enough. Then section 5 in this same act, the Inquiries Act, reads:
The commissioners have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.
That is enough. Let this commissioner be bound by the rules of evidence, so that only proper evidence may be introduced against a person whose-and I want to stress this- very job may be endangered as a result of the inquiry. This is what I say is unfair. This is what I say constitutes an injustice. Let this man be given the same powers as are given to a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
Again, under part III of this act, the commissioner may allow any person whose con-

duct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel. However, I feel he should be represented right from the very beginning and not after half the proceedings have been held. The commissioner has been given a discretion. He may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act-not shall allow-against whom any charge is made in the course of an investigation to be represented by counsel. That is fair and logical. Why is this government asking that the commissioner of official languages should be given any more power than that? It is unreasonable.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
As I stated at the beginning, we do not want to get back to star chamber proceedings. We want things to be conducted in the open. We want people to feel that not only does justice appear to be done but justice is seen to be done. That is very important. As long as this provision is in the act, I earnestly suggest a person who is being investigated will not be convinced that justice is being done unless he is given the right from the very beginning to come in and state his case, if he has one to state.
These are the amendments that we are suggesting to this clause. These amendments will tend to strengthen this bill and convince people that something is- really being done. I realize there are some serious exceptions being taken to the principle of this bill, but let us not pour salt on these wounds. Let us try to heal them. That is the reason we had a committee and are having discussions in this house. We are trying to correct, as best we can, some of the things that I personally see as gross injustices to which no civilized person living in Canada today should be subjected. I very earnestly suggest that the government and hon. members of this house should give very serious consideration to the recommendations we are making in this amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In
rising to support this amendment I wish to say that the speech to which we have just listened was probably the best speech that has been delivered in this House of Commons on civil rights for many years, perhaps since the time that great Liberal, Chubby Powers, delivered a great speech at the time the Civil Service was being investigated in reference to the security of the nation. When people were arrested on that occasion they were held in
June 18, 1969

custody, without the right to counsel and were denied the rights that apply to the average Canadian in accordance with the traditions we inherited1.
I must to come to grips immediately with two problems. I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is not here at the moment because it shocked the sensibilities of every member of parliament on this, and I am sure the other side of the house, when he said today that because this bill had been examined by a standing committee of the House of Commons the amendments proposed by the government and certain other members were accepted. The bill, therefore, should be merely rubber stamped and nothing should be said from this side of the house.
I want to explode once again, as I will do every time I rise in my place in the years that may remain to me, because the committees set up under the new rules were given tremendous power. They were given the power of parliament. At one time in this house every clause of every bill was examined by the Committee of the Whole House. All members could examine each clause as the bill was piloted through. That power has now been handed to a standing committee of the House of Commons. What applies to other committees also applies to this committee, and that is why it is necessary to move these amendments at this time.
In standing committees, a government chairman governs' the committee, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) controls the members of the committee. It is an instrument of the government; no more, no less and no better, as far as jurisdiction is concerned. The Minister of Justice said this afternoon that because this bill was examined carefully by a committee, there can be nothing wrong with it. What the minister meant to say was that the government was going to oppose forcibly these amendments, either by silence, because we appear to be on the side of right, or by voting as a block because their committee, controlled by the Prime Minister, said Canada is going to get this kind of bill. That was a shocking insult to parliament from one of the great lawyers and great brains of our country. It forces me to rise in my place and ask the Minister of Justice if that is really what he meant.
Whose job is more important than the job of hon. members in this house? Their job is to get across to this nation that the procedure in which we are now engaged in parliament is just a procedure to give the appearance
Official Languages
that the right things are being done. The Minister of Justice said today that because this bill had been examined by a committee, a committee controlled by a government chairman who is controlled by the government, that amendments of any importance were moved by the government and government members. The minister said that was good enough and members really have no function here. That was his real message.
I was somewhat shocked to hear a member of the New Democratic Party, for whom I have a lot of respect, oppose the fundamental concern of these amendments. I agree with this statement that the administration of the law depends on the character of the person administering it and his ability to weigh justice in its highest sense. A Commissioner of this type will be necessary if this bill is to be implemented properly in the province of Quebec as well as in those provinces in which French Canadians live and where English speaking Canadians and those of other ethnic origins live. I agree with that, but I remind the hon. member of the N.D.P. that he need only look to Europe in our lifetime. When the rule of law fails to govern and when we rely on the rule of people, the niceties of character or personalities of human beings, what happens to civil rights? I was born in an atmosphere where the Magna Carta hung on the walls of the bedroom, living room, dining room and rumpus room. I cannot accept the hon. member's argument or philosophy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As our party's leading speaker said earlier this evening, we already have a man who has been given complete power. Why has he been given this power? I say with all the sincerity I can muster, and with sadness in my heart, that I do not have confidence that this government, governing with this kind of excuse, will not do something I do not want to see happen. I sat with the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We saw Mr. Pickersgill pilot a bill through this house. He rushed it, pushed it, and said that we did everything to block its passage. I never believed at that time that Mr. Pickersgill was negotiating with his government and parliament for a $50,000 a year job to set himself up as the Czar of transportation. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State, who has the kind of reputation and name-
Official Languages

June 18. 1969
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Gérard Pelletier: I rise on a question of privilege.
In spite of the great tediousness of the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I managed to keep awake. Even if we have to keep our ears open, I think we have a right to shut our eyes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad I have flushed him out, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State is setting himself up as the Czar of culture and language in this nation, because these things affect not only French speaking and English speaking Canadians but persons of every ethnic group. There will be no appeal from decisions of the board. Because of the power that will lie in the hands of the Secretary of State, I do not have confidence that the bill will be administered according to the civil rights to which Canadians have become accustomed.
I hope that the men appointed to the board will administer the law with equity. I hope they will interpret it with justice, because the bill deals with a matter of great sensitivity in this nation. It is all-important that the men appointed to the board be of this calibre. They will have control over not only human behaviour but the rule of law. I have always maintained, with regard to the appointment of judges, that the character and type of men we appoint to the bench is just as important as their knowledge of the law. The men appointed to this board should be fenced in and controlled by traditions that have been crystallized into the rule of law that protects the civil rights of the citizens of this nation.
The government says: Don't worry; we will put the right type of man in charge of this program. There will be nothing to worry about. I would be concerned about the board even if a benevolent dictator were appointed to it. What will be the situation in the future? I was raised in an area of Saskatchewan in which half the people were French Canadian and the other half came from countries throughout the world. If I were a spokesman for the province of Quebec I would say this is a most dangerous situation; one man should not be given the kind of power the bill proposes to give.
Since confederation we have had governments in which were members who have represented areas where French speaking Canadians have been in the majority. I ask,


