1969-05-21

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce today that an agreement has been reached between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec to establish a national park on Forillon Peninsula.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear,


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The discussions concerning the establishment of this national park go back to the signing of the Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement between Canada and Quebec, in May, 1968, which dealt with the development of the Lower St. Lawrence region of the Gaspe area and of the Iles-de-la-Madelaine.
Since my appointment as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have stated on several occasions that I attach great importance to the establishment of a national park in the Gaspe area and that I would do everything in my power to bring it to fruition.
The Gaspe national park is the first national park in Quebec. It is also the twentieth national park in Canada.
The establishment of this park completes our transcontinential network of national parks and permits us to maintain intact an extremely picturesque corner of our country for the benefit of future generations.
Under the terms of the agreement reached between the two governments, the province of Quebec will place the site of the Gaspe park at the disposal of the government of Canada for a period of 99 years. The agreement states, as well, that the province of Quebec will have the right to regain possession at the end of 60 years on repayment of all federal capital expenditures incurred by
the federal government during the 60-year period.
In either case, the government of Quebec agrees that the land would be used for the purposes of a park and conservation in perpetuity. This arrangement is renewable by agreement of the two parties.
Finally, the agreement provides that the park will reflect the linguistic character of Canada, and in particular the French character of Quebec. It is essential that any national park located in Quebec should be in keeping with the very personality of Quebec. The development of the Gaspe national park is above all a victory for the inhabitants of the Gaspe area. The population of the Gaspe peninsula in the past year has consistently urged on both governments the creation of this park, which will undoubtedly contribute to the economic development of that area.
The agreement reached by the federal government with the province of Quebec to establish this park is unique. This agreement completes the national park system by providing at least one park in each province. I hope that the same spirit of co-operation which has resulted in this agreement will make it possible to create other national parks in Quebec within established policy.
The transfer of administration and control of the land required would be for a term in this instance, but a term of such length that we are satisfied that future generations will not reverse it if it is as successful as we believe it will be.
The people of Quebec have not hitherto enjoyed the benefits which come from taking part in the national parks system. It is my belief this park will be recognized by all the citizens of Quebec as a significant enhancement of the economic and social well-being of the province. It will become, I am convinced, a permanent part of Quebec and of Canada for the benefit not only of the present generation but of untold generations to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party, we welcome the agreement

May 21. 1969
National Parks
between the federal government and the province of Quebec for the establishment of a national park in the Gaspe area.
Of course, this is good news not only for the country but also for the people of Quebec, and I must say that under this agreement both parties keep their jurisdiction, and that Quebec keeps also jurisdiction over its territory. This is the result of the dialogue and the mutual understanding which we would like to see at all times between the federal government and the province of Quebec.
Obviously, as implied in the statement, because of its special character, Quebec is very often asking for some assurances in regard to the establishment of national parks or the distribution of jurisdictions between the federal government and the province.
Mr. Speaker, as a member for Quebec and on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party, I am glad that this agreement has been reached, as it will help, I am sure, to promote the economic expansion of Quebec and to reduce significantly unemployment in this part of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we deplore however that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) attempted to interrupt the dialogue between provincial authorities. When he went to the Gaspe peninsula, he addressed the Chambers of Commerce and tried to provoke a reaction within the population against the Quebec government. I am happy to see that the minister reversed his attitude, and I feel it is that reversal of attitude which has resulted today in the conclusion of this agreement.
On behalf of my party, I congratulate the Minister on having understood the situation and the demands of Quebec, and on succeeding in reaching this agreement, which will be beneficial not only, as I said as while ago, to the citizens of the lower St. Lawrence region, but to all Quebecers as well.
I urge the minister to carry on his dialogue and to show an understanding mind with Quebec authorities, so as to be able, in the near future, to enter into other agreements for the development of national parks in Quebec.
I read in a Quebec newspaper during the weekend that the minister intended to develop about ten national parks in the province of Quebec. It was even said that it was his intention to develop one in my own riding, in the Saguenay area. If the minister needs my influence with the Quebec government for the

development of this park as soon as possible, I will be pleased to co-operate.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this agreement, and we congratulate, not only the minister concerned, but also the Quebec authorities who understood the problem and were able to negotiate.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, for two reasons we listened with some pleasure to the announcement of the minister. We listened with pleasure first because this exhibits that element of co-operation between the federal government and a provincial government we hope will be extended to other provinces in respect of other matters and for other reasons. We listened also to his announcement with pleasure, because a national park is like any other park in that its existence is one thing which contributes to the aesthetics of our life in this nation.
Even though, as I understood the minister to say, this completes a chain of national parks, we hope it will not be the end of this national chain, but that there will be opportunities for greater co-operation and participation in respect of parks development. I must put in a plug for my own area. Because of the great interest which exists in that vast northwestern section of British Columbia, so far totally ignored by the federal government in matters such as this, we hope this co-operation will extend to that area.
I am sure we all appreciated the enthusiasm with which the minister made his announcement. I hope he has the same enthusiasm when he is dealing with people that he has displayed in dealing with things such as national parks. We looked forward in the hope that today would be the day he would make a policy declaration about Indian affairs, because this is something we have been awaiting for a long, long period of time.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we congratulate the minister on his statement regarding the new agreement which has just been reached. For the first time in Quebec-this was long overdue-a national park will be established.
During the year when the negotiations were being held, we felt there was a great deal of uncertainty and of hesitation, and on some occasions we felt that the statements made by both parties were jeopardizing the future of that park.
May 21. 1969

We are happy to see that statements from both parties have now come to an end. I would not want to blame the minister for statements which rather tended to impede negotiations and to create misunderstandings.
We are proud to realize that the federal government has at least succeeded in coming to terms with the Quebec government in order to establish our first national park in our province, it being the 20th in Canada. This means, therefore, that we, in Quebec, have certainly not been spoiled with regard to national parks.
I would like to remind the minister-as he already knows-that in Quebec, many sites could be developed into national parks. We hope that the decision made today, in cooperation with the Quebec government, will lead to further agreements, other negotiations, so that other parks will be established in Quebec, particularly in my area, where the question of developing another national park is being seriously considered at the present time. In Quebec, there are some very fine holiday resorts, and I know that the establishment of national parks would help attract more tourists, in short, develop the tourist industry everywhere in Canada. That industry has not been neglected, judging by the number of national parks that have been developed in other provinces. But it was time the minister realized the situation created in Quebec and concluded an agreement with the government of that province.
We are happy for the people of the Gaspe peninsula. This region is known to everyone in Canada from sea to sea. It offers special touristic attractions and we are happy to see that after having been neglected for so long, it will get a national park which will promote its development, both from the touristic and the economic point of view.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



TRANSPORT


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, for some time now there has been speculation in the house concerning possible rate revisions on the government ferries operating from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to Prince Edward Island, from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and from Nova Scotia to the State of Maine. The matter of rates for different classes of traffic on the
East Coast Ferry Service Rates government ferries operated on the east coast has been very carefully studied both by the government and by Canadian National Railways who operate these ferries on behalf of the government. Consultations were also held with officials in the provinces concerned. These studies have shown that a revision in rates is necessary.
In any such revision, careful attention should be given to the individual characteristics of each type of traffic; such factors as whether the service was essential or nonessential to each class of user, the structure of competitive rates, the cost of handling different types of traffic and the cost of alternative routes should be examined. Therefore, while it is clear that some rate changes must be forthcoming on these ferry services, not all of which I hasten to add will be upward, before instituting such changes the government wants to be certain that what has been proposed is consistent with and reflects the new transportation policy currently being developed for the Atlantic provinces. For this reason it has been decided not to institute rate revisions on the east coast ferry services until such time as the new Atlantic provinces transportation policy has been worked out and the government has had the opportunity to examine the proposed rates in light of this new policy.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the minister upon his announcement. I only hope that it indicates a change of heart in the Department of Transport, inasmuch as the transport committee spent a great deal of time in the Atlantic provinces looking into the problems of transportation which are, of course, interrelated with this matter.
I think it is a very wise move on the part of the minister to place a freeze upon these rates until the government works out a policy. I hope the government will now pay more attention to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Attention by the government to these recommendations has not been evident to date. We look for a greater measure of appreciation of the transport committee's work in this regard.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I very much hope that the matter of placing a freeze upon freight rates, which is of course very closely interrelated with ferry rates, will come before the house-I am sure most hon. members share this hope-before we recess for the

May 21, 1969
Canada Disaster Fund
summer. We have on a couple of occasions come close to dealing with this question. I hope the minister is able to persuade his colleague the house leader to bring this matter forward for discussion before the house recesses for the summer.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Fronlenac):: I wish quite sincerely to congratulate the minister on his statement and I would like to call his attention to a problem between Levis and Quebec City. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Vickers and the Davie Shipbuilding might build some boats. Then, instead of asking for reduced rates, we would ask for boats in aid of the Levis-Quebec City ferry.



CANADA DISASTER FUND


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-196, to provide for the establishment of the Canada Disaster Fund.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to meet the problem of deciding at what point disaster losses are beyond the capacity of a province to deal with effectively, and the disaster essentially becomes national. The bill sets up a fund to which contributions can be made in advance by federal and provincial governments and by individuals, companies and institutions. The board of trustees each year determines in advance, in respect of each province, the provincial financial tolerance point above which losses are of national scope. Should a disaster occur in that province, the board contributes to the province out of the fund in respect of the losses above the tolerance point. This bill will ensure prompt and efficient assistance to those areas which qualify and will help to eliminate any future provincial-federal disputes over the sharing of costs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


An hon. Member:: At the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many farm units were there in each of the provinces in each of the last five years?
2.	In each of the last five years, how many farm units have received loans under the Farm Credit Corporation?
3.	In each of the last five years, what was the total of loans granted under the provision of the Farm Improvement Loans Act?
4.	In each of the Provinces, how many farm units have reported taxable incomes under the Income Tax Act in each of the last five years?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. According to the Bureau of Statistics 1966 Census of Agriculture, the number of census farms by provinces are:
Number of Number of Commercial Small Scale
Farms*	Farms	TotalNewfoundland	301	1,403	1,704P.E.I.	3,328	3,020	6,348Nova Scotia	2,867	6,726	9,593New Brunswick 2,938	5,751	8,689Quebec	41,961	38,185	80,146Ontario	70,724	39,081	109,805Manitoba	27,372	12,336	39,708Saskatchewan	69,962	15,469	85,431Alberta	48,971	20,279	69,250B.C.	8,407	10,650	19,057Canada	276,835	152,910	429,745
* Commercial farm is one from which value of farm products sold in 1965 was $2,500 or more. Does not include institutional farms.
2.	The number of loans disbursed by the Corporation for the last five fiscal years: 1964/65; 9,845; 1965/66, 11,049; 1966/67, 11,632; 1967/68, 11,559; 1968/69, 9,275 (Estimated).
3.	1964, $150,836,329; 1965, $202,706,910; 1966, $212,796,464; 1967, $203,664,856; 1968, $40,243,867.
4.	The information is not available in the form requested. Available statistics relate to individuals since this is the basis of reporting incomes on tax returns.
[Mr. Nesbitt.)
May 21. 1969


NOVA SCOTIA ARDA PROGRAM
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Has the government under the ARDA programme assisted the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia in the acquisition of land for parks?
2.	If so, where are the parks located for which land was acquired between April 1, 1963 and March 31, 1969?
3.	What has been the total amount expended during this period for the acquisition of land and for the development of the parks?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes.
2.	Annapolis: Valleyview; Clements; Cottage Cove. Antigonish: Beaver Mtn; James River; Linwood. Colchester: Five Islands; Tatamagouche; Balmoral; Shubenacadie. Cumberland: Wentworth; Pugwash; Shinimicas; Fenwick. Cape Breton: Mira; Ben Eoin. Digby: Smugglers Cove; Savary; Lake Midway. Gys-boro: Two Mile; County Harbour; Ecum Se-cum; Marie Joseph; Boyleston. Hants: Smiley Interval; Selma. Inverness: Southwest Mar-garee; Craigmore; Lake Law; Harvard; Ma-bou; Whycocomagh. Lunenburg: Bayswater; East River; Second Peninsula; Sims Settlement; Graves. Pictou: Caribou; Salt Springs; Green Hill; Powells Point; Malmerby Beach. Queens: Ten Mile. Richmond: The Battery. Shelburne: The Islands. Victoria: Plaster; North River. Yarmouth: Ellenwood.
3.	Land, $80,885; Development, $410,212.


HEALTH AND WELFARE SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1,	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No, the Department of National Health and Welfare does not provide subsidies: the reference to subsidies has been interpreted to mean other than the shared-cost programs and other programs of the department which indirectly provide assistance to the economy or groups of individuals in Canada.
2.	Not applicable.
Questions


SUDBURY, ONT., UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Mr. Serre: 1.	How many applications for unemployment insurance benefits were received by the Sudbury office during 1968 and of these, how many were by residents of the constituency of Nickel Belt?
2.	What was the total amount paid in unemployment insurance benefits to claimants resident in the constituency of Nickel Belt during 1968?
3.	How many applications for unemployment insurance benefits were received by the Sturgeon Falls office during 1968 and of these, how many were made by residents of the constituency of Nickel Belt?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1. A total of 10,553 initial applications for unemployment insurance benefit were received by the Sudbury office during
1968.	The number of initial applications received from residents of the constituency of Nickel Belt is not available.
2.	This information is not available.
3.	The office at Sturgeon Falls was closed in July 1966, therefore this information is not available.


THE &quot;POSTMARK&quot;
Mr. Mather: 1.	When did the Post Office publication for its employees, called the "Postmark", first commence publication, and what is the present annual circulation in English and French?
2.	Has the "Postmark" been now terminated?
3.	If so, was the decision wholly or partially due to the new postal rate increases?
4.	What, if any, alternatives are being considered by the Post Office regarding publication of communication for the employees?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minisler of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1.	(a) In 1939; in
the latter part of that year publication was discontinued for the duration of the war. Publication was resumed in May 1948; (b) Latest circulation, English, 32,350; Latest circulation, French, 10,715.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. The introduction of various weekly or monthly publications, by employee unions and recreational organizations, have tended to make a departmental staff magazine redundant. It was therefore decided that the magazine would be discontinued as of March
1969.
4.	The whole question of communications within the postal service is now under study and several alternatives are being considered. One possibility is the use of regional publications of a tabloid nature.
8888	COMMONS
Questions


SEED DISTRIBUTION
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Is free seed distribution to growers still practised by the Canada Department of Agriculture?
2.	What seeds are distributed and to whom?
3.	Who can qualify under such a program and where should application be made?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	No free seed is distributed to growers by the Canada Department of Agriculture.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.


PORTNEUF, QUE., FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: 1.	Does the federal government have part-time employees in the constituency of Portneuf, who report to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
2.	If so, what are their names and addresses?
3.	How many hours per month does that work require of each employee?
4.	Do such employees work in connection with (a) the federal constituency, or (b) the provincial constituency?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics employs one person parttime in the federal constituency of Portneuf.
2.	Mrs. Gertrude Renaud, 106 Jacques Cartier Blvd., Donnaconna, Que.
3.	Mrs. Renaud works approximately 30 hours per month as an interviewer on the Labour Force Survey.
4.	Mrs. Renaud works in the federal constituency of Portneuf.


LOAN TO COMMONWEALTH TRUST COMPANY
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Did the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation make a loan last November of two and a half million dollars to the Commonwealth Trust Company?
2.	If so, did they ask for a financial accounting, including an audit, of the affairs of the Company before making the loan?
3.	Is the government prepared to table the audit?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1,	2 and 3. It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate for the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to make public any information relating to the affairs of any member institution.
[Mr. Kierans.l
DEBATES	May 21, 1989


BUSINESS PRACTICES IN JASPER NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Have officials of the Parks Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received from a number of businessmen in the Jasper National Park a pledge that they will close their stores and offices on certain days in order to protest the parks department's policies relative to Jasper National Park?
2.	If so, what has been the action of the Department in consideration of this reaction by businessmen who have been operating in the Park for a number of years?
3.	Was any authorization given by the Parks Branch to the Superintendent of Jasper National Park to publicly qualify these businessmen as "rabblerousers" whose case should be rejected out of hand?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3. No. Full details with respect to the independent appraisal of land values in this community were provided to the Jasper Chamber of Commerce April 14, and by press release and press conference April 22, by the Western Regional Director, Mr. William McKim.


SASKATOON, SASK., UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STAFF
Mr. Gleave: 1. How many persons are employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan ?
2.	What is their average wage?
3.	Are any of these positions being declared redundant and if so, for what reasons?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: 1. The Unemployment Insurance Commission has 36 regular employees and 10 casual employees in Saskatoon.
2.	The average salary for regular employees is $6,157 per annum. The average salary for casual employees is $1.93 per hour.
3.	There are no redundant positions at Saskatoon.


UNION OF MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Corbin: Is the federal government participating in a study on the union of the Maritime Provinces and, if so, in what manner?
May 21, 1969


Russell Clayton Honey: Yes. The Atlantic Development Board made a grant of $125,000 (half of the estimated cost) to the study.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Coates: What are the names and salaries of the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Public Service Commission?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: J. J. Carson, Chairman, $28,750; Ruth E. Addison, Commissioner, $24,250; Yves La-bonte, Commissioner, $24,250.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Mr. Coates: What are the names and salaries of the Executive Officers of the National Film Board?


Gérard Pelletier: Dr. Hugo McPherson, Government Film Commissioner and Chairman, National Film Board, $24,840; Mr. Gerard Bertrand, General Manager, $20,600.


MEDICAL DOCTORS IN CANADA
Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the number of doctors increased or decreased in Canada in the last three years?
2.	Has the ratio of doctors to population improved or decreased in the same period?
3.	What is the rate of medical school enrolment for the past three years?
4.	Has immigration of doctors to Canada accelerated in the last three years and, if so, by what extent?
5.	Has the number of doctors leaving Canada in the last three years increased or decreased and, in what numbers?
6.	Has the number of doctors who are becoming specialists increased in the last three years and, if so, to what extent?


John Carr Munro: 1. The number of doctors has increased in the last three years.
2.	The ratio of doctors to population has improved in the last three years.
3.	Enrolment in Canadian medical schools was 4,023 in 1965-66, 4,230 in 1966-67, and 4,416 in 1967-68.
Questions
4.	Yes. The number of immigrants whose intended occupation was physician or surgeon increased from 995 in 1966, 1,213 in 1967, to 1,277 in 1968, an increase of 28 per cent.
5.	Figures are only available on the number of physicians and surgeons who leave Canada for the United States. Their number increased during the last three years for which figures are available from 380 in 1965 to 449 in 1967.
6.	Yes. The number of successful candidates in the specialty examinations of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (excluding Fellowship) increased by approximately 45 per cent from 1966 to 1968.


SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I., CANADIAN FORCES BASE
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	How many armed services personnel were stationed at Canadian Forces Base, Summerside
(a)	on April 30, 1968 (b) on April 30, 1969?
2.	How many civilians were employed at Canadian Forces Base Summerside (a) on April 30, 1968 (b) on April 30, 1969?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 1,368;
(b)	1,116.
2. (a) 306; (b) 270.


INTERNATIONAL CONTROL COMMISSION
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	At the present time, how many Canadians are serving in South East Asia with the International Control Commission?
2.	Of this total, how many are (a) military (b) civilian, personnel?
3.	Of the above, how many are stationed in (a) North Vietnam (b) South Vietnam (c) Cambodia (d) Laos?
4.	Since the establishment of the Commission, how many Canadians have served in the area of its responsibility?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. There are three separate International Commissions operating in the area of South East Asia formerly known as Indochina, one in each of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Although the membership is the same in each case (Canada, India and Poland), and co-operative arrangements exist between the three bodies, the terms of reference under which each operates are not identical. At the present time there are 52 Canadians serving with the three commissions.
2. Of this total, 25 are military and 27 are civilians.

May 21. 1969
Questions
3.	These Canadians are stationed as follows: (a) North Vietnam, 4; (b) South Vietnam, 28; (c) Cambodia, 7; (d) Laos, 13.
4.	Since the establishment of the commissions in 1954, it is estimated that 1262 Canadians (861 military and 401 civilians) have served with these organizations.


LAKEHEAD ELEVATOR STORAGE SPACE
Mr. Muir (Lisgar): 1.	What is the total storage space of the Terminal Elevators at the Lakehead?
2.	What is the total storage space owned by (a) each of the Prairie Pools (b) individual line elevators?
3.	What was the total amount of grain shipped from the terminals from January 1, 1969 to April 30, 1969?
3.	How many bushels of grain has been shipped out of each Pool or line elevator terminal during the above period?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	107,321,110 bushels.
2.	(a) Saskatchewan wheat pool, 36,117,210 bushels; Manitoba pool elevators, 17,080,000 bushels, (b) Federal Grain Limited, 21,200,000 bushels; United Grain Growers, 13,000,000 bushels; Richardson Terminals Ltd., 9,500,000 bushels; National Grain Co. Ltd., 5,835,000 bushels; Canada Malting Co. Ltd., 2,888,900 bushels; Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., 1,700,000 bushels.
3.	37,200,644 bushels of the principal grains.
4.	The Statistics Act does not permit the disclosure of information concerning operations of individual companies. However, total shipments from terminals were: Wheat pool terminals, 15,297,268 bushels; Line elevator terminals, 19,508,239 bushels; Private terminals, 2,395,137 bushels.


AGREEMENT RESPECTING NATIONAL DEFENCE OVERSEAS SCHOOLS
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	On what date was the present wording of the current agreement under which teachers serve DND schools overseas finalized?
2.	What is the earliest effective date for the commencement of the teachers' service under the current agreement?
3.	On what date and at whose request were copies of the current agreement supplied to the Canadian Teachers Federation?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in three parts. 1. February 16, 1968.
2.	September 1 of the year in which agreement is signed.
3.	Copies of the current agreement were supplied to the Canadian Teachers Federation as a result of a verbal request from federation officials sometime between January 8 and February 18, 1969.


INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR COUPONS
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What was the total sum of income tax deductions claimed by manufacturers covering the distributions of "cents off" coupons to householders or retailers?
2.	Does that sum cover (a) the face value of coupons returned to the manufacturer (b) the postage or other delivery expense in connection with the distribution of coupons?
3.	What was the amount of deductibility claimed in respect of (a) and (b) of part 2 of this question?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1, 2 and 3. This information is not available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacLean: 1.	What is the advertising budget of each department of the Government of Canada and each agency or corporation of the Government of Canada for the fiscal years 1961-62, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69?
2.	For each department, who were the advertising agencies in each year?
3.	What were the eommissionable billings?
4.	What funds other than commissions on billings were paid to the agency and for what purpose?
Return tabled.


EXPENDITURES ON PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL RESIDENCE
Mr. Coates: What have been the amounts of public funds expended on the official residence of the Prime Minister for each of the fiscal years from 1957-58 to the present and of that amount in each year, how much was for maintenance and how much for improvements and in each instance, what were the improvements carried out?
Return tabled.
May 21. 1969


EXPENDITURES ON PRIME MINISTER'S SUMMER RESIDENCE
Mr. Coates: What have been the amounts of public funds expended on the summer residence of the Prime Minister for each of the fiscal years from 1957-58 to the present and of that amount in each year, how much was for maintenance and how much for improvements and in each instance, what were the improvements carried out?
Return tabled.


TRADE MISSIONS, FAIRS AND EXHIBITIONS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	Since January 1, 1966, what trade missions or delegations have been sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and what products were promoted?
2.	Since January 1, 1966, what trade fairs, exhibitions, etc., have been supported or promoted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and what products have been promoted?
3.	Has any trade mission or exhibition been sponsored or promoted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce having to do with the sale of seed potatoes?
4.	Is consideration being given by the Department to organize a trade mission or exhibition to increase the sale of seed potatoes?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is frequently suggested to members of the house that they should put their questions on the order paper. I placed a question on the order paper on May 5, and it is a starred question. It is not one which requires statistical information or collaboration between departments. The question reads:
Will the government give favourable consideration immediately to giving a guaranteed floor price for wheat for the years 1969 and 1970?
With galloping inflation in the cost of the things the farmer has to buy, and the lower returns he receives on the small amount of wheat he is able to sell, this question should be answered.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on April 15, I placed on the order paper a question asking whether the white paper on external policy will be prepared and presented to the house for debate prior to the summer recess. It has been there for well over a
Motions for Papers
month. It requires no more than a simple yes or no, and I wonder why it has not been answered.


Mitchell William Sharp: The short answer is that we are not quite sure whether there will be one white paper or several. We are trying to make up our minds.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: On May 9, Mr. Speaker, I put down a question regarding the manpower office in Digby. It has ten parts. I would ask that this be answered as soon as possible because the changeover from one office to another is taking place next week.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 131, 141, 143 and 170 for the production of papers are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motion Nos. 131, 141, 143 and 170 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



RECALL OF MOTOR VEHICLES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 131-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Canadian automobile companies regarding recalls of motor vehicles due to faulty workmanship referred to by the Minister of Transport in answer to Question No. 1,898 in Hansard of April 23, Page 7850.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 141-Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents relating to 1967-1969 teaching contracts for service in Department of National Defence Schools overseas as weU as a copy of such contracts and regulations as would apply to such postings.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 21, 1969
Motions for Papers REPORT BY METRA CONSULTANTS
Motion No. 143-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by METRA Consulting Group Limited on the Sydney Steel Corporation prepared for the Atlantic Development Board.
Motion agreed to.
HIRING OF CONSULTANTS Motion No. 170-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the federal government's Contracts, Regulations, Orders in Council 1964-1467, 1966-533, 1967-12, 1968465, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, and the Treasury Board Management Improvement Policy Statement (MI-9-66) and Treasury Board Guidelines (Information Bulletin 1966-2), referred to by the President of the Treasury Board in answer to Question No. 933 on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 153 and 166 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations as to privileged documents and the consent of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motion Nos. 153 and 166 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
BONNE BAY, NFLD., NATIONAL PARK Motion No. 153-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada, particularly as represented by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Province of Newfoundland with respect to the creation of a National Park at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
INDIAN AFFAIRS POLLUTION STANDARDS Motion No. 166-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all standards on pollution established by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 121, 122, 123 and 132?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



STUDIES ON SATELLITE SYSTEMS REFERRED TO IN HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 121-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the cost-benefit studies on the domestic communications satellite systems referred to by the Minister of Communications in answer to Question No. 1,881 in Hansard of April 23, 1969, Page 7849.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following: The cost benefit studies referred to in answer to question No. 1881 in Hansard of April 23, 1969, were undertaken as confidential studies in the preparation of the white paper on a domestic satellite communications system for Canada and in connection with subsequent work on the domestic satellite communications system. The information contained therein was for the most part privileged, or obtained on the understanding that it should remain confidential. Under the circumstances it would not be in the public interest to release these studies and I therefore wonder whether the hon. member would consent to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Perhaps I
might be allowed to say a word in connection with that request, Mr. Speaker. I would say that inasmuch as the government is asking members of this house to approve legislation in this connection which would involve the expenditure of $60 million to $70 million I think we are entitled to ask for full disclosure of the financial details. Accordingly, I should like to request that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.



STUDIES ON SATELLITE SYSTEMS REFERRED TO IN STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the cost-benefit studies related to the proposed satellite communication system of the Government of Canada referred to by the Minister of Communications and his officials before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, on April 22 and April 25, 1969.
May 21, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council): I have exactly the same answer to give with regard to notice of motion No. 122, Mr. Speaker.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Transfer it for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.



CORRESPONDENCE ON SATELLITE SYSTEMS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments regarding the federal government's satellite communication system as referred to by the Minister of Communications before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on April 22, 1969.
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secreiary to the President of the Privy Council): On
behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following, Mr. Speaker: The correspondence referred to before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on April 22, 1969, constitutes an exchange between the federal and provincial governments as part of continuing consultations at various governmental levels regarding the federal government's satellite communications system. The correspondence forms part of confidential material in government files and it would therefore not be in the public interest to release it. Under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.
Edward Richard Schreyer: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not infrequently asked to produce papers which involve provincial governments and that the usual practice is to ask the provincial government concerned for its concurrence. I am wondering why the federal government will not do so in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.



SENATE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE POLICY-SUBMISSION ON OCTOBER 24, 1968

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the agreements and arrangements between the Defence Research Board and foreign countries and foreign defence science agencies referred to in 29180-533
Motions for Papers
the Submission of the Department of National Defence to the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy on Thursday, October 24, 1968, Page 327 to Page 329, Number 4 of the Proceedings of the Committee.
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, two of the documents requested by the hon. member for York South are considered to be privileged, as they contain classified information which it is felt it would not be in the public interest to release. Two others have been classified at the request of the governments concerned. No formal agreement exists in the case of three others but a brief outline of what the agreements cover has been prepared. If the hon. member is willing to accept these limitations I would be prepared to accept this motion and table the remaining documents immediately.


David Lewis: I can
understand that the government cannot table documents that some foreign governments object to having tabled, but I would have to be persuaded more completely than the minister has been able to do that some of the other material should not be made available to members of this house in addition to the summary which the hon. gentleman says he is prepared to table. I am not disposed to accept the suggestion made by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) for his customary courtesy in letting me see the papers which he was willing to table in connection with motion No. 132. I have looked at them and with your permission, sir, I would gladly consent to withdrawal of the motion in view of the papers the minister now is ready to table.


Mr. Speaker:: Is notice of motion No. 132 dropped?


David Lewis: I do not know whether it should be dropped or merely interpreted in terms of the papers which are to be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the terms and conditions expressed is it the wish of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD	Mr. Mackasey: So I suggest the question
[Stage Direction]
 answers itself.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the forecast he made in his budget address that there would be an inflationary factor of 3J per cent this year-and the subject is very relevant in view of the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having regard to the fact that inflation has already increased by nearly 2 per cent in the first three months, I should like to ask whether this is still the inflationary factor upon the basis of which the Department of Finance is operating.


Edgar John Benson: As
I have indicated many times in this house, rises in costs and prices in Canada are a continuing source of concern to the government.



MINIMUM WAGES FOR INDUSTRIES UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the wage settlements that the government has authorized recently involving increases averaging about 8 per cent a year, is it the intention of the government in the near future to increase minimum wages for industries under federal jurisdiction, as it is now nearly four years since these wages were increased and the cost of living has gone up by more than 16 per cent in the interim period?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this question is based, of course, on the false assertion that the government authorized any increases in wages. Any wage increases granted in recent years have been the result of free collective bargaining between the interested parties and which have been conducted completely free and devoid of any government interference, as the Prime Minister has pointed out on many occasions. The hon. gentleman knows that as an ex-minister of transport he permitted a strike to continue for 71 days on the west coast, precisely on the issue of wages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. Speaker.)


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. The reason I spoke as I did is because the minister has so proudly announced these settlements from time to time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We cannot debate the question.


George Harris Hees: I do have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear from the government's refusal to act on this question of minimum wages that the just society exists only for the strong, the unionized and those able to embarrass the government with a work stoppage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is supplementary debate, not a supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: We all know what the answer is: It is yes.



THE BUDGET


Hon.   E.J. Benson@Minisler of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to indicate to the hon. gentleman that I shall be presenting a budget on Tuesday, June 3, and that I shall be tabling the relevant white papers on Tuesday, May 27. In my budget address I shall fully review the economic position in Canada as it currently stands.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the fact that in the past ten days there have been three major take-overs by United States corporations? I want to ask the minister whether it is his intention to introduce legislation similar to that in effect in many countries giving the government power to prevent such take-overs when in its opinion they would be against the public interest.