Mr. Speaker:: What will happen if we have on this board people who do not weigh the niceties of equity and justice and do not understand the jurisprudence under which, we live? The majority of the population of part of Zealandia, Saskatchewan, is made up of French Canadians. Do we want on this board people who would do those things that would not be fair and just in respect of minority groups? If one man is given this kind of power it is neither fair to the majority or minority of an area, or even to the small ethnic groups which are to be found in some regions of the country.
I agree with the hon. member on this side of the house who said that a fundamental principle of natural justice is that a man be heard in his defence. This principle applies to our ordinary rule of law when a man is being investigated in connection with a suspected offence. I have always had great respect for the R.C.M.P. and our system of justice. A man is told that A plus B equals C, and this is the evidence against him. The person suspected of having committed an offence can then retain counsel to represent his interests. That principle of our law is not embodied in the provisions of this bill.
Under our system of jurisprudence every Canadian has the right to a fair hearing. It is the right of every individual to know the evidence against him, so he may answer it. There are in our public service and crown corporations men of honesty and integrity; the majority of our public servants have these attributes. No one elected as a member of parliament can tell me, however, that there is not across the nation anxiety on the part of some of our public servants. The fundamental principles of justice contained in the Inquiries Act should apply to this legislation. We will be setting up under this bill a commissioner who will be all-powerful; he will be able to use all the powers of a trial court, which are very great when the state moves to prosecute an individual.
The board appointed under this bill will have the power to act as a result of evidence presented to it. In addition to that, the board will be able to use hearsay evidence. It will be able to break every rule of evidence, although these rules are based upon fundamental principles of justice. Our laws were designed to provide justice to the individual and protect him. A person considered to be in violation of this federal statute, when passed, will not be permitted to be presented at the hearing of his case. He will not be permitted
June 18. 1969



to know the evidence that has been gathered against him. In my opinion, this procedure offends the principles of natural justice which we have inherited. Our system of justice has made this a great nation; the system of justice in the United States has made it a great nation. Every commonwealth country has inherited the British tradition of justice and this has made them great nations.
I make this indictment, even though we have been told that the bill was examined at great length by a committee of the house. That committee had on it a majority of government members, and therefore it was prejudiced in favour of the opinion of the government. Let us lay it on the table; governments since confederation have taken advantage of their majorities. Government members are asked to support the government. If they fail to do so they defeat themselves, because they have to go back to their constituents in an election. Because of the great pressure upon them, government members stand together. This is why they vote in the same way. It is the reason government members are disciplined at the present time. It is true not only of the Liberals but of any government. They will stand together. When you have a minority government you have to indulge in hanky-panky in the backrooms. We saw this happen under a former Prime Minister when the government was forced to seek the support of splinter parties in order to stay in office. In that situation it is the tail that wags the dog, and not the dog that wags the tail.
A person should be informed immediately a complaint is made against him. If there is a hearing before a board, he is entitled to be present at the hearing and, if he wishes, to have counsel or a person trained in the law to defend him. The rules that govern an inquiry under the Inquiries Act should be invoked in respect of this legislation in order to protect Canadians. There should be the right of appeal from a decision of the board. In order that justice be done, a person should know what evidence there is against him and he should be represented at any hearing into the complaint made. If I may use the phrase of an hon. member who spoke earlier, this bill is a travesty of justice.
Why are there not more government members in the chamber? They were here today when their photographs were being taken. They are the executive of this nation. We are only the opposition. If we believed this was a good bill we would pass it and either be at home reading or dealing with
Official Languages
matters in our offices. We are not the government. I say without any reservation or equivocation that it is a disgrace that so few ministers and members of the government party are in the chamber to listen to this argument.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Last Friday when I was in the House of Commons I was saddened to hear the bells ringing for some 40 minutes until enough government members arrived to support certain legislation which they were trying to implement. This was on a Friday afternoon, but nothing appeared in the press to tell the Canadian people how irresponsible this government was on that occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not here when a matter of such importance is debated?


An hon. Member:: He does not care.


Mr. Gray:: Where is your leader?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He does not happen to be the Prime Minister at present.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is on his way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the only defence that the members on the government side have. I have told them that they are the executive and they are running the country. Our job on this side is to suggest amendments and to oppose measures when we think they are wrong. Our job here is to drive government members into positions into which we believe they should be driven when anything needs to be done.


An hon. Member:: There will be a day of
reckoning.


Mr. Paproski:: And it won't be long.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we are still dealing with the amendment before us, to amend clauses 28, 29 and 30, or if we are getting into a general debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say I had the same misgivings, but I realize this is a matter of great importance and the hon. member is speaking with great feeling. However, I invite the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who is familiar

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
with the rules, to restrict his remarks as much as possible to the amendment before us. That, of course, applies generally to all hon. members, and I think it is in the interest of our proceedings that we all observe this fundamental rule.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason I raised this question is that this amendment is so fundamental to the civil rights of Canadians. What is the use of me making a speech tonight when the government refuses to listen? They sit in their offices and they refuse to listen to the evidence we put forth on the dangers of this bill. I can put it very simply. When I was a young man I learned something very quickly. I learned that if you wink at a pretty girl and she does not look at you, you are wasting your time. We may be wasting our time talking to the empty benches of the Liberal party. Members of the government are irresponsible in their failure to be here tonight during the debate of such an important measure. May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that I am now well within the rules when I speak. It is hon. members opposite who are the executive, and this is their responsibility. Who brought in this language bill? It was not the Conservative party, nor was it the N.D.P. or the Creditistes. It was the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And they should be here to listen to the arguments and suggestions for amendments which will protect the minorities, the majorities and the ethnic groups in Canada. In that way, they have failed in their responsibility. I think I have made my point on this amendment, and I need not say any more.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Here comes another one who will follow suit.


David Lewis: -I intend to deal with the amendment to the bill that is before us. I want to say that it is easy for members of this house to emphasize and to repeat that they are in favour of the principle of this bill, then speak of ways which will make this bill unworkable in the minds and hearts of the Canadian people.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The great Saviour has spoken.


David Lewis: Hon. members have been making all sorts of remarks.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you move over?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that when a member has the floor he should not be subjected to repeated interjections. I think it would be in the interest of all members if we tried to observe that rule.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I do not mind the interjections if hon. members want to make them. I say that many barbs have been thrown in our direction because we insist, as I do, that we believe in the future of this country and in the need to remove a grievance which has haunted this nation for years. I intend to speak in favour of those things which will make this bill workable and desirable for the people of Canada, whether or not the government or the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) or anyone else happens to agree with them.
I heard a great deal about the rule of law in a lecture that was delivered, I presume, for me. Let me say that I am a lawyer of some years' standing, and although probably I am not the best lawyer, I have some knowledge of the law and I have some knowledge of legal philosophy and jurisprudence. I say, as a lawyer, that it is not only in the courts of a country that the rule of law can obtain and it is not only evidence which is taken according to certain rules that is admissible evidence before tribunals in democratic countries.
Members of the Conservative party look with horror at the part of clause 30 which says that the commissioner may take evidence, whether or not such evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law. Let me tell them that there are literally dozens of laws on the statute books of Canada, federal and provincial, which have precisely that provision. There are dozens of laws on the statute books of the mother of our democracy that contain this kind of provision, whether they are statutes pertaining to the labour relations board or any other board. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) says that I am wrong. Let me tell him-


Mr. Rynard:: I just said that two bad laws don't make a good one.


David Lewis: Let me tell him that the statute in Ontario-and I am sure it is the same in every other province-which set up his particular professional organization-if I remember correctly and I do because I appeared
June 18. 1969

before the council of the Medical Society of Ontario in defence of a doctor-also gives the disciplinary body of his professional organization the right to take evidence in ways other than a court takes it.


An hon. Member:: Did you win the case?