Edgar John Benson: think the hon. gentleman will understand that in view of the fact that Canada is a federal system such legislation would be very difficult for the federal government to introduce.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since Royal Securities Corporation
May 21, 1969



Limited is one of the larger companies handling Canadian financing does the government intend to introduce any legislation dealing with companies of this nature similar to that already adopted with respect to banks?


Edgar John Benson: No decision in this regard has been made.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Is the
Minister of Finance giving any consideration to the position of Royal Securities Corporation, which is a marketing agency for the Bank of Canada, in view of its take-over by a United States firm?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As Dr. E. McWhinney has raised constitutional objections to the choice of Ste. Scholas-tique as the site for the new international airport in a report he sent to the newspaper La Presse, does the minister intend to establish a joint commission to study all the relevant factors in the choice of the site of the airport?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we have not allowed ourselves to be sufficiently impressed by Dr. McWhinney's opinion to be led to that decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Following that report, have the Quebec authorities requested the minister to establish a joint commission to study again all the relevant factors in the choice of the airport site?


Jean Marchand: Certainly not me, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the minister is due to leave in a few 29180-5631
Inquiries of the Ministry days for a meeting of NATO ministers, at which meeting we have been informed the government's conclusions regarding reduction of Canadian forces overseas will be brought to the attention of our allies in NATO, will the minister inform the house whether such decisions have been reached by the government, and will he make a statement to parliament on the degree of reduction of our forces overseas before he leaves for Europe?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, some decisions will have been made by the government before I leave, but it is my intention, of course, to follow the practice of consulting with our allies. Therefore, I think the proper way to conduct myself would be to report to parliament when I come back from the NATO meeting. I intend to do that on June 2, which I believe is the Monday after I have returned from the meeting.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister whether, since this parliament was given the opportunity to discuss the general philosophy, as the Prime Minister called it, of the government's new defence policy, the minister would consider it necessary that parliament also discuss the application of that philosophy in actual terms before he brings the decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonfon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Arising out of the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday of the appointment of an assistant secretary to the cabinet for economic policy, an assistant secretary to the cabinet for cultural policy and two other planning secretaries, will the Prime Minister make a statement now or within the near future on the purpose of these two new positions and indicate what the relationship is to be within the government organization between these assistant secretaries and the ministers and deputy ministers who have executive responsibilities in the field of economic policy, cultural policy and planning?

May 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member, and no doubt he will agree with me, that this is the type of statement that should be made on motions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question was purely that of asking the Prime Minister whether he would make such a statement on motions.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really asking a question about the whole function and organization of the cabinet secretariat. Such a statement would be rather lengthy. I think it would be interesting to parliament and to the Canadian public to know how the cabinet secretariat works. I have had occasion to discuss this-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Prime Minister need not sit down in full flight, because he is telling us precisely what we want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have to revert to the suggestion I made to the hon. member and inform the Prime Minister that this is the type of information which I am sure the house would agree should normally be given by way of a statement on motions.



PEST CONTROL


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. May I ask him whether there has been any reassessment in regard to federal registration of certain pesticides in light of public concern over recent indications of a latent danger to humans due to chemical residues such as d.d.t., and if a full Canadian investigation is under way to assess the degree of contamination to which Canadians may be exposed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question which was asked either yesterday or during the last few days.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Justice.
Has he received a brief prepared by a working committee of the Law faculty at Osgoode Hall, recommending that compensation be paid to victims of criminal acts, and does he intend to implement these recommendations by introducing soon legislation to that effect?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated recently, I shall defer all these matters to the commissioner of legislation uniformity and to the representatives of the provinces' Attorneys General.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Pursuant to the announcement made by Mr. Harrington about the closing in the near future of the Canadian Vickers shipyards in Montreal, would the minister tell us what steps he intends to take to provide employment for the 1600 workers who will be laid off?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have been aware of this situation and we will make available to the workers all the facilities within the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the minister contemplating any concrete measures, in addition to what he has just announced?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the Vickers closing, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the workers in the plant
i
May 21, 1969

are very upset, have taken part in a sit-down in the plant, and have been informed that the plant may be modernized through the expenditure of a not very large amount of capital, has the minister given consideration to the possibility of assisting in this situation, so that the plant can be saved and shipbuilding work continued?


Jean Marchand: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for York South is aware of the programs that come under the jurisdiction of my department. Those programs presently apply to rural and semi-rural regions. There is also an industrial incentive program that is applicable to designated areas. However the Montreal region is not yet a designated area.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that parliament has been waiting for some time for the new industrial incentives bill, and that Vickers is apparently not waiting for that bill before shutting down the plant so that its workers become unemployed, can the minister not find some way to deal with this problem?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting house leader. May I ask whether he has now ascertained the reason for the non-production of the Stanford report on the feasibility of the Northumberland crossing concerning which this house adopted a motion some time ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it these papers were to be brought forward a day or so ago. I will check into the matter again and see what is the delay.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the negotiations between communist China and Canada with reference to recognition, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say
Inquiries of the Ministry whether within the last two days any representations have been made to him by the government of the Republic of China or by the Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church of China who is currently in Ottawa? Have any representations been made concerning assurances that in the event of recognition the leaders and people in Taiwan will not be permitted to be sacrificed in any way?
In connection with those negotiations, is Canada pressing in connection therewith for the payment of the $12 million owing by communist China in respect to the Ming Sung ships? Has there been any change in attitude by the government in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the right hon. gentleman that, like him, I also had the pleasure of meeting His Eminence the Cardinal. Because this assembly was called for two o'clock, I was unable to listen to the address by His Eminence.
To answer directly the questions asked by the right hon. gentleman, I have not had any representation from either the Ambassador of the Republic of China or His Eminence on the matters referred to. I did ask for a copy of remarks made by the Chinese Ambassador when he was commenting on these matters. Other than that I have had no requests from either of these eminent gentlemen.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister whether the government intends to live up to the undertakings he and the Prime Minister gave in 1968, that unless the government of communist China were to give the assurance that Taiwan would not be sacrificed, that would be the end of the application for recognition?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is really relevant to the question of recognition. I do not think anybody is being sacrificed under these circumstances. What we are trying to do, and I am sure this is the view of the great majority of the people in Canada, is to enter into diplomatic relations with 700 million people not now represented here.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that diplomatic recognition of communist China will proceed as fast as possible?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is a general wish in the house that these proceedings be as rapid as possible. Of course it takes two to make a bargain. As I understand

May 21. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the bargaining methods of the Chinese authorities, they are very deliberate and I expect it will take considerable time.


George Harris Hees: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs any report he can give to the house regarding the progress being made in this one-sided love affair between Canada and communist China?



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: I wish to direct my supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him the same question I directed yesterday to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the remarks of His Eminence in Washington in which he alleged that, "there are centres of small communist Chinese subversive activity in Canada". Can the minister advise this house whether he had any discussions with the Cardinal or members of that group concerning this particular matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. As I answered to the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert, I have had no representations of that kind. I can assure the house if the situation envisaged by the Cardinal should arise, there are various means open to the government to protect Canadian security and to ensure that embassy personnel in Ottawa from any country do not behave improperly or illegally.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whil-by):: I have a question for the Prime Minister which arises from a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for York South. Did Canadian officials on behalf of the Canadian government at a meeting with United States officials claim the waters between the islands in the northern archipelago for Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for

External Affairs. In the face of recent developments in Biafra, and a report in the Globe and Mail which states that Canairelief is doing what the Canadian government feels it cannot do without offending the Nigerian government, but that this should not prevent Ottawa from offering financial assistance by matching the contributions, would the minister indicate if Canada intends to match donations from the private sector?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The policy of the Canadian government is to make our relief available through the International Committee of the Red Cross. That will continue to be our policy. One reason for this is that the International Committee of the Red Cross provides assistance both to Biafra and other parts of Nigeria.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Canadian government consider giving help in the form of another plane?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had no request from the International Committee of the Red Cross for a plane. As I say, I think it is wise for the Canadian government to deal with agencies which provide relief to both parts of Nigeria.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Would the government consider doing what the United States government is doing in this field, that is provide a payment for each ton of goods delivered by joint church agencies as well as by the International Committee of the Red Cross?


Mitchell William Sharp: In this matter, as in other matters, it is better to follow an independent Canadian policy. I think it suits better the wishes of the Canadian people, and is one which receives general support. We should deal with the acknowledged international agency that serves both parts of Nigeria.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. My question is in relation to the visit of the Prime Minister to the Atlantic provinces over the weekend, and the statements made by the Prime Minister that the government plans anti-inflationary measures and will
May 21. 1969

have to spend more for regional development? Can the minister inform this house whether this means the estimated expenditures for the regions of slow growth in the country will be increased in the current fiscal year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we will be doing more in the maritimes than has ever been done before.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the Prime Minister's statement, does the minister propose to increase the estimated expenditures of his department in the present fiscal year?


Jean Marchand: I think the
incentive act will be tabled in the house very shortly. At this moment I think the Leader of the Opposition will understand what I mean when I say we are going to give more than has been given in the past.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister take some of the money it cost to send the Prime Minister to the Atlantic provinces in a special jet and pass it around among a few poor New Brunswickers?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour on a slightly different topic from the one with which he has been preoccupied recently. When is he going to reverse the process of dehumanizing the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission by reopening the local offices which have been closed and by establishing new ones in other locations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he advise the house why the
Inquiries of the Ministry meeting he was supposed to have with the provincial ministers of agriculture this week has been cancelled?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was cancelled because when we were making the arrangements last week there was some uncertainty about travel arrangements for the provincial ministers and their staffs.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Can the minister explain how it is possible for the representatives-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask his supplementary question in an argumentative form. Unless the question is changed it is not in order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I will rephrase my question. Can the minister tell us when he hopes to be able to reconvene this crucial meeting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Now that it appears that travel arrangements will be easier to make, it will probably be in a few days. However, I would like to advise the house that it is not easy for all ten provincial ministers of agriculture to find a day on which they can all be here on short notice.



PROTESTS RESPECTING RESERVE CLAUSE

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could he tell us whether the president of the National Hockey League, Mr. Clarence Campbell, has officially protested to the minister regarding the reserve clause which affects particularly the players of the National League and which is dealt with in the minister's report?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this question could be easily considered and discussed at the time of adjournment.



WHEAT-FURTHER SHIPMENT TO JAPAN IN SETTLEMENT FOR INFERIOR QUALITY DELIVERED

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfooi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In a way it is supplementary to one I directed yesterday to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I ask it in light of the complaint by Japan about the shipment of tough grain and poor No. 4 grade

May 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry wheat last November and in light of the cash settlement made by Canada with Japan. Has Japan indicated to the Canadian government that it is interested in purchasing more grain in this crop year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as has been said a number of times in the house, the actual amounts and the dates of delivery are negotiated by the Japanese Food Agency and the Canadian Wheat Board and other selling agencies in Canada. I could not give a specific answer to this question, except to say that the indications I have seen in the press and so on show that the sales to Japan have been satisfactory.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As a supplementary question, if the Japanese are interested in taking more shipments of wheat in this crop year, why was the settlement for the previous shipment not made with wheat rather than with cash that came out of the farmers' pockets?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question as asked is argumentative.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture assure the house that an effort was made to determine the real cause of the damage to the shipment of wheat to Japan so that we will know whether the cost should have been charged to the farmers or to the government of Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question which was asked yesterday, but perhaps hon. members may wish the minister to reply.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated yesterday, what was made was an ex gratia payment by the Canadian Wheat Board to settle an outstanding dispute. So far as we are concerned the grain that actually made up the cargo was up to our grading standards, but we have to bear in mind that there were some changes in its quality attributable to the very difficult harvesting conditions last year. In the result, it is in our interest to have our customers satisfied.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture.

In the light of the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the effect that the fate of the farmers in western Canada is in the hands of Peking and Moscow, does the minister agree that his department should be dissolved?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I pointed out to the Acting Minister of Transport the critical situation arising at major airports in Canada because of the shortage of air traffic controllers. In celebration possibly of national transportation week, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport can tell us what action his department is taking to correct this critical situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have met briefly with the representatives of the air traffic controllers and we have set up a more formal meeting, I believe in the first week of June when they will be in Ottawa, at which time I propose to hear all their representations. At the same time the air branch of the department is preparing a summary of recommendations so that we can move ahead in this area.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to make a statement to the house on motions after he has had this meeting?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I intended to do so recently, but since I am going to meet the air traffic controllers I feel it is more appropriate now to wait until that date.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of persistent rumours, can he give a proper burial to the suggestion that because the government has decided not to go ahead at this time with the annual overhaul of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure it is about to be scrapped at an early date, and assure the house that this does not necessarily follow?
May 21. 1969	COMMONS
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National
Defence): Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: As a supplementary question, can the minister indicate whether the Department of National Defence is now giving consideration to an early decommissioning of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we are considering all sorts of options and that may be one of them, but we have not decided on what the form of the new posture will be. The given role has been changed to a degree -as a matter of fact, it has been augmented -and we have still to determine how we are going to apply the policy.



LEGISLATION


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the government introduce its long promised federal co-operatives act before the summer recess?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is being drafted by the Department of Justice, which has had an extremely heavy work load this spring. I am hopeful of being able to introduce the bill for first reading before the summer adjournment so that people can have sufficient time to study it and make representations to me. If I am not successful in introducing it before the summer recess, however, an opportunity will be afforded to the provincial governments and other interested parties to make representations to me on the bill.


John Stratford Burton: As a supplementary question, has the minister consulted with the co-operative organizations in preparing this legislation and do they agree that it takes years to prepare such a bill?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



MEASURE TO ESTABLISH INDEPENDENCE OF AUDITOR GENERAL

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the President of the Treasury Board to move with the unseemly haste with which the 29180-564
DEBATES	8901
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs moved, but can he tell the house when he intends to introduce the legislation promised by the Prime Minister with regard, specifically, to the independent position of the Auditor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I never promised that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, you did.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of any such undertaking having been given but I will do some research to see whether there was such an undertaking.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that the minister is obviously well established in his new department-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -is
he in a position to report on a matter about which I questioned him the first day he took office? What progress is he making in his consultations with Canadian National Railways about increasing the pensions of its retired employees?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that I am not that well entrenched in my department yet, but I am working on it.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he predict with some certainty when he will be presenting his white paper, or whatever it is, on Indian affairs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be between the 15th and 30th of June, but I cannot make any promise regarding the date.



OMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
May 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of indications in the press that the minister is interested in formulating some arrangement to bring in outside experts to assist in the preparation of budgets, I should like to know whether such action is being given consideration in respect of the preparation of the current budget?


Edgar John Benson: Not this budget, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Over two months ago I asked the minister whether he would make a statement to the house soon on the task force study of the government in respect of industrial research and development, at which time he said he would soon. I know that the government has no undue commitment to haste but I am wondering again whether the minister would be prepared to make a statement soon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman is not urging haste but rather thoroughness on the part of the government. It is a policy of thoroughness we are pursuing.



NATIONAL PARKS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. While the minister is still in the mood to make announcements about national parks, can he tell the house whether the government has signed the agreement with the government of British Columbia with regard to phase one in the establishment of the west coast marine park and, if not, when he expects the agreement will be signed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



GASPE-TURN OVER OF LAND IN PERPETUITY

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the announcement concerning the agreement with regard to a national park in Gaspe, which we were pleased to hear, can he say whether agreement has been reached to turn over the necessary land to the government of Canada, without encumbrance, in perpetuity?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The agreement was signed for 99 years, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether the acceptance by the federal government of a long term lease in connection with the park in Gaspe means that the federal government has adopted a new policy which in future will require only the granting of a long term lease from a province, rather than a deed in fee simple which has always been the requirement in the past?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that agreement had previously been reached under a FRED agreement. In fact, the FRED agreement stipulated that a park would be developed under the conditions accepted today. This is the first national park to be set up in Quebec, and we trust there will be more of them under the terms of the National Parks Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder whether the minister could answer my question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the policy with regard to our national parks is flexible. The agreement reached with the Quebec government is in every way consistent with the spirit of the National Parks Act.



SECOND NATIONAL PARK IN MANITOBA

Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the house when
May 21, 1969

he will be in a position to announce the establishment of a second national park in Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order,, please. I suggest to hon. members there are many national parks in the country and I wonder whether we will have to spend 10 or 15 minutes of the time of the house every day on questions asked about each national park. In my view these questions ought to be placed on the order paper.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. In view of the fact that this is the fifth anniversary of the Liberal government's announced intention to establish a second national park in Manitoba, can the government indicate whether this will be done this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of Finance regarding a report to the house on the financial incentives which had been granted by the government to Brinco. Is the minister ready with his report?


Edgar John Benson: Not
yet, Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in his position as acting house leader, whether he would advise the house of the plans of the government for the remainder of this week and also whether there is any change in the business following completion of the official languages bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the official languages bill today. If it should be sent to the committee this afternoon we would take up some smaller bills such as the bills in respect of the Historic Sites and Monuments Act and the Canada Shipping Act to fill out the day. Tomorrow will be an allotted day, and on Friday we would continue with the official languages bill
Official Languages
if necessary. Following that the housing legislation will be taken up and then the tax bill.
If it is agreeable to the house, Mr. Speaker, I might suggest that we arrange for the pattern of speaking tomorrow. Last time it was agreed that the mover of the motion and the minister who replies would have 30 minutes, that the leading spokesmen for the other opposition parties would have 20 minutes and that other members would have 10 minutes. I wonder whether that would be an agreeable arrangement for the debate tomorrow.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the pattern that is developing in connection with these allotted days. I think we should agree to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it may well be that we will be prepared to agree to this arrangement, but I think we should wait to see what motion is to be discussed. If the motion should be one put by our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste, as I believe it will be, it may be that the 30 minutes should go to them instead of to someone else. I suggest that we let this stand until we know the exact terms of the motion which we will be debating tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify that, may I say it was my proposal that the mover of the motion would initially have the 30 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-120 respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, last night I had discussed some of the legal arguments which had been made against the official languages bill and had come to the conclusion that the most important fact about them was not the character of the arguments-they were poor arguments in themselves-but the fact that they

May 21. 1969
Official Languages
had been made, which showed there is concern among some of the people in this country about the possible implications of this bill. At the hour of adjournment I was coming to the question of compulsion which had been raised earlier by the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). That hon. member said, and I quote from page 8869 of Hansard for yesterday:
I think the nub of the matter is that this legislation represents compulsion to many, and no one likes legislative compulsion.
I regret to say I cannot understand the reasoning of my hon. friend. In looking over his speech the only substantiation I find is his quotation of what the leader of the Creditiste party said, which I think rather inaccurately states what the official languages bill attempts to do.
There is, however, a much more extreme statement of what I take to be a similar point of view about compulsion. I refer to an expression of opinion by the Hon. Joseph T. Thorson, the former president of the Exchequer Court of Canada, a civil libertarian of note but, to judge from his recent public utterances, not a constitutionalist of distinction. In an article published in April of this year in Chitty's Law Journal entitled "Bilingualism in the Courts-Is it Justified?", Mr. Thorson writes, as found on page 113:
-an intensive attempt is now being made to create a dual English-French Canadian nationality in Canada and to force its acceptance on the people of Canada on the ground that it is essential to Canadian unity.
I fail to understand the reasoning behind this line of argument. In the official languages bill there is perhaps an inducement, and certainly an opportunity, to the people of this country to participate in another of the official languages, but the only compulsion exercised by the bill is a compulsion which is exercised on the government and agencies of the government. What there is in the bill is a kind of persuasion, and persuasion is surely of the very essence of the democratic process. Sometimes democratic governments find it necessary to use compulsion and the force of the law with the imposition of penalties, but this is not the case with this bill. At most, in this case there is an inducement, one which I believe the Canadian people will sincerely welcome.
The argument of the hon. Mr. Justice Thorson, to which I referred a moment ago, is on the same level with his other arguments in respect of the official languages bill. I refer to his own interpretation of section 133

of the British North America Act. Before going on to discuss this section I should like to draw its terms to the attention of hon. members. Section 133 of the British North America Act provides as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the Parliament of Canada and the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or In any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
It also provides that:
The acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
In his most literal explanation of section 133 the hon. Mr. Justice Thorson said, and I quote from page 110 of the article to which I have referred:
-French is not an official language of Canada anywhere in Canada . . . except as specified in the section, the French language does not have any special status in Canada.
I believe that to be an accurate conclusion in respect of the meaning of section 133, but Mr. Justice Thorson went on to say:
It follows that any legislation either by Parliament or by the legislature of Ontario that would attempt to make French an official language or endow it with a status equal to English in an area where it is not now an official language or does not now have such a status would be in conflict with the provisions of section 133-
He further went on to say at page 112 of the same article:
It follows as a necessary consequence that, except as specified in the section, English is the only official language of Canada.
The statement that English is the official language of Canada is an extraordinary one. Nowhere in section 133 is it specified that English is the official language of Canada, and nowhere in the British North America Act is this so specified. Why should an inference be drawn from the silence of the statute that English is the official language of Canada when the section specifically deals with both the English and French languages and confers exactly the same rights and privileges upon both? How could English come to be the official language of Canada? Would it be by an act of the parliament of Canada? This is the very thing that the hon. Mr. Justice Thorson has contended cannot be done. Would it be done by an act of the legislature of the
May 21. 1969

province of Ontario or, indeed, by any provincial legislature or any combination of them? Certainly there is nothing either in our constitutional theory or history to warrant such a method of establishing an official language.
The fact is that there is no official language in Canada at present because the constitution of Canada does not establish an official language. Nor does Bill C-120 attempt to establish an official language. It does attempt to establish an official language for certain limited purposes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, but in constitutional law we have no official language. It is true, by reason of a predominance of English speaking people in our political life, and because to some extent of the facts of economic life in this country, that we have had a language which has the status of a predominant language. However, the Minister of Justice points out that some lawyers cannot handle either English or French.


John Napier Turner: They speak jargon.


Mr. Alexander:: It just depends on where you are from.


Mark R. MacGuigan: As I stated last night, such arguments as those raised by Mr. Thorson do not come up to the level of intellectual respectability. If I may put it in another way, as a professor of constitutional law, if I were marking his examination paper I would have to give him a failing mark for such an answer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You wouldn't have the nerve.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The fact is that it is not in the constitution but in the living life of Canada that the future of the English and French languages in our country is to be determined. This bill is an attempt to influence these living practices of the people of Canada. It is an attempt at long last to give an opportunity to our French speaking citizens in the province of Quebec, and those spread throughout other provinces, to use their language in an official way in communication with the government and its agencies.
The bill itself is indeed a solution in law, but it is also a solution which will have an effect on the practices of the people. It gives us an opportunity which we have not had before, that is, to express bilingualism and, indeed, to begin to approach multilingualism. I believe that most people in the country
Official Languages
welcome this opportunity. It is for this reason I believe that the young people of Canada, the people who see the future most clearly, are the ones who are most enthusiastically behind this bill.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Minister of Justice said yesterday that the young people of this country, English speaking and French speaking, are strongly in favour of this legislation. I know that this applies in my own heavily ethnic riding. The young people of Canada understand what is the future of the new world and of Canada as part of that world. If we pass this bill we will be honouring our past, fulfilling our present, and securing our future.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this bill because it is based upon the principle embodied in the British North America Act which guarantees the right to use both our official languages in any part of the country in which a sizeable minority resides. Recently Ontario and New Brunswick, which have large French speaking minorities, introduced legislation guaranteeing the use of the French language within their borders.
Last July there was unanimous approval in the Ontario legislature for a resolution establishing the right to address the house in either English or French. Premier Robarts announced that four task forces had been established to look into bilingualism in the courts, the provincial public service, municipal government and the publication of statutes and official publications of the house in both official languages. School legislation was adopted in Ontario providing for greater use of French as a teaching language in high schools and making the traditional use of French in some elementary schools a legal right. In the high schools a course must be taught in French if 20 or more students wish it.
In New Brunswick, a province with a 60 per cent English speaking majority, the legislature has unanimously passed a bill proclaiming official bilingualism at the provincial level.
Such legislation was acceptable to the English speaking majorities in those provinces largely because of the generous attitude taken by the province of Quebec toward its English speaking minority, even though no legislation guaranteeing the right to use the English language had been passed.

May 21. 1969
Official Languages
Last autumn Premier Bertrand of Quebec introduced Bill No. 85 which would guarantee English speaking rights by law. Shortly after its introduction, however, the bill was suddenly withdrawn, no substitute was introduced in its place and there is no indication that a suitable substitute will be introduced.
Many English speaking Canadians believe strongly that French speaking rights in their part of the country should not be guaranteed by law unless those living in the area where French is the predominant language, the province of Quebec, show an equal willingness to guarantee by law the rights of English speaking Canadians in that province.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would leave his ivory tower in Ottawa and talk to people in all parts of the country, particularly those in western Canada, about this matter, he would be familiar with the very strong feeling which exists.
I am convinced that the purpose of a bill such as the one before us should be to promote national unity in all parts of our country. I am convinced that if this bill is passed before the province of Quebec passes a suitable substitute for Bill No. 85, which was withdrawn last autumn, it will contribute greatly to disunity in this country. I therefore urge the Prime Minister to confer with Premier Bertrand while this bill is being seriously considered in committee over the next few weeks, as I am sure it will be, and persuade him, in the interests of national unity, to reintroduce and pass without delay a suitable substitute for Bill No. 85, guaranteeing by law the rights of the English speaking minority in Quebec. This should be done before the bill comes back into the house for third reading and final passage. I am convinced that this is the only way people in all parts of the country-I underline "all parts of the country"- can be persuaded that this bill is a fair measure and should be accepted, thus making it possible for national unity, not disunity, to be promoted across our country.
I am also very strongly of the opinion that to pass the bill before people in all parts of the country are so convinced would not be in the national interest. Therefore I urge the Prime Minister to speak to Premier Bertrand about this matter. The Premier of Quebec is a very reasonable man who I am sure is anxious to see national unity in all parts of Canada. I believe he is just as interested in achieving national unity as we all are. After giving this matter considerable thought, and

after consultation with those in his government, I am sure Premier Bertrand will introduce-in the Quebec legislature a suitable substitute for Bill No. 85, and his government will pass it, thereby making it possible for French speaking rights to be guaranteed to those parts of the country which have French speaking minorities. This would make our country more truly bilingual and fair-minded in keeping with what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind when more than 100 years ago they passed the act of confederation.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oiiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal this afternoon with Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada.
Several members have already spoken in French. I have taken an immersion course on two occasions at the civil service school of languages. I come from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, and I started long ago to learn French at school. Like all English-speaking citizens of the province of Ontario, I did not learn it too well.
I take this opportunity to thank the teachers of the civil service school of languages who were very competent. They have helped me a great deal to improve my French. I think other members should also avail themselves of this opportunity to improve their knowledge of the second official language of the country.

For the past two days, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on the official languages bill. One of the most striking features of that debate has been the nature of some of the speeches. Obviously, the basic principle of the bill touches a deep, emotional chord in many people. I think particularly of the speech made last week by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and that made yesterday by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), whom I see in the house at this time.
In many ways the debate recalls the election campaign in the constituency I have the honour to represent, Ottawa West. My Conservative opponent in the last federal election campaign, as in the previous three election campaigns in which we faced each other, took a position similar to that of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. He campaigned against a policy of bilingualism in the public service and against the principles
May 21, 1969

embodied in the official languages bill. I believed then, as I do now, that the official languages bill is an essential instrument of national unity which embodies one of the principles upon which we will re-establish our federal state.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in introducing this bill last October, attacked the concept of two nations and maintained that Canada had to survive as one national state. Within this state there is no room for special status, and there is no room for a degree of autonomy granted to any province that is not available to any other province. The federal power must speak for the French language minority outside Quebec as well as for the English language minority within Quebec. In order to secure these rights, it may well be necessary to embody them in constitutional amendments.
In this House of Commons there can be only one class of member. There cannot be a member elected in any part of Canada who does not have a right to legislate, to vote on the matters that come before us, and to make decisions involving the national interest, equal to the rights enjoyed by every other member. There cannot be members elected from the province of Quebec who would make decisions affecting areas outside that province which they cannot make for the province in which they were elected. It follows in a most logical fashion that if we are to maintain the House of Commons in the style we have known, with members elected from all regions having equal authority to make national decisions, then the concept of one state, one national sovereignty, must be an essential part of the process.
It is equally clear that we cannot be a single national state if the rules are different for any one province in regard to official language. The principle of bilingualism is imposed by the British North America Act for one province alone under section 133. It is clear today that Quebec will no longer accept the status of being the only province required by the constitution to give full status to two official languages. It is the object of this bill to extend full status to the two official languages throughout Canada.
Those of us who believe in the principles of the bill are under no illusions concerning the difficulties in its practical application. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who spoke yesterday, undertook a process of consultation
Official Languages
with the authorities in each province to determine what difficulties could be anticipated. As a result of these discussions, a series of amendments was introduced yesterday afternoon.
The amendments are designed, among other things, to reassure the spokesman for some of the western provinces who were concerned. Perhaps the most frequently expressed fear has been the possible exclusion of candidates from western Canada from the public service. The Minister of Justice yesterday cited statistics on applications from graduates of western Canadian universities indicating that these have risen very sharply. Certainly the interest in seeking employment in the public service shown by graduates of western Canadian universities has not in any way diminished but has increased.
It may be that this represents a trend which will be accentuated in future years. It may be that the students who are seeking employment in the public service are those who have had more interest in language training and who now find that the public service offers exciting career possibilities for which their language training gives them an additional qualification. But for the overwhelming majority of positions in the public service language training is not enough. The fundamental requirement must continue to be, as it always has been, competence in one's profession or work.
It is the public service aspects of the bill that give me the most concern, in part because the constituency I represent has a very large number of public servants residing within its boundaries. I note that the amendment to clause 40 proposed yesterday has the effect of re-emphasizing the basic principle of merit in regard to the duties of the Public Service Commission. There should be no hesitation whatsoever about repeating this on every occasion when any doubt is cast on its application.
In 1964 the right hon. L. B. Pearson, then Prime Minister of Canada, made a statement indicating the general principles which would guide the application of a policy of bilingualism in the public service. Mr. Pearson stated that bilingualism was to be encouraged as a matter of policy but that individuals who were recruited prior to the introduction of the bilingualism policy would not suffer any impairment of their public service careers because of their lack of knowledge of a second official language. In practice, the application of these two principles creates serious difficulties. To a considerable extent