David Lewis: I happened to have won that case, but do not draw any conclusions from that. Winning a case before the medical council is not easy, as I know from experience. What I am suggesting is that it is easy to become eloquent about the rule of law and to make the assumption that the only way in which society can be governed by the rule of law is to make everything pass through the courts. I have great respect for the courts, as much as they deserve, but let me say that it is not in the courts alone that justice is done in a democratic society. Most citizens of the country do not reach the courts.
There are other agencies and other ways in which justice in a society can be obtained. It is not only through rules of evidence as they are applied in a court that you can obtain the truth. You can obtain the truth in some other ways as well. One of my major objections to this kind of approach on the part of some members-and I said this the other day in the special committee-is that if some of these amendments are accepted, only a lawyer or a judge would be qualified to become commissioner under this bill. Only a person trained in the law who knew the rules of evidence and who knew how to conduct that kind of inquiry would be able to be commissioner under this bill. I know a good many lawyers in this country and I know a few who might be qualified for this job. In my opinion most of us would not be qualified for this job. The narrow, legalistic training of a lawyer is not necessarily the best training for the job of a commissioner under this bill. This job should be open to any Canadian, whether or not he knows the rules of evidence. What he has to know are the rules of fairness. He has to know the rules of decency and the rules of honesty. He has to know the rules of objectivity. But he does not necessarily have to know the precise rules of evidence that govern a judge in a court in order to obtain the truth. Let me remind members of this house that there are many members among us who are not lawyers and there may be too many of us who are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I have just received some support from members of the Conservative party.
Official Languages
I presume they are not lawyers. But seriously, let me remind hon. members that all of us sit on committees of the house and all of us have occasion to question witnesses before these committees. It has been my experience that those members who may not be lawyers are just as capable of getting at the truth as are other members of the committee.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the hon. member permit a question? What witnesses were there to question in connection with the languages bill?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You voted against
witnesses.


David Lewis: Oh, come on, now. I do not know whether I should take the time in which to answer these assinine interjections. I voted against hearing witnesses on this bill before the special committee because I know of no subject in the history of Canada on which more months of evidence-taking have been spent-evidence taken by the commission from one end of the country to the other. I know of no subject which has been more thoroughly discussed in this house. I am thinking of the discussion which took place on second reading of this bill. Members of the Conservative party took a great deal of time on second reading; they had a right to do so; I do not deny it. In these circumstances I felt, and still feel, that it would have been a complete waste of time, that it would have served an evil purpose rather than a good purpose, to churn the same thing over once again before the committee charged with consideration of this bill.
I was saying seriously-if hon. members want to listen or not it is up to them-that in years of experience in committees of this house I, as a lawyer, in no way thought that my training enabled me to ask questions of witnesses more effectively than other members who were not lawyers. I felt they were just as able as I was, perhaps more able, to get at the truth of what was happening. This rule of law business is something you can agree or disagree about but I suggest it has no relevance whatsoever to this amendment or to this part of the bill.
There is one part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) which I support. I attempted to find a way of supporting it in the special committee and with this in mind I intend to

June 18. 1969
Official Languages
move an amendment in the next 10 or 12 minutes when I have finished my remarks. There is something about which I believe the hon. member is entirely right.
First of all, I should like to make some observations about the difference which exists between some of us as to the extent of the commissioner's powers. It has been said that tremendous powers are given to the commissioner. I am darned if I see what those tremendous powers are. He needs the power to inquire. Therefore, he must be given powers of inquiry. But the commissioner can only report and make recommendations. That is all he can do. The executive need not accept the report or implement the recommendations. Departments of government concerned need mot accept the reports. He makes a report only in cases where some suggestion he has advanced is not carried out. He makes this report to the department or to the Crown corporation, and to the government and this parliament. It is laid on the table in this house and in the other place. What are his powers? We can easily mislead and frighten members of the public service by saying that this terrible man will have powers of life and death over their jobs. He will not. In my opinion it is a misrepresentation of this bill to suggest any such thing. The same people will continue to exercise authority as did so before, namely, the superiors in the department or in the Crown corporation.
It is they who will be responsible for implementing any suggestions made or for taking any disciplinary action they think necessary. It is not the commissioner. He has no power to implement any of his recommendations or to make decisions or to affect the position of any civil servant except by evidence of fact contained in his report. I plead with hon. members not to exaggerate the role of this commissioner. I visualize it as one of a conciliator. I visualize it as the role of a person-


An hon. Member:: An ombudsman.


David Lewis: Somebody said an ombudsman. I prefer to think of him as a conciliator-a person who, when he receives a complaint, inquires as to the nature of the complaint. It cannot be a complaint about a person at any time, as I see it; he can only look into complaints which say that the intent and spirit of this legislation are not being carried out in a department, a Crown corporation, an agency or other institution of parliament or government.


Melvin James McQuaid: 
David Lewis: I agree entirely with the hon. member, and if he will be patient for three or four minutes he will see that I entirely agree with him on this point. I expressed my agreement with this point in the committee, but I will come to that in a moment.
In my view the commissioner does not have the power he is said to have, and it is because of this that my attitude toward him is not the same. As I have said, I conceive his job to be that of a conciliator. He receives a complaint that the intent and the spirit of the act is not being carried out in a certain sector of the public service, and it is his job to investigate the facts and to see to it that the matter is corrected. I think in 99 per cent of the cases he will not be required to make any report. He will be able to persuade the people in charge of the correctness of his findings of fact and discuss with them what can be done to remedy the situation; and, as a conciliator often does, he will find the best solution and no report or anything else will be required.
This is why I am in favour of holding private hearings in most cases. I hope that in 99 per cent of the cases complaints involving a department of government will not even become public. They will be investigated and then conciliated or adjusted in the way civilized people should be able to arrange. I hope that reports of the commissioner will be the exception rather than the rule. This is why I think he should be given more informal powers than those given by the Inquiries Act. This is why I think clause 30 of the bill should remain unchanged; that the powers given to the commissioner should be provided in the bill. His right to take information or evidence in a way that is not usually admissible in a court of law is what will make his inquiry less formal, more workable and conciliatory, shorn of the trappings of an official hearing with all the fear that this produces in the heart of an ordinary person.
As far as clause 29 is concerned, what my hon. friend's amendment does is to leave subclause (2) and subclause (3) as they are, but to change subclause (1) in a way I cannot accept. At the moment clause 29 (1) provides:
Subject to this act, the Commissioner may regulate the procedure to be followed by him in carrying out any investigation under this act.
June 18, 1969