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
they are not reconcilable. To the extent to which a bonus is given tor a second language in a promotional competition, there must be some impairment of the career ot the candidate without the second language.
It is to the credit of the Public Service Commission that they have used a great deal of sense in applying the policy directives. In my opinion there is an area of possible conflict between the legislation now before the house and the legislation which established the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission in effect must be the agency responsible for applying the policy of bilingualism in large sectors of the public service. Its regulations must be consistent not only with the act directly establishing it but with the intent of the official languages bill.
It is my sincere hope that the Public Service Commission will give early consideration to measures designed to give protection to the career civil servant who was recruited some time ago but is now at the stage in his life when it is most difficult to begin to learn a second language. I believe there are some special instances where an enlightened and humane policy by the Public Service Commission to protect such long service employees would be in the national interest. The Public Service Commission must also establish at the earliest possible date objective tests of language competence, not only for initial appointments but especially in promotional competitions.
In speaking to this bill last Friday the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) pointed out that there is no provision in the bill dealing with the National Capital Commission or any policy for development of the national capital. In these areas we await the final recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and we will follow closely the statements by the minister responsible for policy in this area. It is to be hoped that the minister will make an authoritative statement in the near future in view of the speculative stories in the press in recent weeks, which have come from undisclosed sources. These speculations have done a great deal of harm and are endangering the good relations that exist between the cities of Ottawa and Hull.
I have no hesitation in supporting this bill and the principles that are embodied in it. I believe, as strongly as I believe in anything, that Canada must be built on the recognition of the rights of both official languages. As the Minister of Justice pointed out yesterday, this

bill has the support of an overwhelming majority of the younger generation in Canada. The bill itself is perhaps a prelude to the intense discussion which must take place on the amendment of our national constitution. I repeat that the bill is a cornerstone on which the constitution itself will be rebuilt.
The principles of the bill are the most effective answer to those who put forward the concept of two nations or separate status for any one province. I urge its adoption by all of those who, regardless of political affiliation, believe as I do that Canada must be one nation with two official languages from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot conclude my remarks without replying to the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) who said yesterday in the house that it was a shame that at the United Nations, for example, only Englishspeaking people would speak on behalf of Canada.
If that were true, it would certainly be a shame, but it is incorrect. Two years ago, I was appointed as a member of the Canadian delegation to the general Assembly of the United Nations. Among the delegates was the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) who, last Friday, spoke in this house about the bill under consideration.
That delegation consisted also of two ambassadors, Mr. Ignatieff, who knows several languages, and Mr. Paul Beaulieu, the present Canadian ambassador in Paris.
Therefore, the Canadian delegates were 40 per cent French-speaking.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Charlevoix was referring yesterday to an incident which occurred several years ago, he should have said so, but he did not. We have made progress since. Our civil service is becoming increasingly bilingual. For the sake of national unity, we have to recognize the advance which we have made.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of the house will support this bill.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations with regard to the bill now before us. Some of them do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the New Democratic party but I believe it is only right that I
May 21. 1969



should say in this chamber what I believe to be true in this country of ours.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) express the view yesterday that this bill should be dealt with in the political arena rather than be surrounded by an aura of suspicion. I agree with him in this respect, and I congratulate him on that statement. I do not, of course, agree that every member who stands up in this house should parrot the statements made by members of the cabinet. Individual members have a responsibility to those in the areas from which they come to express their concern at this time. I do not believe this debate need be a lengthy one but I do believe that certain things ought to be placed on record.
I am sure no reasonable person in this country takes exception to section 133 of the British North America Act. Everyone here agrees that proper recognition should be given to the provisions of this section and that there should be no discrimination of any kind when carrying out the intent of that act. Nevertheless, it is my belief that at this time in the history of Canada we are moving on a particular course far more rapidly than the people can accept. In my view, and I say this sincerely, the people of Quebec have just cause for their suspicion of the English speaking population of Canada. During the past 100 years they have had just reason to express their suspicions, and in many cases there has been justification for the action they have taken since 1960. I think we should look at history before we form a definite attitude toward these events. In 1964, according to a professor of sociology of the University of Montreal, which I attended for a short while, only 51 out of 760 people in the corporate elite in Quebec were French Canadians. This leads one to conclude that French Canadians were virtually being eliminated from an area they were entitled to occupy.
Let us look at history further. I am not going back too far; I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will recognize the effect of the words to which I intend to refer briefly. The reason for much of the concern felt in the earlier part of this decade was that the bishops wrote to the industrialists asking them to pay low wages so that French Canadians would go back to the farms, which were the only road to heaven, and avoid occasions of sin in the cities; moreover, urban life was dominated by English speaking people.
Official Languages
As Members of Parliament go about the country and justify the bill before us, as most of us do to the best of our ability, we realize that certain ministers of the government are also moving about Canada laying the blame for some of the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time at the doors of the English speaking people. For myself, I think we ought to go back and determine what the facts really are. I was concerned on reading some of the statements which the minister who introduced this bill has made in various parts of the country. It is only right that we should look at these statements to determine whether or not some extremism has been shown by the minister concerned in his addresses to members of the French community throughout Canada.
I was disappointed to read in a speech released by the minister's department on December 7 in Winnipeg certain of the statements made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to the group he was addressing. According to this release he stated that though the report of the B and B Commission had been in hand only a short time measures were already under way to implement the recommendations it contained. Well, Mr. Speaker, there have been many reports from royal commissions and task forces, including the Carter Commission and the Woods Commission, but none of them has met with the prompt action accorded by the government to the recommendations of the B and B Commission which, I might add, has not yet completed its final report. There is nothing wrong with a government taking prompt action on a report which contains good recommendations. But it seems that the government is more concerned today about acting on this particular report than it is about the reports of all the other royal commissions and task forces which have been set up in this country. It is high time the cabinet looked seriously at some of the other reports which have been submitted for perusal and took immediate action with regard to them.
The Secretary of State told his audience:
We have taken measures not only to make superficial changes but to alter fundamentally the situation which exists.
Any representative of the political parties here, or any individual politician, would be condemned by this house if he went across the country making statements of a type which could be considered extremist. But the very minister who introduced this bill into the House of Commons is guilty of extremism in making statements of the sort he has made.

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
I refer again to the hon. gentleman's speech at Winnipeg. He stated that thousands of civil servants had signed up for courses in the official languages. This I subscribe to. Then he went on:
Every year, dozens of families move to Quebec City or Toronto for a total immersion experience in French or English.
I bring this out because I feel that at this point in our history, even though 102 years have gone by since confederation, the people of this country cannot afford the extra tax burden placed on their shoulders in an attempt to make every individual bilingual. I agree with the leader of the Creditistes that this is not a process which can take place overnight. It has to be started within the school system. I want my children to become bilingual and they are taking French courses now in Ottawa schools. Effective French courses should have been available in our schools long ago. My point is that this process has to start at the bottom, not at the top.
A short while ago the minister addressed a meeting in Regina. The editor of the Moose Jaw Times-Herald, in commenting on this meeting in an article which appeared on April 18, expressed his point of view in words better than any which occur to me at this moment. The article is headed, "Realities Ignored", and reads:
The trouble with intellectuals also running the country is that, at times, their ideas may run counter to realities.
A case in point is presented by State Secretary Gerard Pelletier, one of three Quebec bright men persuaded to enter politics a few years back (the others are Prime Minister Trudeau and Mr. Marchand).
During a visit to Regina, Mr. Pelletier said he would like to see "a first class French school in every city in Canada ..." He said this would allow French Canadians to become as mobile as English Canadians.
The idea may have some merit but the practice is something else again.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There are several reasons for suggesting the idea is impractical, for the present and many years to come.
One is that of costs, another is a very real shortage of teachers, a third is that there is no barrier to mobility at present.
Of costs, the additional burden of a strictly French school in "every city", as Mr. Pelletier would have it, suggests a high French-speaking population. And, of course, such a school would have to be from kindergarten to grade 12.
The teacher shortage has been, is and will continue to be one of the main reasons that, in the main, the teaching of French in our present system of education is so poor. It would seem to us that

the primary objective is to improve the teaching of languages in all schools rather than to aim at segregation of a type. Teaching of languages is beneficial to all people and should not be restricted to a minority.
On the subject of mobility, it will forever remain a fact of life in Canada that French Canadians who wish to move to English speaking sections will have to learn the English language. What is changing in Canada, and this is to the good, is that English speaking Canadians who are moving to Quebec must display equal desire to learn the French language.
Mr. Pelletier's suggestion may be intellectually stimulating but it ignores realities of life.


Gérard Pelletier: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Leroy Skoberg: Certainly, sir.


Gérard Pelletier: The hon. member has been talking about extreme statements and mentioned two I had made. In one, I described a state of fact, which is the policy of the government. In the other, I said it was desirable to have a good French school in every major city of Canada. Would the hon. member make clear whether he considers either one or other of those statements extreme? I am asking him because I have not been able to understand what the word means as a result of the way it has been used over the last few days.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister I used the word "extreme" in the sense that the government believe they must implement bilingualism across Canada today. I will go on to point to some other statements that the minister made in Boston, and I believe in New York, as the sort of statements that are creating an atmosphere in Canada today which is bringing about an animosity between east and west that I do not like.
I have just referred to an editorial and I quoted not my own words but those of the writer of the editorial, who I might point out is a French Canadian. The part of the statement that is extreme is that the minister now says it is essential to have a French school in every major city in Canada. If the minister did not say that, then I should like him to clear up the matter now. If he did, then I think my point is well taken when I say that municipal taxation across Canada today is such that we simply cannot afford this type of luxury. I would be the first to agree entirely with the principle behind the language bill, but I would be the last to agree that the people of this nation today can afford the luxury of a French school in every community, as the minister says as he goes across the country addressing various groups.
May 21. 1969

I sincerely suggest to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that he tread very softly, carefully and slowly in the over-all implementation of bilingualism across Canada. I know of too many senior citizens at the present time who are losing their homes as a result of taxation. As a former alderman of the city of Moose Jaw I know that 53 cents out of every dollar goes toward education, and this cost is increasing all the time. If the minister will stand in his place and say that the federal government will absorb the added cost of implementing bilingualism in every major city of Canada, then I personally will applaud him forever and a day. But I know this will not be the case.
The cost of education in this country is on the upswing and will continue to be so. Unless the federal government absorbs more responsibility for the cost of education, this whole country will collapse because of the dilemma facing our seniors whom we revere so much but who cannot pay their way. I am sure every member of the house realizes there are too many other things in this country requiring immediate action besides bilingualism.
I am not saying for one moment that bilingualism itself is not important, because I believe it is. It is very important for the mobility of people across the country. I am sure the editor of the Moose Jaw Times-Herald. recognizes that fact. As he puts it, he recognizes the facts of life.
A former minister in the present Liberal government has stated that the intellectuals are forgetting the nuts and bolts of the situation. I subscribe to that statement. Intellectuals cannot run this country because they do not provide the bread and butter to those who need it.
This point has already been made so I will not belabour it. I realize the minister has given some explanation as far as employees of the National Capital Commission and the museums are concerned, but I want to make the point that anybody who is hired in the civil service or in a government agency should be bilingual if that is one of the conditions of his employment. But I do not buy a situation where conditions of employment are changed after people have been hired and have been employed for a good many years.
Throughout my working days-I do not know whether I am still working but that is beside the point-I have belonged to a trade union, and I have always objected to a company changing conditions of employment
Official Languages
after an agreement has been signed. I earnestly plead with the minister not to change the conditions of employment of those already employed in the civil service. Do not change the conditions or place of employment of guards at museums and other public buildings.
I think it is a national disgrace when a man who has served as a guard or commissionaire at the front door of a public building is relegated to the back door or some other place. It is a national disgrace when this government or any other government deliberately takes a man from where he has been rightfully employed for many years and relegates him to some other position. I think the minister should give due consideration to this question. Some of these men are in their later years, and until they retire I suggest that other personnel be made available to serve those who speak only French.
Too many things have been said throughout this nation which are regrettable from the minister's point of view, as well as from my point of view as a Canadian. But let me assure the minister that if his desire to unite all of Canada is sincere he will have the co-operation of every person in Canada. I can also assure the minister that if he is insincere and uses unfairly the provision in the bill whereby the Governor in Council may make such regulations as he deems necessary to effect compliance with the act and the conduct of affairs by the government of Canada and its departments and agencies, then Canada will no longer exist as a country.
One other statement of the minister of which he should be aware and to which I personally have taken great offence was made when he addressed a certain group of people in Boston. I do not have the date of his speech but I am sure he will recognize it. At page 7 of his address he said:
From 1867 to 1960, our country, like yours, underwent a period of immense economic development. But compared to yours-
He is talking about the United States.
-our political and cultural life seems dull and somewhat monotonous.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I do not subscribe to statements of this sort made by Canadians going to other countries. In my own province the premier is continually making statements outside the province which condemn and damn the very province of which he is a native. I do not endorse the actions of people who deliberately declare in other places that life in Canada seems dull

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
and somewhat monotonous. I do not think the past 100 years in Canada have been dull and monotonous. I can assure the minister that even with the implementation of the language bill we will continue to fulfil our moral obligations. I do not think the people in the province of Quebec and elsewhere appreciate the minister condemning in this and other countries what we have known in the past to be a fact of life. We are Canadians, and the minister should realize this fact when making speeches outside this country. I am certain the people of the province of Quebec realize this without the language bill, although I am sure it will bind us more closely together.
I plead with the minister not to move too quickly on the language bill. When travelling throughout the country addressing public meetings we can explain the situation as it should be explained. If inflammatory statements such as I have referred to continue to be made, the language bill will not be regarded in the context the minister and every member of this house wishes, I ask the minister and the cabinet to go slowly with the regulations and give the people time to be educated in the two languages. Let the two languages work into the employment of this country. Do not insist that civil servants at all levels become bilingual immediately.
I am sure most people in my constituency do not oppose the language bill. They are just as proud as I to be Canadians. They are very concerned about the cost of implementing the language bill. They are also concerned about provisions such as clause 10 which may mean that every railway employee in this country, every civil servant and every employee of a crown corporation could be required to learn to speak both languages at a very late time in their lives. It would not be easy for me at the age of 42 to learn a second language. However, I will be willing to make an attempt when I have the opportunity next year. To ask the people of this country to learn a second language would burden them with additional municipal debt. The economics of this country today will not permit it unless the government will assume the complete cost of the entire implementation of the language bill.


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: As this is my first effort, Mr. Speaker,, let me at the outset make the solemn pledge to Your Honour and hon. members that I will not at any time needlessly take up the time of the house simply to speak as often as some other hon.

members, or for the benefit of indirectly influencing a few voters, or to further my personal position or gain. I will speak only when I have something of substance and significance to say for my constituents or for the good of our country. I sincerely hope Your Honour will call me to order whenever my words do not reflect this substance or significance.
The bill now under discussion is of paramount importance to Canada and to my constituency. Of my constituents, 45 per cent are bilingual citizens of French extraction. I deem it most important that the small number of French speaking members in this house who are not from the province of Quebec should bring the viewpoint of their French Canadian constituents forcefully and clearly to the attention of the house. French speaking members from the province of Quebec cannot possibly represent our thinking and attitude any more than can the English speaking members. I therefore hope every French Canadian member from other than the province of Quebec, without regard to party, will speak in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, during the electoral, campaign, I said to the French Canadians in the constituency of Timmins that this is now our last chance to remain French Canadians in Canada, outside Quebec, and that, besides, our fate rests mainly with the Quebecers.
My opponents took exception to that statement, but my constituents elected me so that I could come here and say it again. For us, French Canadians from outside Quebec, it is our last chance to remain French Canadians, and it is the Quebecers who will finally decide.
This is quite clear. How can we justify our language in Canada, if Quebec is not a part of Canada? Without Quebec, it would disappear immediately and completely. And why not? Why should the other Canadian citizens be interested in French Canadians if the French Canadians in Quebec felt no concern at all about those people who number one and a quarter million?
The separatists claim they want to preserve language and culture. Nevertheless, through a simple decision, namely to separate, they would jeopardize the future of a million and a quarter French Canadians. That is how the separatists would safeguard things.
More than a million and a quarter French Canadians would be abandoned and they want us to believe that it would be to protect
May 21, 1969

us. What nonsense, what kind of argument is that? And that without ever consulting any of the one and a quarter million people interested. What a civilized way of doing it.
Mr. Rene Levesque said in Timmins and I heard him with my own ears:
Let the French Canadian people in Ontario look after themselves. What do you want us to do? We must look after ourselves, in Quebec.
That is intelligent.
Mr. Levesque also said: French Canadians outside Quebec asked me to work out a policy aimed at bringing them back to Quebec; it is the only way for them to remain French Canadians. I do not know where his information comes from, but he is completely off the track. He should contact other people than separatists if he wants to get accurate facts.
My father was born in Saint-Anaclet, near Rimouski, and my mother was from Cap-Saint-Ignace, near Montmagny. Can you beat that for being a Quebecer? And I can tell Mr. Levesque straight out that never would my father agree to go back to Quebec under any circumstances. I can tell him that it would never be to my interest to move to Quebec.
He would never be able to convince even 100 French Canadians, out of 30,000 or more in our constituency, to move to Quebec-not that we do not like Quebec, because, on the contrary, Quebecers and ourselves are all the same-but just because our homeplace is the Timmins riding. Why would they move? They left Quebec because they had reasons to do so. Since they did not go back, they also had reasons not to. Why would these people give up good salaries for smaller ones, interesting jobs for less attractive ones, the advantages of bilingualism for narrow unilin-gualism? Mr. Levesque is just day-dreaming and altering facts.
In my constituency, I know a young girl who was a strong supporter of the separatist movement and who last summer was the lucky winner of a trip to France. She now deplores the separatists' fate and never stops criticizing France where social life, according to her, is fifty years behind ours in Canada.
Mr. Levesque is also saying that we are dead ducks and that we will not survive. What a mistake! What a misguided notion! What blindness!
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The same thing applies to those who advocate unilingualism in Quebec. We are told that it is to preserve the French language; but how can it be done by passing a law,
Official Languages
without consulting anyone? That would deny the right of 1,250,000 French Canadians who live outside Quebec to the French language! That is exactly what would happen, because, how could we justify the teaching of French in Ontario schools, if Quebec should refuse the teaching of English in its schools? You see, that does not make any sense.
At the beginning of the session, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) say that he was speaking as a French Canadian from Quebec and on behalf of the other French Canadians from the remainder of the country. I should ask the hon. member to give us his support, his attention, his interest, but I would ask him, for heaven's sake, not to speak on our behalf. Too often, some people who do not know what we think at all, claim they are our spokesmen without ever consulting us. They have their own interests and do not understand our way of thinking. That is why I say to the hon. member: "Support us, but for heaven's sake, do not speak in our name."
Mr. Speaker, last fall, I heard the hon. member for Temiscamingue say what is reported in Hansard at page 1494. I wish to congratulate him sincerely. I have a great deal of admiration for him. I sincerely believe that he has done at least as much as anybody else to promote bilingualism at the federal level. The hon. member was telling us that three of his colleagues, who did not speak English, had been arrested by an Ottawa policeman who did not speak French. As my hon. friend, I think that the policeman in question would be able to perform his duties more efficiently if he could speak French.
But, on the other hand, how can the members who do not speak Ehglish serve their electors adequately since they cannot even talk with the English-speaking members or get to know what they think?
True, we are provided with simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons, but parliament does not consist of the House of Commons only. Communications must be established with people outside the house. Therefore, I earnestly suggest to the hon. members to register immediately for an English course. What applies to Englishspeaking Canadians also holds good for French-speaking Canadians. Such action on their part will prove their sincerity.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell our brothers from the province of Quebec who, for the .major part, have not yet agreed to separatism, to whom we feel very close and of

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
whom we are proud, not to be taken in by slogans, misleading catch phrases, shallow statements and policies that offer crumbs to everyone, not bread.
I also tell them: Look carefully into those policies and, I entreat you, speak your mind. Do not let the remainder of Canada think that those separatists represent the public opinion in Quebec, and that they are a majority. Do not become yourselves separatists by not taking a stand. Denounce those hypocritical and evil-minded trouble makers. Do you believe that those mean trouble makers, that the great general who has now left the political stage, that a frustrated Minister of Cultural Affairs, that a very narrow-minded school board, are going to preserve and develop the French language in the province of Quebec and in the rest of Canada? Not at all! That will rather depend on the initiative of every French Canadian everywhere on the sound judgment of the great majority of politicians in Canada on the good-will of the great majority of citizens everywhere and, above all, on the influence of Quebec within Canada.
I entreat the province of Quebec not to forsake the million and a quarter French Canadians who are not living in Quebec. Our ancestors left their homes and their families to go out and spread the French fact throughout Canada. Are we going to let their efforts go to waste?
Those good people have spread all over Canada and have multiplied to the point that they now number one and a quarter million. All this was to develop and reinforce the French fact in Canada. Are we going to allow the results of their struggle to amount to nothing? It would likely have been much easier for our people to stay home. But if they had not had the courage to spread, if they had refused to leave, if they had not foreseen our vast bilingual country, where would we be now? The French language and culture would no longer exist outside Quebec. We would not have Canada as we know it today. Let us not thank them by forgetting them. Let us not show our appreciation by denying them. Let us continue to give them our support and our encouragement.

The final test, Mr. Speaker, is here and now. As at the end of a school year students eventually have to face examinations, so this parliament must now face the test of two official languages. The statements, the promises, the positions have looked good. They have reassured to a large degree, but now is

the time when the law must guarantee. There is no turning back. And, Mr. Speaker, now that the principle has been established, now that the formula has been enunciated, I am completely amazed at the weak excuses that are appearing to delay further, to suspend, to sidetrack, and to evade the decision.
What a laugh when I hear some say, "We agree with the law but we should have it tested constitutionally!" What hypocrisy, what baloney when they say, "Sure, we should have two official languages, but it is too costly!" What of the cost to parents of private French schools which are just now beginning to receive reasonable government support? And what about the economic and social costs of the drop-outs from the French schools because of the too great financial burden on the parents, who pay twice for their children's education?
What rubbish when they say two official languages will mean discrimination in the civil service! What about the arrogant discrimination that went on for years and years, even in the heart of Quebec, and in national transport agencies? Where has the fair play been in all those instances? Where is it today? Are we ready to accept our responsibilities? Have we matured enough? Have we the courage to call a spade a spade and stand and be counted, yes or no, clearly and honestly?
My French ancestors came to Canada in 1623. That is a long time ago. Does this mean that I am more Canadian than he who came here in 1923? Of course not. Does the fact that my ancestors were French while someone else's were English make me more Canadian than him? Of course not. Does the fact that I speak two languages while someone else speaks only one make me more Canadian? Of course not.
But, Mr. Speaker, let no man-I say no man-tell me that I do not fit in in Canada because I am French Canadian. Let no man tell me that I will have to speak English because he does not speak French. Many people do not want to be hyphenated Canadians. Why not? What is wrong with being a hyphenated Canadian? Canada would not be Canada if it did not have hyphenated Canadians. We would all be Americans. Canada is Canada and Canadians are Canadians because we have two great working languages, because we have many nationalities and many cultures, all this tempered by the influence of the huge American society to the south of us. What is wrong with that? These
May 21, 1969

are the reasons it is great to be Canadian and it is great to remain Canadian.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in the house last December, as recorded on page 3929 of Hansard, that the French Canadians had been given bilingual cheques. In a Prime Minister's career, what a pitiful contribution to look back to! What sadness must be in his heart today-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: His horse and buggy friends are up in arms now. What sadness must be in his heart today that he did not do more then! What a pity to have peddled the surface symbols but never to have contributed to the substance of bilingualism! He went on to say, "Now they want more."


An hon. Member:: What about the simultaneous translation?


Jean Robert Roy: How pathetic to think of official language rights and such subjects as goodies that we distribute, not if it is right or wrong, beneficial or not, but rather whether or not our French speaking citizens have been good little boys and whether they deserve another lollipop! What misunderstanding! What a sorrowful record!


Mr. Peters:: What distortion!


Jean Robert Roy: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), as recorded at page 1491 of Hansard, some time ago deplored the fact that too many affairs of the western provinces were being handled in this government by ministers from Quebec. What a ridiculous attitude! How many of the affairs of Quebec are handled by ministers from other provinces? Heaven forbid that the affairs of western Canada should ever be handled by the member for Crowfoot. The hon. member went on to say that there was a natural trend in Canada for the French Canadian to be assimilated. I do not know how it is in Crowfoot, but I know from that statement that the hon. member cannot have seen too much of the rest of Canada.
There are as many French Canadians outside Quebec as there are people in Alberta. They will be there speaking French after the hon. member is gone, after his children are gone and after his grandchildren are gone. Let us not search the past for legal loopholes, for traditional balderdash, for old
Official Languages
prejudices, for feelings of bigotry, for any excuse to oppose the two languages.
I was pleased the other day by a choice bit of wisdom on the part of one of my constituents. The gentleman in question spent considerable time decrying the official languages bill to me. He expressed his completely partial viewpoint that French has no place in Canada outside Quebec. He made a very strong representation against the bill. Then he said-


Mr. Bigg:: As a good Canadian, do not repeat it.


Jean Robert Roy: The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) should go back on his horse. This constituent said, "In spite of all I have just told you now, in spite of anything else you have heard, you, the politicians, should vote for what you think and know is right and reasonable if you are really honest with yourselves." It does not matter to me what happened 100 years ago or 200 years ago. I am interested in the life I live and the life my children and their children will live. To me that means bilingualism, multicul-turalism, a fuller life, a richer life, a life truly Canadian. For these reasons I give full support to the Prime Minister's bill, one which I am sure will be the pride of this house and the pride of its members, indeed, the pride of Canada itself.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question at this time?


Jean Robert Roy: Gladly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I know the hon. member wants to be fair, but is he not aware that the simultaneous translation system in this house, among other things, was brought in by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert?


An hon. Member:: Peanuts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy for me to rise to speak on this bill. I realize that whichever side one takes on a subject such as this one will find oneself being accused of prejudice. This bill, on the face of it at least, would seem to be acceptable, but when one delves a little deeper and explores the possible application of the bill one must, I think, have reservations which I should like to put forward at this

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
time. I shall not go into the constitutional aspect of the bill. Other members have covered this principle. I shall not struggle with the bill in terms of its legal aspects. This, of course, is a field which is foreign to me. I shall deal with the bill in terms of how I consider it relates to human beings, national unity and the community in which I live.
First, from the point of view of nations becoming great and from the point of view of national unity I think history will bear me out in my observation that the melting pot theory is far more successful than the mosaic theory and that nations have become great not by emphasizing the differences in people but by projecting their similarities. If this were legislation that would do away with all records of racial origin and all the requirements for records of racial origin, I could give it my unequivocal support, then we could get down to the business of being Canadians instead of having this endless haggle over English and French.
Many of my closest friends are of French origin. Many of them are of other nationalities. I come from a part of the country where men and women are taken at face value, for what they are, not who they are, and where race, colour, creed and, I might add, racial origin mean nothing. So it is rather mystifying and strange to me to come to this portion of Canada where a person's ancestry means so much. It is not evident to me that your idealistic theories on the beautiful mosaic of culture and creed have brought you very much unity or as much genuine understanding in the 300 years you have been here in eastern Canada as I think we have achieved in 80 years with our melting pot theory in the west.
If there is one mistake that we made in this country which we should remember it is the mistake we made in respect of our Indian population. One hundred years ago we made them different in a way far in excess of merely their colour or creed. We set them apart on islands unto themselves and called these islands reservations. We did not stop there. We looked after them by giving them special privileges and concessions as well. There is no need for me to finish that story. But is there not a parallel that can be drawn with the situation which confronts us here? I say, let requirements of culture and language fall as they may by the law of supply and demand, or should I say in the light of a language situation by supply and demand. I have travelled this country from coast to

coast. I have heard much of the English majority and the French minority. Statements of this kind, however, do not bear close scrutiny.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
With relation now to western Canada and taking this figure from current statistics, I notice that 50 per cent of the people in the prairie provinces list their racial origins as other than English or French. Therefore, if we are going to be totally accurate we have to say that the population is comprised of Canadians of all ethnic origins including German, Ukrainian, Polish, Italian, Chinese, English, Scandinavians and a dozen others, the majority of whom use the English language in business. If we consider the number of minority groups in Canada, certainly we must conclude that those Canadians of French descent constitute one of the two majorities. With this mixture of people thrown together in this country, the farther we stay away from guarantees and special concessions to any group, the closer we will come to achieving what surely must be our ultimate goal-a united and strong Canada and a better standard of living.
For a moment I should like to dwell on what one might term a Trojan horse quality in respect of this proposed legislation. It may be that the government has no other intent in respect of this bill than that already expressed openly by its sponsors and authors. The fact remains that the terms of the bill make it capable of manipulation by determined and unscrupulous people toward the achievement of ends which would be impossible to attain directly and openly.
The organization and procedures envisaged in this bill are such as to open the door to the worst kind of political philandering and manipulation. As I read the terms of the bill it is open to any small group or even a single person, wholeheartedly dedicated to advancing the cause of the French language and culture across Canada, to arrange things so that a 10 per cent area could be created within any province. Because of the structure and terms of the bill, and because of the machinery provided to protect and nurture such areas, there is little doubt that such an area once established would flourish and grow despite the disproportionate cost which would be required in government effort and expenditure.
We must now consider such an area, duly established under this legislation, in the light
May 21, 1969

of what other benefits it might receive from existing federal legislation and legislation yet to come. I have in mind all the resources available to bolster and assist such areas, including those now available under this government, particularly from departments like that of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). On the purely economic side I think of the vast resources already at the arbitrary beck and call of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). In view of the public speeches and statements of the two gentlemen at present holding these two portfolios, it would not be unreasonable to expect that they might pay more attention and give more assistance to one of these newly set-up areas. Of course the statements of the Prime Minister did nothing to allay the fears in this regard. Let me read from his statement to the constitutional conference held in Ottawa. He said:
I repeat today, in the name of the federal government, that we are prepared to consider the provision by the federal government to the provinces who want to deal with the minorities in their province of the other official language, providing to them technical or financial assistance of one kind or another.
I will not labour that because I think it speaks for itself.
Let me go on to say that this bill contains the seeds of a plant about which we know nothing. We do not know, nor have we any way of calculating, what shape it will assume as it grows, what it will look like or what its characteristics may be. We are assured by the sponsors of this legislation, including the Prime Minister, that it will have an innocent and beneficial bloom. Watered by the cultural theories of the Secretary of State and generously fertilized by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, it could grow into a monster and choke off the healthy growth of our nation, causing untold problems.
I suppose one might say that the ultimate extension of possibilities inherent in this bill might lead into the political field. Once a 10 per cent area was established as a special bilingual area it could be carefully nursed through federal government assistance to the point of development where it would invite gerrymandering in the future redistribution of federal electoral seats. We should remember that such areas, once established, will inevitably attract special attention and treatment from Ottawa. This could only be done at the expense of equality in the treatment afforded other provincial centres. None of
Official Languages
these things may happen, but in all seriousness I suggest that the possibility they will is in essence the basis of this legislation. There can be little doubt that its provisions make this entirely possible.
I should like to point out at this time that some of the objections voiced against this bill, objections which I notice are coming at least in part from western Canada, are based on economic grounds and have to some extent been built up by discontent with the province of Quebec. Many of these involve small matters, probably oversights on the part of busy cabinet ministers. One might say they are not related to this bill at all, but in context with the position of the west they are relatively important. Let me cite a few examples.
I quote from a submission presented by the Manitoba Dairy Commission which states in part that there has been a transfer of the dairy products quota from the prairie provinces, amounting to 8,300,000 pounds, to the province of Quebec. This means in round figures a reduction to Manitoba of two million pounds, four million pounds to Saskatchewan, and two million pounds to Alberta. This does not in itself seem too bad, but when the people out west realize that they import 14 million pounds of butter from the province of Quebec, in respect of which the Canadian Dairy Commission is paying the shipping costs to the prairies, one can understand their discontent.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I quote from a report of the Western Hog Growers Association which is contained in the Edmonton Journal of April 11. This article states that the federal feed freight assistance and storage policy is a direct subsidy to eastern hog growers. It is calculated that this program subsidized Quebec hog growers to the extent of $8.10 per animal last year, compared with a subsidy of 40 cents in the western provinces.
I have another example, Mr. Speaker. I was thumbing through the order paper and noticed that 132 post offices were built in the province of Quebec in 1968, whereas in a province with a greater population, Ontario, only 72 were built or a little more than half the number built in Quebec. In Alberta only 13 post offices were built in that year, and poor old Manitoba had to settle for nine.
All these things contribute to the opposition to this bill. There is nothing wrong with our basic program of building post offices. There is nothing wrong with much of our present