Again, the procedure is quite informal. According to my hon. friend's motion, he wants to provide that:
Parliament may-
My hon. friend says "may", but he would not have inserted that word unless he intended parliament to do so.
- (a) of its own volition, or
(b) upon the recommendation of the Governor in Council, regulate the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in the exercise of his powers and duties.
This parliament, as a parliament, is going to lay down the procedures to be followed by the commissioner. I cannot accept that. It seems to me a heavy handed way of doing something that everybody desires to be thoroughly informal in most situations.
We agree with the hon. member for Cardigan that the only place where formality is required is where a person, department or institution is adversely affected by an inquiry into a complaint, and a report and recommendation is made as a result of that inquiry. The report would naturally contain a reference to an individual, or to an institution or department. I suppose it would state that that individual, institution or department was failing to abide by the law, and would make a recommendation that may adversely affect that individual, institution or department. As I agreed with the hon. member in the special committee, I agree with him now that in such a case there ought to be opportunity given for a full hearing, not merely at the discretion of the commissioner but at the election of the person or department concerned. That hearing ought to be held in public, again at the election of the person or department concerned.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the following amendment, which although it sounds a little complicated will, I think, become clear if I have a minute or two to explain it:
That the motion be amended:
(1)	by deleting the words "clauses 28, 29 and 30" in lines 2 and 3 and substituting therefor the words "clause 28";-
In other words, I am suggesting that clauses 29 and 30 be left as they are and that clause 28 be amended.
(2)	by deleting the numeral "3" in the sixth line and substituting the numeral 2;-
Official Languages
In a further part of the amendment, I intend to combine the present subclause (2) and subclause (3).
(3)	by deleting subclauses 2 and 3 and substituting therefor the following, as subclause 2:
"It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing, but he shall not make a report or recommendation adversely affecting any individual, department or other institution until that individual, department or other institution, as the case may be, has been given reasonable notice of the complaint against him or it, and has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in public or in private and to be represented by counsel as that person, department or other institution may elect"; and
(4)	by deleting subclauses 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Three things seem to me to be necessary. First of all, particularly an individual but also a department or other institution who may be adversely affected by a report or recommendation should, before such report or recommendation is made, be given the opportunity to be heard in public or in private, as the elect, and an opportunity to be represented by counsel if they wish.
Secondly, what I submit is needed is that this person, department or other institution should be liable to be subjected to a report or recommendation before all this is done. I submit that the words "any person or department so complained against" could open the door to every complaint leading to a public hearing, and this would be far too wide. What we want to do in this situation is to give the opportunity for a hearing, rather than adopt the wording my hon. friend proposes.
Thirdly, I am grateful to the hon. member for Cardigan for the language that he used in his proposed motion, because it gave me the opportunity to solve the verbal problem I had in the committee to find a way of tying the public hearing to the person, department or other institution adversely affected in a report or recommendation.
I do not think I should take any more time of the house, Mr. Speaker, and I move that amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Speaker:: In spite of the hon. member's very clear explanation of his amendment, it is somewhat difficult for the chair to reconcile the amendment with the motion it seeks to amend. However, it appears to be in order in so far as I have been able to ascertain at the moment. Unless strong objection is raised at this time or later on, I think I have to put the amendment to the house and I will hear debate thereon.

June 18, 1969
Official Languages


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I did second the motion and I should like to say a few words in support of it. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has very clearly and eloquently put forward the reasons for the amendment that we are proposing. I too have spent a good deal of my professional career in the defence of civil liberties. Indeed, I feel second to no one in this house in my devotion to fundamental rights and human freedoms. However, I have found that it is possible to employ a phony rhetoric about these issues. It is possible to fail to use a moderate and sensible judgment as to the balance between different and opposing principles.
The first principle-and this has been illustrated many hundreds, perhaps thousands of times in every civilized country of the world-is that there is a need for administrative tribunals, that these administrative tribunals must not be courts or similar to courts. They are needed because expertise in specialized subjects is required that the courts fail to have. There is a need to find the facts in a different way from that used by the courts. As I say, there are innumerable illustrations of where this is necessary. Such tribunals must have a concentration of function which is entirely different from that of the courts. There are innumerable illustrations of this. It would be folly to set up these tribunals, and then to cripple them by tying them down with legal procedures, appropriate indeed to courts but totally inappropriate to these tribunals which have a very different task from the task of the courts.
Yet on the other side there is another principle, or another series of principles. The principles I have enunciated might be called the principles of expediency and efficiency of tribunals. However, these must be balanced against certain fundamental rules. These include the preservation of the rights of the court to ensure that statutory tribunals do not exceed the functions conferred on them by the statutes of parliament. Another one is that no one should be condemned, punished or deprived of his rights or reputation by any such public or administrative tribunal without first being given a hearing and without first being given the right to counsel as well as the right to know clearly the nature of the case against him. The present legislation amply illustrates both these principles. The legislation clearly restricts the functions of the commissioner, important though they are. It restricts them within limits which a court can enforce. If the commissioner steps outside

these functions or exceeds them, the courts can act quickly.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It will be necessary for the other side of these functions to be emphasized, Mr. Speaker. The amendment of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) emphasizes the other side of those functions, as did in a partial way the motion of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). As the hon. member for York South was careful to point out, in carrying out his many functions the commissioner will need to act with tact and to use persuasive instead of dictatorial powers. He will have to avoid exercising powers which will have an executive effect. In certain cases it will be a great mistake to hamper the commissioner by requiring him, when complaints come before him, to call in counsel and set up a public hearing. The amendment preserves the basic principle which was referred to by the hon. member for Cardigan, that principle being that, so far as is reasonable, the commissioner shall not take away any man's reputation or rights without giving that man full opportunity to be heard in public. That is an important principle and it is not contained in the bill as presently drafted.
I say to the minister that such omission is a serious defect in the bill as it present drafted. I hope the minister is paying attention to what I am saying.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is not.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I say there is a serious defect in the bill because the commissioner, as the bill now reads, may bring in a report affecting the reputation of an individual without there being any right to a public hearing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Say it again; the minister is not listening.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It may well be that in certain cases an individual may prefer a private hearing. On the other hand, if an individual feels that to vindicate his character it is necessary for him to be heard in public, there should be a right to a public hearing. I am afraid I am repeating myself but I do so in the vain hope that my words will penetrate to the minister. I repeat. The bill contains a great defect in that the commissioner may do something affecting a person's reputation without there being a right to a full hearing. For the government to say that hearings shall be conducted in private is inadequate in these
June 18. 1969