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
dairy policy. There is perhaps nothing wrong with the laudable aims presented on the face of this languages bill. But the crux of the matter is the interpretation and administration of these policies and laws. This is where the bind will come. Do we have confidence in the men who have established these policies and will administer the law? If we do not, are we not just opening up new avenues to advance inequality under the guise of equality?
I object to this legislation on other grounds, Mr. Speaker. To my mind it represents an attempt to do good by the wrong means. I do not believe the cause of bilingualism or national unity will be well served by resorting to law and compulsion. The legalistic approach reflected in the government's attempt to ram this legislation through parliament can lead only to endless trouble, needless expense and the creation of yet another bureaucratic monster, an expensive monster, to say the least. It will breed opposition to French language rights where none is now present. It will harden attitudes hopelessly in some areas of this country. There still exists a very good chance that opposition across Canada to the general acceptance of the French language can be overcome by time, experience and a policy of voluntary gradualism. In my opinion nothing will more quickly bring about the doom of this policy than any suggestion of compulsion or coercion.
There are in this country very few areas in which all these services are not now provided. This legislation could very well defeat its purpose and spawn resentment. If we impose bilingualism, not on the basis of its own intrinsic virtues but on arbitrary and highly questionable grounds, we will only widen the breach between French Canada and the rest of the country. No one can argue that Canadians being able to speak two languages is not a good thing. I have a very earnest desire to be bilingual. This is an achievement that brings great benefit to anyone. But the way to achieve general proficiency in both languages and general acceptance of the use of two languages must rest upon individual desire and co-operation, not on compulsion of federal law and enforced acceptance thereof.
It would be well if supporters of legislation such as this reconsidered the matter and studied closely the dual language problems of countries such as Switzerland, Belgium and South Africa. Let them study the background and evolution of language use in these nations and then compare the language conditions

that exist in those countries. Perhaps even more important, the supporters of this legislation should take into consideration the attitude of the province of Quebec in this matter. This legislation has been received by the authorities of that province in a manner which, if one were entirely charitable, would be called something less than enthusiastic.
In addition, the general trend expressed by the leading men of all political parties in Quebec has been toward a unilingual, not bilingual, province. If the heart and home of French Canada, the cultural and linguistic core of the French Canadian society, is not in favour of this legislation or even of the concept of national bilingualism, how can we expect residents of Alberta, British Columbia or Newfoundland to be enthusiastic?
I shall not dwell upon the objections as to the cost the passage of this bill will entail. It is obvious that duplication of services and facilities will require a vastly increased amount of money which can only be raised by taxation. There remains the unknown and incalculable heritage that this bill will impose upon Canadians of generations to come. I foresee this heritage as only a fertile producer of trouble and more problems. At best, this legislation will create an unseen, unspoken barrier for the stubbornly unilingual, no matter of what racial origin. This shadow barrier will be erected and bolstered by federal legislation. Even now this barrier exists in some areas.
In the public service of Canada bilingualism is the dominant, though hidden, fact of life. In the public service of today it is an unmentioned but potent condition of employment, and certainly of advancement. If this policy is further buttressed by legislation such as that now before us, it will effectively debar from the public service all but a handful of Canadians whose mother tongue is other than French. If such an obvious step is taken to alienate western Canadian citizens from their capital and central government, it will not be surprising if the voice of western separatism becomes louder and louder.
This bill has been advanced on the premise that it will reinforce national unity. But in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, the passage of the bill could very well serve, no matter how well intentioned it is, only to disunite the people of Canada in the years to come.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, one of the notable features of this debate has been the general support by spokesmen of all parties in the house for the
May 21, 1969



principle of this bill. There has been a responsible approach to the issue of the official languages bill; hon. members have spoken responsibly and well in support of the measure. As a member of the government ranks, I have listened with great and appreciative interest to the remarks of certain opposition members.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. We have just heard a speech, not a notable one, delivered by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). If all the actions which we contemplate in this house were to be judged only in terms of the worst eventualities of those actions, nothing would ever be accomplished by the House of Commons. Indeed, if the same philosophy had been applied to the field of invention the motor car would never have been invented because it is a danger to the pedestrian by virtue of the fact that cars travel upon roads. It was not the kind of speech which is a vote of confidence in Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I happen to have on my desk a speech made by Rene Levesque as reported in the Toronto Star of April 28, 1969. He said the same thing as did the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). Addressing himself to a cheering audience in Montreal he said: "We are taking Quebec out in five years. There will be no confederation any longer". He said that the government of Canada "denies English Canada this efficient centralization which it needs while at the same time tries to impose by force a fundamental amendment on biculturalism which it never wanted."
The hon. member for Battle River must have been reading Mr. Levesque's speech. But Mr. Levesque and separatists in all parts of Canada have a vested interest in making sure that nothing is ever done on the issue of culture and language. They are the only ones who will profit immeasurably from the continuation of the historical misunderstanding which has plagued Canada from coast to coast. It does not matter what language a separatist speaks-and they are not all confined to one province in Canada-he does not want any kind of rapprochement at all in this country because he knows the jig is up if there is any kind of agreement or better understanding between the two linguistic groups which founded this country. The hon. member for Battle River can have Mr. Rene Levesque. He may agree with his philosophy and he can get additional speeches made by him and quote from them, but the majority of
Official Languages
the members of this house will not support him.
I am not saying that it is our party's exclusive concern to ensure the future of this country and to protect the rights of our citizens. Any member in any party in this house who makes that claim is being dishonest because it is not true. I have many friends in the house who are in other parties than I am and they have made very good speeches on this subject. I may disagree with them but they have as great a concern in keeping this country strong and united as I have, and I gladly admit it. I do not care about what might have been said from political platforms.
A few hon. members have spoken in opposition to the principle of the bill. I hope that despite this apparent disagreement, members of this house are going to provide unanimous support in the vote on second reading involving the principle of the bill. It does not matter whether there is disagreement now because we have to remember that we are going to refer the bill to a special committee which should call before it as many witnesses as possible to provide the assurance to members in all parts of the house that no one's rights will be violated in this country. We should hear from people concerned about civil servants and people concerned about the cost which the implementation of this bill will entail. That point was well made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg). There is a legitimate concern in some parts of this country about the cost. This is certainly so in British Columbia although, as hon. members know, it will not cost very much in that province. Nevertheless there is concern about the cost in British Columbia as well as in other provinces.
Some hon. members have spoken as if approval of the principle of the bill will somehow destroy for all time the possibility of change or amendment. In fact, if we expedite second reading of this measure we will have the bill in committee where it should be right now so that members of all parties can subject it to scrutiny, and some of them are pretty talented in that field. If, after reviewing the testimony of witnesses and examining evidence, these members remain intransigent in their opposition, they will have every opportunity to register that opposition when the bill comes back to the house. They will have the right to vote against it if they wish to do so at that time. However, it would be a fine thing at least to have the unanimous consent of all hon. members to send the bill to the committee in the first place.

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
A word must be said about those on the opposition side of the house who have shown restraint during the discussion of the language bill. The language bill is a very tempting target for political demagogues and there are a few of them across the country, though I am not suggesting in this house. During this debate I think the chamber has been remarkably free of political demagoguery. Perhaps no other measure touching on our emotions to such a great extent, which has come before parliament,, has provided such an opportunity for the construction of ramshackle arguments fabricated to stir public emotions and even hatred. Creating straw men and then knocking them down is an old political practice and the grand national sport of some people in public life. To an admirable extent most hon. members have taken the high road and have rejected the temptation to advance thinly disguised prejudices.
Efforts have been made to relate this measure to Rosenberg's racial theories in Nazi Germany, to suggest that this bill will make Canada into a banana republic and that the bill represents compulsion. 1 believe that a sinister kind of compulsion is suggested. These are arguments without credibility. Some hon. members have professed to see in the bill a violation of the B.N.A. Act. This is a legitimate concern on the part of some people. Of course, the same document is cited on occasion by these very same speakers as being outmoded and out of tune with the times. We heard an excellent speech by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as recorded at page 54 of Hansard of September 16, 1968. At that time he said:
I am sure Canadians hope that when we are ready with reforms and amendments to our constitution we shall be able to achieve those reforms and those amendments here in Canada.
He was speaking for the official opposition and urging constitutional reform. Yet some spokesmen in this debate have stood in their places and said that this bill is a violation of that sacred precept, the B.N.A. Act. They say that the bill is out of tune with the times and that the B.N.A. Act is a sacred precept which must not be questioned. Let us remember that if we are prepared to challenge this measure on the grounds of constitutional violation we will open to question a number of actions in many fields, including every other piece of legislation dealing with the French or English language adopted by the federal authorities since the year 1867. It would not be a very profitable discussion, but perhaps it would be a field day for the lawyers.

There is a general consensus in all the parties today that there is nothing sacrosanct about the B.N.A. Act. It stood the test of time and some of it is relevant today but some of its provisions have become irrelevant, obsolete and detrimental to the development of Canada. All the parties recognize this. Our party does not have a monopoly on this view.
Some hon. members have said in this debate that economic problems are more important than linguistic or cultural matters. The point has been made time and time again that we cannot leave aside the resolution of Canada's basic problems other than culture and language, and of course that is entirely correct. However, it is a misinterpretation of the views of the government to suggest that this is the intent of the government. On October 17 of last year the Prime Minister said the following, and I quote from page 1487 of Hansard of that day:
-it is a dangerous illusion to think that this resolution and the bill which will follow are the most important aspects of the problem of Canadian unity, important though they are. Even more important is the problem of poverty and of economic and social inequality across this country. It is the continuation of inequality and poverty that creates a real threat to our future. It is a well established sociological fact that nothing so much as economic and social insecurity produces deep prejudice which expresses itself in language and in social and racial disorder.
Of course we have to move on these other fronts as well. We have to move on the problems of poverty, regional inequality, housing, and all the others.


An hon. Member:: Why don't we do so now?
Another hon. Member: We will, next year.


Raymond J. Perrault: No, this year. In other words, the government recognizes that the language bill by itself will not bring about the abolition of inequality. It is but one goal along the road to a better Canada.
The question is asked: Who stands to gain from the passage of the official languages bill? I suggest that the vast majority of Canadians in all provinces who want a strong and united country will gain from this bill. Who stands to lose the most? As I said earlier, separatists do, whatever their language, whatever their region. Separatism thrives on hate, discord and misunderstanding. Separatists want to drive a wedge between one part of Canada and the other. Separatists, whatever their language, counsel despair. We have an example in Rene Levesque. They counsel despair. It does not matter where they live. This is their language.
May 21, 1969

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Here are some quotations I have gathered from various sources: "We'd be better off by ourselves. Let's have a unilingual state.. . Economically we would thrive." And: "We would be far more prosperous if we did not have to subsidize the rest of Canada." Where have we heard that before? A small handful [DOT]of equally embittered men in other areas say: "The game's over. We are totally unconcerned about whether or not French language rights are extended in other parts of Canada. We shall go our own separate way." The siren song sung to the people of Toronto is: "You people in English speaking Canada need not worry at all about granting rights to people of French origin in other parts of the country because they will not last, in any case."
What is the true nature of the game these forces are playing? It is to alienate one province from another, to drive the country apart for the sake of their own egotistical political ambitions, to leave unattended the rancours and misunderstandings of history to the end that they may eventually destroy the Canada we know, a Canada cherished by all members of his house regardless of party.
So we have this bill before us. It is not a perfect bill. It is a bill which seeks to provide within certain realistic, even modest limits, guarantees for English speaking groups where French predominates and for French language groups where English predominates. It is often forgotten that it is a two-way bill, a bill which expresses the determination of almost all of us that the will of the people of Canada made clear by this parliament shall prevail over the narrow, insular, hate-wracked views of separatists wherever they may live in this nation.
No longer shall these mischief-makers be able to say: "The French minority is being persecuted in other parts of Canada; let us provide a haven here; let us become an independent state and then we can call them all home." No longer will other shrill separatist voices be able to trumpet the theme: "English language rights are being suppressed in French Canada. . Let Quebec go, and the sooner the better...We would do better on our own.", We have heard that in western Canada. We westerners know. Probably people in eastern Canada have heard it, too.
Of course the bill is not perfect. Nevertheless it represents at least a partial antidote to the hatreds which form the arsenal of separatists everywhere. As the Prime Minister has
Official Languages
said, those who argue for separation in whatever form are prisoners of past injustice, blind to the possibilities of the future. The only people who will object to this bill are those who lack a vision of Canada in 1969 and beyond.
If we say to the French speaking Canadian who wants to remain a Canadian that the only place where he can be a French speaking citizen is in Quebec, we are making him look upon Quebec, not Canada, as the sole protector of his language and culture. And Canada would be the loser. If we say to the English speaking Canadian who wants to remain a Canadian that the only place where he can be an English speaking citizen is outside Quebec, we are making him look upon Ontario, British Columbia, or one of the other provinces as the protector of his language and culture. And again Canada would be the loser.
The official languages bill provides guarantees that Canadians can look to the central government not to any one provincial government, for the preservation and development of the language and culture of their language groups, and it guarantees, as well that the rights of all people, of either ethnic origin or of all ethnic origins, will be protected.
Together with others from my province I have received letters of support for this measure as well as letters of condemnation. I have quite an interesting file on the subject, and I am sure other hon. members have one as well. Most of the letters in opposition stem, I am convinced, from a misunderstanding of the bill. The measure has been widely misinterpreted, perhaps innocently in most cases, as an attempt to force English speaking Canadians to learn French. Some suggest it is solely an attempt to make French an official language in areas where there is a French speaking population of at least 10 per cent. Yet, as one western newspaper has stated editorially, it has been overlooked that English has also become an official language in areas throughout Quebec where there is an English speaking population of at least 10 per cent.
As enunciated yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), it is the government's wish and intention to avoid a confrontation in the courts over the constitutionality of this measure. It is to be hoped-and I express this hope as one who spent some time in a provincial legislature

that the western provinces will not choose to challenge this proposed act. Among other reasons, the bill as outlined will affect the western provinces only to a minimal extent. The delay brought about by a

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
challenge in the Supreme Court would result in unfairness to minority language citizens in provinces in which the act would be widely applicable.
It should be of interest to those who read into this bill a desire of the government to impose compulsory bilingualism that if we apply the bilingual district recommendations contained in the B and B report, British Columbia would have not one single bilingual district. Alberta would have one, Saskatchewan one-I suggest that Battle River voters should please note-and Manitoba, four. The provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, each of which has expressed an interest in bilingual services, would have no fewer than 43 bilingual districts among them. New Brunswick would have eight. Ontario would have 11. Quebec, where the minority language to be protected and served under the proposed act would be English, would have 24 English language bilingual districts. So there would be 24 in Quebec and two in Saskatchewan, the home of Battle River.


An hon. Member:: No, no. Alberta.


Raymond J. Perrault: Is it Alberta? I am sorry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Get your facts right.