circumstances. I appeal to the government to reconsider this provision. There is time for it to give consideration to the amendment this party has moved. If accepted, the amendment will bring about two results. It will preserve the rights of an individual who may possibly be affected by the report of the commissioner and, at the same time, preserve the efficiency of the commissioner himself. By accepting our amendment the government would go a long way towards removing the fears and suspicions which, as some eloquent speakers in this chamber have pointed out, this bill has created. Those fears and suspicions could be removed without in any way impairing the effectiveness of the commissioner who has important functions under this extremely important bill.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, at this point of the debate, I feel certain things must be said.
I do not wish to refer, to be sure, to the amendment just moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), since there is another amendment before us, and it is the one, of course, I wanted to deal with since the beginning of the evening.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) has led to two interventions which, in my opinion, are of inequal value.
I will first refer most briefly to the second, by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). All those who heard it will understand my lack of interest in the ideas it expressed, since precisely they were few.
Besides, the hon. member for Calgary North has a remarkable characteristic, and I have always found him interesting in that his voice becomes all the louder as his mind becomes weaker. Now since his resonant voice was heard tonight, there is no further need for me to say what I think of what he said.
I looked for a really strong argument in the contribution of the hon. member for Calgary North and found that I was totally wasting my time. He made a number of emotional appeals which have nothing to do with the realities of the bill, and when he suddenly attempted to present an argument, on one of the rare occasions during his speech when he tried to think things out, it was entirely besides the point. Indeed he then used the terminology of criminal courts and he dealt with the Commissioner of Languages as if he 29180-6551
Official Languages
were an examining magistrate, a chief of police and a presiding judge all at once, three figures to whom the Commissioner bears no resemblance whatsoever.
That is why my remarks will rather deal with the speech of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). He also, quite to my surprise, spoke on a highly emotional tone. It is all the more amazing as it does not happen very often. I was under the impression that he managed to convince himself that we were studying a piece of legislation likely to encroach on, or lead to encroachment on all civic liberties, on all human freedoms, without any exception.
He first quoted, giving the impression that this was the most scandalous thing, that part in the act where it is said that any investigations the Commissioner of Official Languages has a right to conduct will be held behind closed doors.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, if the investigation had to do with a criminal case, perhaps-and not only perhaps, but certainly-all the words spoken by the hon. member for Cardigan would take their full meaning.
But since it is not the investigation of a criminal case, but strictly and only a matter for the Official Languages Commissioner to get information himself in order to report to parliament, the situation is entirely different. Therefore, it is perfectly normal that the legislator should be careful in making the procedure easier and in avoiding for the commissioner the procedures to which the regular courts are subjected to because the commissioner-I point it out once more, and not for the last time, is not asked to render justice. All he has to do is to find out facts and report to parliament.
In another argument, the hon. member for Cardigan said here again shouting scandal, that before the special committee which studied the bill, I myself had defined the function of the Commissioner and that in reply to a question, I had said that, in my opinion, his role was to make sure the law was enforced.
Armed with this quotation, which is accurate, the hon. member for Cardigan attempted to prove that the Commissioner was becoming a chief of police since he enforced the law. But as always, when a quotation is incomplete, there is the risk of misquoting, that is, of distorting the views of the person quoted.
Now this is exactly what happened. Because, I was explaining, of course to the special committee, after questions had been

June 18, 1989
Official Languages
put to me, that the Commissioner of Official Languages should be aware of the situation, should make sure whether the legislation was enforced or not, but that the only means- and this is important-to which the Commissioner can resort to enforce the legislation is to report to the house.
Can we really compare a report to the house with a sentence passed by a judge on an accused appearing before him?
The hon. member for Cardigan went so far as to say several times "the accused" shall appear before the Commissioner. This proves how much he misunderstood, if he understood at all, the wording of that legislation, because there is actually no mention of any accused in this bill, and the Official Languages Commissioner is not a judge. If anyone were accused, and if the Commissioner were a judge, then the remarks of the hon. member for Cardigan and even a few of those of the hon. member for Calgary North would have some meaning. But nobody is accused. It happens that the Commissioner, in the role of an investigator, first of all examines the situation and then, as he sees fit, reports to the Parliament of Canada.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
When the hon. member for Cardigan talks of the "accused", perhaps he refers to another legislation or interprets this legislation in his own way; however, he does not speak of the legislation under study and which he wishes to amend. Likewise, when he denounces the dreadful powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages1 for Canada, I must admit that I am at a loss to understand what he means; in the same vein, perhaps we should decide right now tonight that the Auditor General holds dreadful powers and is an intolerable inquisitor, and, instead of wasting our time amending that official languages bill, putting aside current business1, abolish the post of Auditor General, for he holds precisely the same type of powers that are given to the Commissioner of Official Languages, that is, essentially, the power to investigate freely and to report to the house or to a committee of the house on his findings.
I therefore do not understand why the hon. members of the opposition, who tolerate, and have done so for a long time now, an institution called the Auditor General, should all of a sudden become so concerned and should shout about civil liberties being strangled, because a Commissioner of Official Languages will have similar powers in an area which is

not any more contentious, which cannot lead to any more serious situations nor to any worse difficulties than in the administration of public funds in this country.
Besides, having spoken of this accused person, who does not exist and who will never exist, and having said that this accused had no rights, the hon. member for Cardigan forgot to mention clause 32 of the bill and the amendment adopted by the committee, to which I refer the hon. member in case he has forgotten about it. I also refer all other hon. members to it, without reading it, because I want to be brief, as I consider that the work already done in committee should not be completely useless.
Unfortunately, the work of this committee becomes partly useless, because it seems that between consideration in committee and the report stage in the house, some opposition members forget everything that happened. So, the hon. member for Cardigan states that on the procedure under which the Commissioner will operate, he put questions to the ministers who were unable, in committee, to tell him why the procedure had been so conceived.
Once more, it is not the time to run through everything that was said in committee-because it would be to no avail to work in committee-I refer the hon. member to page 367, No. 5, of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill. He will find two full pages where my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) explained in detail to the hon. member for Cardigan, why the procedure is such as it is.
If the hon. member for Cardigan does not remember it, he could read the text over tonight before going to bed. I am sure that it will re-assure him and soothe his conscience since he told us earlier that it bothered him. He should then be able to sleep soundly. In fact, the answers given by my colleague the Minister of Justice are there, and I am surprised, once again, that the hon. member does not remember them. But I should not be surprised really since he does not seem to remember his own remarks to the committee.
Thus, carried away by indignation, he accused us, tonight of wanting to judge people behind closed doors. He made it an absolute crime. He allowed himself to be carried away to the point of telling us that everything should be carried out in public, whereas he said himself before the committee, and I refer to his remarks, on page 351, No. 4;
June 18, 1969



I realize that there are stages, of course. I mean there might never be a public hearing, there might never be a hearing. Perhaps the Commissioner after he makes a few preliminary investigations decides that there is just no substance to this complaint.

That means that in committee, the member himself visualized that the Commissioner could very well, in the interest of the persons affected-again, not the accused, seeing we are not dealing here with accused persons but people affected by the investigations conducted by the Commissioner-as I was saying that there could be cases where, in their own interest, the Commissioner should not make his findings public.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I should like to say that those powers which are described as terribly special or inquisitorial, dictatorial-I no longer know which adjectives to use, our friends opposite having exhausted all the adjectives of their vocabulary, with the verbal inflation which characterizes them-that those powers described almost as infernal and diabolical are exactly, according to the legal advisers of the department, essentially the same as those conferred by the inquiries act and the public service staff relations act.
We are therefore not dealing here with any new, special, dangerous, oppressive powers. They already exist in other fields of activity and, as the member for York South said, certain things lend themselves to scandal very easily, when we are dealing with the law on official languages, while the same provisions exist in many of our statutes to which the house raises absolutely no objection.
I should therefore like to say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that the spirit of the law, the powers conferred upon the Commissioner of Official Languages, the procedure provided for, smack in no way of the extraordinary or the scandalous. If there is any scandal, it could be in the sudden and so ill-advised indignation we witnessed here tonight.
As for me, I believe the proposed amendment is in no way justified and that the house must, at the time of the vote, reject it and restore the text of the bill to its present form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I should like to direct a question to the minister.
He did not say anything about the amendment I moved. Did he-
Official Languages


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary,
I said at the outset that I would not speak to this amendment because I thought at that time that it would be against the rules. This amendment is not before the house at this stage, but when it will be submitted, I will speak to it.


David Lewis: Was the minister here tonight, because it is my amendment that is under consideration now. The Chair said so.