Raymond J. Perrault: Yes. I apologize to the people of Saskatchewan.
As was pointed out so well in one of the leading western newspapers, the Edmonton Journal, on February 4, 1969:
If a constitutional challenge is launched, four provinces, involved to the extent of six bilingual districts, would be delaying for years the implementation of federal bilingual services in three provinces involved to the extent of 43 bilingual districts.
In effect, it would deny English speaking residents in Quebec in 24 of these proposed districts the rights to which they are entitled. For reasons which the Minister of Justice gave yesterday there seems to be no valid ground now, if any existed at any time, for a challenge in the Supreme Court. The history of this proposed legislation is one of discussion, consultation and efforts to avoid confrontation. At the federal-provincial conference in February suggestions were made that Ottawa should consult with the provinces when contemplating programs which directly affect the provincial interest. In my opinion there is at least partial validity to the arguments put forward by the provincial premiers in this connection. In the case of the official languages bill, this

process of consultation began last October. There has not been a measure in the history of the Canadian parliament concerning which there has been more useful consultation. It has been a two-way dialogue between the provinces and the federal government.
Changes have been proposed in the area of the direct implementation of the bill. I, for one, welcome enthusiastically the amendment which reaffirms and restates the policy of maximum attention to merit in matters concerning hiring and promotion in the civil service, crown corporations and the armed forces. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that hiring policy as it affects civil servants and advancement in the public service must start first of all on the basis of ability to do the job. Willingness, or the ability, to speak the other language must be regarded as a merit factor but competence to perform the assignment must be the top priority with no discrimination shown on any other ground.
It is a constructive proposal to have the provinces determine the point at which bilingual court facilities can be established. Both these amendments indicate an understanding on the part of the national government of the problems facing certain provinces in implementing fully the terms of the official languages bill. Often we hear it said that the problems in the maritimes should be given a greater measure of understanding. It is said that Quebec has problems not appreciated by all of us. The same claim may be made with respect to Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Often the west is portrayed as an area peopled by intransigent, inflexible Canadians enjoying above average incomes in some areas and a below average comprehension of questions relating to national unity. As a westerner this diagnosis represents a vast oversimplification and is not fair to the people living in western Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I ask for understanding for my province of British Columbia. If we are not as bilingual and bicultural as some other provinces, it is because long ago when people first saw the possibility of settlement in our province relatively few people of French language and culture came to help us settle the province. Those who did come made a fine contribution and have maintained significantly their French language and cultural rights, at the same time contributing richly to the development of our economy in British Columbia. When our institutions were being shaped,
May 21, 1969

formed and developed, few from the French area of Canada were there to help.
We developed a multicultural province. Settling of the province was accomplished by the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Americans, Ukrainians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Scandinavians and people from many other lands, but very few French. So if we in British Columbia appear to be bewildered at times about the bilingualism dialogue, at least part of the fault must be laid at the doorstep of the leaders of French Canada historically, who many years ago determined to concentrate on a program of developing primarily within the boundaries of one province their language and cultural institutions. I suggest it is unfair to say to British Columbians that they should get with it and appreciate a dialogue that most of them thought was confined to the St. Lawrence river valley. Perhaps in the context of this historical fact the attitude of British Columbians and many other western Canadians can be understood.
We are as interested in national unity as anyone living in Ontario, the maritimes or Quebec. But we have developed and grown in a different way. We have had people of all races and religions come to the province. It is an area remarkably free of prejudice of any kind. I am proud of the west and I do not like some of the cynical editorials that we see written in eastern Canada which suggest that somehow western Canadians belong in the neanderthal age because they do not fully agree with all the policies that are advanced in other parts of Canada.
The amendments recognize-and this is why I welcome them-the unique evolution of the western provinces. In this sense the amendments are conciliatory and very useful, and I hope they will be welcomed by the people of my province.
As we move to send the bill to a special committee we should remember that only a year ago the Prime Minister travelled to every part of Canada with one message which he delivered in both French and English. He expressed his views on language rights and spoke of them in the campaign everywhere he went, from one end of Canada to the other. Speaking in both languages, he spoke of the need for guaranteeing to each language group the right to the protection and preservation of both languages. He was acclaimed and applauded, and significantly was elected with a substantial majority.
Official Languages
We now have the proposed legislation before us. With its amendments I believe it gives expression to the aspirations of most Canadians in most provinces. Happily it enjoys the support of most members of all parties in this house. This is not the time for hesitation, for criticism and backbiting; this is the time to give the bill second reading, approval in principle. Let us send it to the committee and make certain that it is the best possible legislation that can be produced at this time. Let members of all parties in the house make constructive contributions at the committee stage. It will then be time to approve the bill, either as it is or as amended, to implement it, and then get on with the job of moving on to other trouble spots in this country.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak cm this measure I suggest that this language bill is a conglomerate of administrative decisions compounded by constitutional infringement. To legislate on language rights is a direct intrusion into an area reserved for constitutional enactment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knows that the only way he can validly proceed is to bring the matter before the constitutional conference and seek the consent of the provinces to amend the constitution. Since a constitutional conference will shortly be convening this would be an ideal time. Instead, he seeks to do by the back door what he dare not do by the front door. If this government, by a simple majority, can produce a constitutional change in an area so basic as language rights, there is no area of the constitution that they cannot deal with. To legislate the equality of both languages on an official basis is, of course, itself a constitutional amendment. The only real and effective guarantee of equality must be embedded in the constitution.
According to section 91(1) of the British North America Act, which was inserted by the St. Laurent government in 1949, parliament is prohibited from unilaterally legislating in the language field. This is, of course, the reason we have a constitution, so that those things inserted therein are accorded a degree of protection.
Now the Prime Minister has made the constitution a dead letter. He is driving a truck through Canada's constitution, simply treating it as though it did not exist. What one government can do, another government can do.

May 21, 1969
Official Languages
If constitutional prerogatives are to be treated with disdain, what is to prevent a government from altering the whole basis of educational rights simply by passing a bill in parliament? Then a following government could wipe out this provision by simply repealing it.
There are a number of questions which must be asked in regard to the bill itself. What does it seek to accomplish, and how successful is it in so doing? With regard to the use of the French language in parliament, that is already recognized. The use of French in the civil service was already announced as the policy of the Pearson government. This bill goes farther and translates into legislation what was previously announced as policy. Obviously the intention is that Canada shall become officially a bilingual nation with both languages granted equal status.
What about the bilingual districts? This is a new departure and one cannot be sure at this stage whether it is a wise one. As has already been stated, there is a danger of the bilingual districts becoming bilingual ghettos and of services provided there being denied elsewhere. This is a problem for the government.
What about industry? Will industry going into a district designated as a bilingual district be expected to observe that designation in its personnel policy? Will it be discreetly pointed out that an industry wishing to establish itself in a bilingual district and seek the benefit of area development assistance will be expected to conform to the bilingual character of the district? Is this to be part of the policy?
There are many other unanswered questions about bilingual districts. On what basis will they be set up? Can a minority of 100 in a block be expanded to include 900 of the majority in order to dilute the original ratio to 10 per cent? Can a minority of 1,000 be expanded to include 9,000 of the majority? Especially in rural areas this might mean that people living miles from the minority are included in the majority. If people in a bilingual district are entitled to service in their mother tongue at the federal level, they need it much more at the provincial and municipal level. If one area of government is bilingual at the federal level, how much more important that the lower levels are also bilingual. A citizen would be able to pay local taxes, converse with the dog tax licence bureau, do business with the income tax inspector, the unemployment insurance official and with the R.C.M.P. Indeed this would be a good way to

deal with speeding tickets. An army of people will be required to carry out even rudimentary government.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Other questions are being asked. Will bilingual districts be able to dissolve? There is no indication this will be possible. How will the criteria of a bilingual district be arrived at? Presumably the census-taker will decide the mother tongue of the citizen. Will it be the citizen's right to change this? Many citizens change their mother tongue in the midstream of life in a practical way. They start to think in the second language. There has been no definition of a mother tongue.
In a practical way it seems that the bilingual districts will be largely rural. Without the co-operation of the provincial governments, bilingual districts will not be carried forward without language education. Sociologists say that as well as being a poverty creator rural backwardness is largely educational. Will the resources be available to keep the extra educational facilities on an equal level with the neighbouring unilingual districts? In fact the bilingual rural districts will almost certainly be deprived areas.
What about the provinces? What is the situation when the federal government says to a province, we are setting up a number of bilingual districts in this province? What is the position of the provincial government? Surely language is a civil right under the jurisdiction of a province. Is there not going to be some degree of consultation with the province? What if the province's views on what constitutes a bilingual district differs from the views of the federal government?
These are some of the aspects which the government should have carefully studied before presenting this biE, rather than simply accepting the recommendations of the B and B Commission as though they were written on tablets of stone. If the bilingual districts become a bone of contention between the federal government and any or all provinces, surely this legislation will set back the cause of bilingualism rather than advancing it. We must carefully scrutinize the basic question of bilingualism in this country and view this bill in the light of the requirements of national unity.
Obviously the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is endeavouring to bring about a situation where he can point to the official equality of both languages from coast to coast as a counter to those who would separate Quebec
May 21, 1969

from the rest of Canada, partly on grounds of failure to recognize the language and culture of Quebec outside of that province. The question is whether this bill brings about such a situation effectively. In short, will it satisfy Mr. Levesque? Obviously the answer is no.
Presumably in setting up bilingual districts the Prime Minister has in mind seeking the consent of the provinces for setting up schools in both languages within those bilingual districts. This, of course, could only be done by agreement, and would in all likelihood require a constitutional amendment. It is reasonable that the enunciation of so basic a right should be inscribed in the constitution rather than simply by way of parliamentary enactment.
The real issues are recognition of both languages from coast to coast and education in both languages where warranted by demand. What is required is agreement on constitutional changes. The present bill, in so far as it seeks to accomplish what the Prime Minister knows is fundamental to the problem, is really little more than a declaration of intention. I venture to suggest this because we have been going at the problem the wrong way. Surely the place to start is with the prior consent of the provinces, through consultation and agreement. For some reason it has been very difficult to get the present government and its predecessor to see the necessity of the principle of prior consultation. Once it is accepted, I am sure we can begin to bring order out of chaos.
In essence the bill confirms what is already laid down in the B.N.A. Act with regard to the federal parliament and courts. It breaks new ground in the enactment in statutory form of the policy of bilingualism in the civil service, the provision of bilingual districts and the creation of the office of commissioner of official languages, who may hereinafter be referred to as the bilingual watchdog. Apparently he will be a sort of Auditor General of bilingualism. One hopes he will have more success in getting his recommendations adopted than the Auditor General has had with this government and its predecessor. The only thing that seems to be missing from the comprehensive description of the language commissioner's office and duties is the requirement that he and every member of his staff be bilingual.
This bill effectively rules that the whole of the civil service must be bilingual. This will include all the crown corporations. It is fine to say that merit will be the deciding factor,
Official Languages
but when hiring new employees merit is of no value because it cannot be assessed. When an official is hiring new civil servants, bilingualism will be the first requirement. The officials cannot go wrong if he hires a bilingual person. However, he can go wrong when hiring a unilingual person no matter how great and merit-worthy that person may be.
To succeed in the civil service, bilingualism will be necessary. Crown corporations will be composed largely of French speaking personnel. There is no doubt that in the foreseeable future the majority of the business in Canada will be conducted in the English language, while civil service functions will largely be conducted by those with a French background. This will cause considerable inefficiency and probably duplication. Most French speaking Canadians will necessarily be recruited in the province of Quebec. As they move to other parts of Canada their French background may be lost within a generation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
To my knowledge, no country other than Belgium has attempted on a massive scale to have a bilingual population. There are nations such as Russia that have many languages but have remained with one official language. The people of India are struggling with this very same problem. Until now they have been using English, but they have finally decided upon one of their own languages and they intend to impose it as best they can upon the whole of that country.
We cannot live alone. If bilingualism is to be carried forward, surely it will truly embody the idea that French and English will be equally available throughout Canada at the federal level, and it also implies that services in these languages should be available at the provincial and municipal levels. Whether or not the country can afford this remains to be seen.


Mr. Hy Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I accept the principle of two founding nations and the proposals contained in this bill. I believe that all the premiers of Canada and the majority of Canadians accept the principle of equality of English and French, and that the only real difference between us is by what manner and how quickly implementing procedures can be adopted to bring about our objective in the fairest and most effective manner.
As has been pointed out, the bill will raise some problems in administration but all these can and must be solved. But before we look

May 21. 1969
Official Languages
at them I wish to mention some of the positive aspects of this legislation so that we may weigh them against the effort required to accomplish the desired result.
What are some of the good things that the bill will do for Canada? It will promote among all French speaking and all English speaking Canadians a feeling of equality. It will improve and increase the mobility of these Canadians in all parts of Canada. It will open up opportunity for many, particularly of the younger generation, to enjoy two cultures and thus share more fully in the Canadian community. It will give Canadians an international image of bilingualism, good will and co-operation. It will carry out the will of certainly the majority of Canadians as expressed in the last election. Above all, without it we cannot maintain unity, or perhaps even long remain as Canadians. It is as simple as that.
Because the philosophy of the bill deals with fundamental human rights it has a status comparable to a constitutional document. Some will argue that the goal can be reached voluntarily and that legislation is not necessary. I cannot agree. At times and in certain places some would allow their personal views and prejudices to overcome the spirit of the principle, and this in turn could stimulate reciprocal intolerances and resentment. For that reason I think it better that the detail be spelled out in legislation so that the courts, the commissioner to be appointed pursuant to the bill, and all others know clearly the intention of parliament. This is not a time for loose ends.
But clause 11 bothers me. There are some wrinkles which require ironing out to prevent confusion in future. Clause 11(2) provides that in every federal court of record-Exchequer, Admiralty and Bankruptcy-held in the national capital region or in a federal bilingual district there is to be simultaneous translation, except where this service cannot be conveniently provided and a party would not be put at a disadvantage.
Clause 11(3) provides that in any criminal court-Magistrates Court, County Court Judge's Criminal Court, Supreme Court or Court of Appeal-the court may at the request of the accused order the proceedings to be held completely in one of the two languages. This would apply to the federal bilingual districts only. This discretionary power in the courts, however, does not apply to subclause (1).
Clause 11(1) provides that in every federal court or administrative tribunal and in every

criminal court in Canada, as distinguished from those in bilingual districts only, the court must ensure that any person appearing and giving evidence before it may be heard in the official language of his choice, and that in being so heard he will not be placed at a disadvantage because he does not know the other official language.
This means that an accused or his counsel in being heard can plead, argue, address the court or jury, examine or cross-examine in the language of his choice, and this could take place in any part of Canada. There is no power in the court to relieve, as under subclauses (2) and (3). Certainly this is the ideal and must eventually come because anything less does not create equality. But apparently there were objections, probably based on the lack of bilingual lawyers and other bilingual personnel in the non-bilingual districts. The proposed amendment, tabled on May 20, changes the wording of this subclause to read:
Any person giving evidence before such court may be heard in the official language of his choice.
This is probably meant to apply to his role as a witness only. But if so it is not necessary. Every Canadian already has the right to give evidence in the language of his choice through an interpreter in a criminal proceeding, and this is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Dealing with the wording of the proposed amendment I point out that if an accused as a witness is heard in the language of his choice while giving his evidence, surely the court is bound to hear him in argument and in crossexamination in the same language. If so the desired change will not be accomplished. Rather than "heard" it would be better to say "he may give such evidence". Such an amendment could very well avoid an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and a long period of uncertainty. As an alternative we could leave the clause as it is but make it applicable to the national capital region and the bilingual districts only. This I prefer because it would be relatively simple to provide this right in the bilingual districts where there is simultaneous translation.
I agree that there will be problems, for example in jury trials. But these problems have been overcome in Quebec, India, South Africa, Finland, Switzerland and other countries. It is no answer to say that in some parts of the country the percentage is not large enough. Once we adopt the equality of the two languages it must be as universal as
May 21, 1969	COMMONS
reasonably possible. With a bilingual bar we could overcome the difficulty almost immediately. Lawyers, next to politicians, will be involved the most, and to them will fall the opportunity to make a tremendous contribution to the success of this measure.
There are solutions available. What is to prevent reciprocal bar privileges and an exchange of students between bilingual provinces and the other provinces? Why can some of their instruction not be in the second language as is the case with many other students across Canada? Quebec and New Brunswick could export or lend us bilingual lawyers pending the development of our own.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Why could this bill not cover drafting as well? In Canada drafting is done in English and then it is translated into French. The preparation of important legislation should not involve the translation from one language to the other. The approach to legislation involving two languages and two cultures must be from a dynamic and not merely a mechanical point of view. Both should be drafted together as is the case in Switzerland. When they have a word there which cannot be translated they send it back to the legislative committee with the suggestion that
DEBATES	8927
Official Languages
another word which can be translated into their official languages be used. I suggest it is imperative that this type of drafting be commenced immediately. To save the expense of redrafting legislation in both languages in the nine common law provinces, uniformity in legislation should be encouraged. We should also push ahead with an agreed upon French-English dictionary for legislative purposes as has been done in Belgium. In Canada we are behind. We do not even have agreement among the universities concerning the acceptance of an English-French dictionary.
In conclusion may I say that I hope for speedy conclusion of this debate so that we may get on with the details in the committee as soon as possible.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest that perhaps we might call it six o'clock. Could I call it six o'clock at this time?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
29180-565J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 22, 1969