Gérard Pelletier: Then, I made a mistake, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. I have listened with a great deal of interest to his remarks, but could he tell the house why he has asked that the powers of this commissioner should exceed the powers ordinarily given to a commissioner under the Inquiries Act? Why is he asking that this man should have powers in excess of those powers?


Gérard Pelletier: The simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is that they are not. I take the advice of people more learned than myself, the law officers of the Crown, who say the powers are essentially the same.


Mr. MacEwan:: The three wise men from Montreal.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the amendment under consideration which tends to amend the Conservative amendment reads as follows:

It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing, but he shall not make a report or recommendation adversely affecting any individual, department or other institution until that individual, department or other institution, as the case may be, has been given reasonable notice of the complaint against him or it.

Mr. Speaker, this implies once again that we are face to face with accused, with people called before the Commissioner as if he were a judge on the bench or an examining magistrate.
According to the description given in the act and the explanation of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the Commissioner is not precisely a chief of police or an examining magistrate nor a judge on the bench.

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
He will simply see to it that the legislation is enforced. If someone feels that his rights have been denied, he will be able to submit his case to the Commissioner who will then report to the government, to parliament.
In that respect, I think that the bill is clear enough and I wonder whether the Progressive Conservative members do not present amendments just to confuse people further.
Earlier, I heard the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), mixing up everything, the bill with the absence of the ministers, and the vote Friday last when the bell rang for 40 minutes. However, the same hon. member forgot to mention that when the vote was taken, about half of the Progressive Conservative members sneaked away so as not to vote. There is something inconsistent about that. They say that they are in favour of the bill but they introduce all kinds of amendments as if they really opposed it. All sorts of charges or innuendos are spread to the effect that the French-Canadians want to oblige all English-speaking people to speak French, which is not the case at all.
And I shall give an example. When the official languages bill is implemented, it will not mean that everybody will have to learn both languages. Shall I say to my father who is 81 years old: Tomorrow morning because the languages bill has been adopted, you will start learning English. Since he has never spoken a word of English in his life, I think it would be madness.
It is the same thing as far as the other language is concerned. The bill does not compel the people to learn the other official language and the amendment now under study is simple. The law says that if somebody feels he has been wronged, he will make a report to the Commissioner who does not judge the situation but makes a report to parliament. This is where the decisions are made to ensure that both languages shall be respected according to the spirit of the law. The matter seems simple to me.
In the house, some members say they are in favour of both languages, but they move amendments which spread confusion.
If the amendment improved the bill, all right, but it does not improve it. It even says that the accused will have to resort to the Commissioner who will decide, in private, or in public hearings, what should be done in the circumstances. Such is not the duty of the Commissioner.
We are asking for something else. The bill provides for hearings held in private. Indeed

many people will refuse to air their grievances in public. Others, for political reasons perhaps, will want to bring up everything in the open, in order to cause even more confusion and division. But if everything is settled elsewhere and reported to parliament, the house could always discuss special cases or cases which cannot come before the Commissioner. The present government can take steps to that end. The next government will also be able to take action and assume its responsibilities in that field.
I sincerely believe, that as the Secretary of State just said, that the Commissioner will not act as a chief of police, as an examining magistrate, or as a judge on the bench, and that no accused will appear before him. It will actually be people who will want to state their case but they will not be accused, they will state their case, and the Commissioner will consider it. He will be absolutely free to gather information from other people and when he submits his report, we will know, at least, what steps he has taken, and whether there has been any injustice. It will always be possible then for us to take action.
I do not feel this bill is a strait jacket for anybody whatsoever. I therefore wonder why the Conservatives move such an amendment, which is only likely to create more confusion and make us wonder whether they are really in favour of the two official languages.
They say here in the house that they are in favour of it and then they criticize the bill and make every effort to prevent the recognition of the two official languages in Canada. There is no question of forcing people to learn both languages or either of them; everyone is free. Then, let the Commissioner act according to the spirit of the act.
It seems to me that we have nothing to say or to add about that. We are against that amendment to the official languages bill, in Canada.
s (9:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because of a previous engagement which I could not break I was unable to be here earlier this evening, but I have had reported to me the rather emotional speeches of certain hon. members, particularly the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I want to say again that this issue of the powers of the official languages commissioner was thoroughly examined before the special committee. I do not assert
June 18, 1969

in any way whatsoever that this precludes a full debate here in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) interpreted my words quite correctly. If full scope is to be given to the committee system, some credence must be given to the decisions of the committee. Where a full inquiry has been made by a special and standing committee of the House of Commons, I believe that the house itself ought to pay due regard to it.
I want to restate, if I may in this full house assembled-I am delighted that the hon. member for Calgary North has returned to the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: -from
where he absented himself for a few minutes, as we all must from time to time because of other engagements. The hon. member will know exactly of what I speak. I think there is a misunderstanding, and I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who set it forth.


An hon. Member:: You missed his speech too.


John Napier Turner: No, I was
here for his speech. He set this misunderstanding forth in a clear fashion just a few minutes before the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) spoke. There is a misunderstanding about the powers and the purpose of the official languages commissioner.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Some of us can still read.


John Napier Turner: Some of us can still read, but some of us can still perhaps not understand fully the words we are trying to digest, and I say that with the greatest respect to the hon. member.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you very kindly.


John Napier Turner: The official commissioner is not a court; he is not a party to a judicial inquiry; he is not a judicial tribunal; he is not a quasi-judicial tribunal; he is an investigator in purely an administrative fashion. He has not the power to assess rights; he has no power to assess obligations; he has no power to impose penalties; he has no power to assess guilt and he has no power to implement any of the sanctions of the Criminal law. He simply recommends. He reports only to parliament, and the only sanction in this bill is persuasion and public opinion.
Official Languages
There is no sanction against any individual whatsoever and no individual rights are assessed. This is the purpose of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the minister a question?


John Napier Turner: Well, why not?


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is perfectly true, as the minister has said, that this is not a court or a judicial tribunal, but I ask the minister whether he will agree that when there is power to make a report which might seriously affect the reputation of individuals dealt with in the report, should this not be a power in respect of which the individual has a right to ask only to be exercised after a public hearing?


John Napier Turner: I will deal with that in a minute, but I will say it might be that reputations could be indirectly affected. This is why the government has opted for private hearings so that individual rights are assessed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: -so that the individual situation is assessed in order that reputations will not be affected, and I will get to that position in a moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The report is to be public.


John Napier Turner: We discussed this rather thoroughly at the committee stage, and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) knows of what I speak. I will deal with the point quite thoroughly before I take my seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit one question?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister has said, if I understood his remarks correctly, that the commissioner would not be a member of a court of law or have those powers. I would ask the minister why this commissioner has the right to summons and enforce the attendance of witnesses, which is true of any court; compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath, which is true of most courts; to produce documents, which is true of most courts, and to use the same kind of evidence that is used

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
in court? The bill then goes on further to say that he can admit evidence that is not admissible in court. You have given him all the powers a court has yet you say he has not got the functions of a court.


John Napier Turner: He has no
court functions whatsoever. He has the powers that are akin to the powers of an ombudsman. In fact, he is a linguistic ombudsman. He has no power to assess rights, or obligations, or duties on individuals. He will assess the status of access to the two official languages within the institutions of government. His power and his sanctions are persuasion and publicity; that is bringing facts to light to the minister of a department concerned, the head of a department and, more importantly, to parliament. He assesses no guilt and he attributes no blame. He makes an assessment as to what the situation may be and presents it to parliament. This language duplicates the statutary provisions, almost word for word, of the ombudsman legislation of New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta. The power involved is the power to bring to light certain facts, not to decide civil rights or attribute blame or guilt.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question? Earlier this evening I tried to express my view of the commissioner's functions, and I put them very much along the lines the minister has suggested, but some of his statements worry me. In his bill in clause 28(2) there is provision for a report or recommendation which may adversely affect any individual, any department or any other institution. Should not the minister qualify his statement that this man cannot lay any blame? Obviously, the minister meant to say that somebody might be blamed in the report or recommendation of the commission?


John Napier Turner: In terms of reputation and in terms of blame the hon. member is quite right, but this situation is quite different from assessing or attributing guilt, inflicting penalty or deciding civil rights. In terms of reputation and blame, clause 28(2) now says that if any time during the course of an investigation it appears to the commissioner that there may be sufficient grounds for his reporting or making a recommendation that may adversely affect an individual, a department or other institution, he shall before completing the investigation take every reasonable measure to give that individual, department or institution a full and ample opportunity to answer any adverse

allegation or criticism. This is exactly what it means and what I have suggested.


David Lewis: Why not give him the opportunity to be heard in public?


John Napier Turner: I think that in all fairness the hon. member should allow me to develop the argument I am attempting to develop. I will deal not only with the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), but also the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I think it is important when we analyse the powers and functions of the official languages commissioner to state quite clearly, as we attempted to do in committee and as I attempt to do now in this House of Commons, that he is not a judicial officer. He does not have the power of a court. He does not have the power to apply sanctions, to impose penalties. His only power is persuasion and to bring facts to light. His is an administrative, not a judicial, function. He does not decide rights. He does not assess guilt. He does not attach penalties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about an adverse ruling?


John Napier Turner: It is not a
ruling. He does not affect individual rights. His power is limited to assessing the equal status of two official languages as used by institutions, and through institutions by the people working in them. If there is blame, it is to be attached to the departmental head, the minister, but not to the individual. It is an institutional function, and not primarily an individual one. That being so, if the commissioner is effectively to perform his investigatory function, to ensure that the spirit and letter of this law is observed, he must have the power to summon witnesses and enforce their attandance.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And enforce.


John Napier Turner: To enforce the attendance of witnesses; that is right. The commissioner must have the power to compel them to give evidence, because without this power he could not deal with the complexities of modern government. I believe those powers of forcing and compelling the testimony of witnesses are limited by the closing words of the clause which read "in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record". This language imports all the privi-
June 18. 1SS9

leges and protections that are available to witnesses who appear before superior courts.
Because the commissioner is merely an administrative officer, because he reports and recommends but does not decide rights or obligations, does not assess penalties or impose obligations upon individuals, he is really in the same position as any investigator and is not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence. Indeed, this has to be so because he must be free, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said so admirably in committee, to receive at times hearsay evidence and to receive and examine documents without having them proved as they would have to be proved in a court of law.
This is precisely why clause 30 authorizes the commissioner to accept and receive evidence and information that would not be admissible in a court of law. The same situation applies under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The same situation applies under the acts establishing an ombudsman in Alberta, New Brunswick, Quebec and New Zealand. I say quite frankly that we have decided, as policy of the government, to set forth under clause 28 the power of summons, the power to administer an oath and to receive and accept evidence, so that those who have to administer the act, people involved in departmental responsibilities within the act, employees' associations and unions involved with responsibilities under this bill if it becomes law, will have a complete code in one statute outlining the power and authority of the commissioner. They will not have to refer to any other statute.
There is nothing in the Inquiries Act which goes beyond this bill. There is nothing of any substance in this bill that goes beyond the powers of the Inquiries Act. It is more convenient for the people who have to administer and fulfil the spirit and letter of this law to have the whole substance of the law contained in one document. This is because we will be dealing with people who will not be lawyers, who will not be sophisticated in legal interpretation-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They will not even know the law.


John Napier Turner: -and who
will want to have the complete substance of the bill in one document and they have it here. I want to make it very clear that clause 30 does not involve any invasion of civil liberties. Every effort has been made to protect the individual. Clause 28 of the bill is com-
Official Languages
pletely specific. Its intent, first of all, is that with this type of informal investigation the spirit and letter of the law can be observed more effectively. We believe that when dealing with institutions an informal investigation is more effective than the formality of a court procedure, because we are trying to assess how institutions are complying with the spirit and letter of the act which is to equate the official status of two languages.
We have set forth in the bill that investigations are to be conducted in private. This is to prevent any individual suffering adverse publicity through innuendo, rumour or any sort of hearsay evidence. Clause 28 (2) specifies completely that if the commissioner feels there is any ground for his making a report that may adversely affect any individual or department, he has an obligation before completing his investigation to take every reasonable measure to give the individual full and ample opportunity to answer any adverse allegation or criticism.
I should now like to turn to the wording of the amendment of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). Let us go through his amendment clause by clause. The first subclause of the hon. member's amendment goes to the question of whether the commissioner should under any circumstances conduct hearings in public. The policy of the government, which we have adopted and which we attempted to define in committee and now in this house, is that this type of administrative investigation, not a judicial investigation that will attribute guilt, assess rights and impose obligations, should not be held in public because of the risk to the reputation of individuals and government institutions. For this reason the commissioner's powers are those of investigation only. They do not trespass beyond the simple power of investigation. He is not a court. The right to be heard, the right to be represented at a public hearing, is in our view not entirely appropriate to these proceedings.
The bill provides, as I have already said, in clause 28(2) that the commissioner shall hear persons of departments when their reputation is impugned or when his recommendations may adversely affect them.
Subclause 2 of the hon. member's amendment reads as follows:
It is not necessary for the commissioner to hold any hearing but he may allow any person or any department or other institution concerned in an investigation, and shall allow any person or any department or other institution complained against in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
10366

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
This amendment was considered in committee. It was not adopted in committee because we felt it would not give the commissioner sufficient flexibility to dispose of frivolous, vexatious and unfounded claims without hearing those complained against. In other words, if in the commissioner's opinion those who presented the claim were doing so in a frivolous, vexatious or unfounded manner the commissioner should not, if in his judgment the claim fell into one or other of those categories, be bound to a hearing. We feel this is a useful proceding because a person in respect of whom a complaint is made in this type of frivolous proceedings, should not be involved in a hearing. We believe that this is a useful provision.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Clause 3 again deals with a public hearing, but I have dealt with that matter already.
Part (4) of the amendment of the hon. member reads:
Parliament may,
(a)	of its own volition, or
(b)	upon the recommendation of the Governor in Council, regulate the procedure to be followed by the commissioner in the exercise of his powers and duties.
Surely, the commissioner, and indeed all those who have the powers of a royal commission should have the power to make their own rules and to regulate their own procedure. We believe that it would be absolutely impracticable for parliament, for the Governor in Council or for some other body, to regulate the procedure under which the commissioner should operate.
Part (5) of the hon. member's amendment is already found in clause 29 (2) of the bill.
Part (6) of the hon. member's amendment is found in clause 29 (3) of the bill.
Part (7) reads:
The commissioner has, in relation to the carrying out of any investigation under this act, (a) the powers of a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act;
And then it spells out the limitations in the interests of defence for security. This amendment also was considered by the special committee but was not adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Minister of Justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We want to hear you.


John Napier Turner: I thank hon. members for their courtesy in allowing me, through you, Mr. Speaker, to continue.
That amendment was considered in committee and not adopted because we believe that the powers set forth in clause 30 of the bill amply cover all the powers set forth for a commissioner under the Inquiries Act. Because of the fact that this bill will have to be administered by laymen and by departments of government and will have to be reviewed by employees and unions which deal with the government, in fact by the people of Canada, we felt it more useful to specify and set out the powers of the commissioner rather than refer them primarily to the Inquiries Act.
Part (7) (b) of the hon. member's amendment makes no change to what is now clause 30 (b) of the bill.
Now, I should like to deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). As we see it, what this amendment attempts to do is to strike out the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) and to provide a substitute for clause 28 (2) of the bill. In our view that is the effect of this amendment. I wish to say to the hon. member that we do not believe his drafting to be as good as ours. Perhaps he took the advice of other counsel in his party. Nevertheless, I want to say to him that he does not achieve what he seeks to achieve in this amendment as well as we do in the bill.


David Lewis: I will be glad to accept any improvement so long as the minister accepts the principle of my amendment.


John Napier Turner: The substance of the hon. member's subamendment, which is a substitute for clause 28 (2) reads:
It is not necessary for the commissioner to hold any hearing,-
The hon. member agrees with us there.
-but he shall not make a report or recommendation adversely affecting any individual, department or other institution until that individual, department or other institution, as the case may be, has been given reasonable notice of the complaint against him or it, and has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in public or in private and to be represented by counsel as that person, department or other institution may elect;
June 18, 1969

We feel that his proposed wording "given reasonable notice of the complaint'' and "full opportunity to be heard in public" is not an improvement on the words that are already found in clause 28 (2) which read:
-to give to that individual, department or institution a full and ample opportunity to answer any adverse allegation or criticism,
The only change that the hon. member is attempting to make is in bringing in the concept of a public hearing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At the election of the person
affected.


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member may perhaps agree that, apart from that concept, the existing wording of clause 28 (2) provides, in terms of a potential adverse ruling, as much protection as his amendment. So, we are left with his feeling that there should be a public hearing at the election of the person adversely affected.


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister-


John Napier Turner: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to continue with this argument, after which I will be glad to entertain his question.
I believe that the election for a public hearing was involved in a discussion in the committee. We are of the view that in the purely administrative process, which is not a judicial process, which does not decide rights or impose obligations, which is an informal process to attempt to assess whether the spirit of this act is being applied by institutions and government departments, it is only fair to have these informal inquiries performed in private because of a risk to a reputation, particularly in the event that the complaint may prove to be without foundation. When we were in committee I put to the hon. member the following proposition: Supposing a member of a department elected to have the inquiry made public and the whole chain of command and other individuals were involved. Would he not, by exercising that election, involve others in publicity which they could not later control in an administrative fashion? I am not going to resurrect that debate, but suffice it to say that we made that policy decision feeling that in these administrative spheres, since we were not involved whatsoever in a judicial concept, it was probably fairer to the individuals involved to have the administrative function performed in pri-
29180-656J
Official Languages
vate. For that reason we rejected the suggestion and, since the hon. member did not pursue it in the committee, I feel we should reject it now. I know that the hon. member agrees with us that the essence of this bill cannot be enforced by court proceeding and by judicial inquiry, but can only be assessed by informal administrative proceedings affecting departments and not individuals. We want to ensure that in these investigations the individuals who work within these departments do not have their reputations blackened before the facts are completely assessed.
Obviously the results become public when the commissioner finds a transgression of this act. He then reports to the minister and to his department and ultimately to parliament. Before he can do that, any individual who is adversely affected has the right to a hearing before the commissioner. That is the reason for which we rejected the amendment in the committee. I can only repeat what I said during the informal discussion we had before the special committee. I believe the hon. member knows exactly the spirit of this bill. I have not finished yet, but I would be glad to entertain the question of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid).
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, the minister allowed us to believe that clause 28(2) gives a person against whom a complaint has been lodged the right to be heard. This is at the discretion of the commissioner. But it may not be exercised until half the hearing has been completed. Does the minister really think it is fair that a person should be called in midway during the proceedings? What possible objection could he have to his presence from the very beginning, so that he could sit in on the whole of the proceedings? I am sure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since the hon. member does not have the floor he cannot make another speech. I believe he was given an opportunity to ask a question.


John Napier Turner: In answer to the hon. member, all I can say is that the proceedings are not intended to try any individual. His rights, his obligations, any penalties under the law which may attach to him personally, are not in play in these proceedings. This is an administrative procedure affecting institutions only, and the individual is only indirectly affected. To answer the first part of the question, may I say it is mandatory upon the commissioner if it appears to him

June 18, 1969
Official Languages
that there are sufficient grounds for making a report or recommendation which may adversely affect an individual, to take every reasonable means to give that individual full and ample opportunity to answer any allegations. The words used in this connection are: "The Commissioner shall-" and so on. So my answer is that it is mandatory upon the commissioner if there is any evidence which may adversely affect anybody in his administrative inquiry, to allow that man to appear.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question? I want to ask him this-if Mr. Speaker will permit me, I have to explain it, first.
I agree it is mandatory upon the commissioner to give a hearing to a person who may be adversely affected. But I ask the minister, what is wrong about permitting a person who may be adversely affected by a report or a recommendation an opportunity to be heard in public if he so requests? In what way could this interfere with the informal workings of this bill? I personally agree with the minister that they ought to remain informal in all other respects.


John Napier Turner: Let me put
it this way. If the performance of anyone is to be assessed under this bill it is institutional performance, and that performance can only be fulfilled by a heirarchy of individuals. Nowhere in this bill is there a penalty or judgment to be levied against an individual; if there is any judgment or assessment it is levied against an institution. Because we are dealing with institutions we have felt that until the commissioner has had an opportunity to assess the situation the people involved should be given the protection of privacy.
When somebody is affected he has a right to appear before the commission. If he were to have the right to elect an inquiry in public to put forward his defence-I use that word
inadvisedly as he does not have to defend himself since he is fulfilling departmental policy -then he is likely to involve other people in the hierarchy of the department.


David Lewis: As always happens when you are trying to protect your reputation.


John Napier Turner: Thus, by trying to protect his reputation-not his rights, because it is an institution which is subject to inquiry-he is likely to involve a chain of other people in the department, that is, involve them publicly. This is the rationale behind the government's approach and this is what led us to the judgment we have made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it is a dangerous one.


John Napier Turner: To summarize-I realize I am imposing upon the courtesy of the house-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will appreciate, even with his near-sightedness, that I have one more minute and that is all I am going to need.
I repeat. The powers of this commissioner are not judicial. As the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) said, he is not a policeman. He is a linguistic ombudsman. His powers' are administrative only. They are limited to reviewing under the statute the performance of institutions. They have nothing to do with the performance, or civil rights or obligations of individuals, nor do they involve penalties.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock.


John Napier Turner: For these reasons, we reject the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 19, 1969