1969-05-20

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Watson.
[Stage Direction]
Nineteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement with regard to the Prices and Incomes Commission. Following publication of the white paper on policies for price stability I arranged extensive consultations with a wide variety of representatives of economic interest groups, including the organized spokesmen for business and labour, and with the provincial governments. I also received letters from a great many people commenting on the proposals in the white paper, and I take this occasion to express my gratitude to all those who took the trouble to let me have the benefit of their views. I am glad to report to the house that there was a very broad measure of support for the kind of approach suggested in the white paper.
In the light of these consultations we have adopted the following terms of reference for the Prices and Incomes Commission which I wish to announce today:
The commission will be asked to inquire into and report upon the causes, processes
and consequences of inflation and to inform those making current price and income decisions, the general public and the government on how price stability may best be achieved. The Commission will be authorized to prepare and publish from time to time under its own authority specific reports on:
(a)	the results of their studies and investigations of the matters outlined above;
(b)	current developments in costs, prices, productivity and incomes in particular sectors and industries within the economy and for the Canadian economy as a whole. The commissioners will be authorized to receive any requests for the conduct of studies on problems, issues and situations made to them by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or by any provincial government, but will be free to reject or defer any such request if they consider that the study is not relevant to their main functions or that, having regard to the resources available to them, the study is of lower priority than other studies or inquiries they consider they should conduct.
I am confident that this commission, as it proceeds with its tasks of investigating the inflationary process in Canada and of giving public advice on how we may achieve better price stability, will be able to bring about a greater degree of restraint on the part of those in the private and public sector who are charged with the responsibility of making current decisions about prices and incomes.
I want to emphasize, as we did in the white paper, that this is only one element in the government's policies for price stability. Monetary and fiscal policy are the major instruments the government is relying on. I am however convinced that this commission can make a valuable contribution towards price stability if it gets the co-operation it will need from all interested parties. In regard to fiscal policy, I would remind the house that there will be a budget statement early in June and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has emphasized our determination to keep the budget in balance. We have been exercising severe restraint on government expenditures ever since the present administration took office last summer, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)

May 20, 1989
Consumer Affairs
indicated a week ago, we will continue to do so and further announcements will be made in this regard.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I am very pleased to announce that Dr. John H. Young has agreed to become Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission now being established. Dr. Young is an economist of international stature. He has both the personal qualities and the practical experience that are needed for this kind of task. He has for some years been a member of the faculty of the University of British Columbia and is at present Dean of Arts at the university. I am grateful to Dr. Young for interrupting his career to take on this assignment which is of such importance to the Canadian people.
The names of the other members of the commission will be announced very shortly. In the meantime Dr. Young has already begun to seek qualified members for the staff of the commission so that work can begin without delay.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there is only one word to describe the conduct of the government in regard to inflation, and that word is negligent. Inflation has been increasing relentlessly since 1966, at least. The rate of increase in prices has been twice as high, some years, as the Economic Council of Canada has suggested is tolerable. Last year, 1968, the consumer price index increased by 4.1 per cent, the highest in 17 years.
Our genial Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his budget of October forecast an inflationary factor this calendar year of about 3.5 per cent. In the first four months of the year the consumer price index has increased by nearly 2 per cent. At this rate the minister's forecast, unfortunately like many of his forecasts, will be wildly inaccurate.
In the face of the continuing increase in inflation the only response that the government made was in its white paper of last December announcing its intention to set up a Prices and Incomes Commission as a study group. The white paper did recognize the failure of established government policies to achieve the general aim upon which we all agree, and that is reasonably full employment associated with a reasonable degree of price stability. The white paper did say in no uncertain terms that the existing policies of
[Mr. Basford.l
the government were inadequate in that respect, but it went no further than to recommend the appointment of such a commission as this.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the government has not done one of the things that the Economic Council has consistently urged should be done to help in this fight,-perhaps in a minor way but yet in a helpful way,-and that is to establish a more accurate forecasting group in the country. Now we have in the country uncontrolled inflation associated with excessive unemployment, particularly in those parts of the country where inflationary pressures are not heavy.
Let me make it very clear that, although I wish Dr. Young well, in the light of the seriousness of the inflation problem, setting up this new group in itself is a ridiculously inadequate response; I have been urging for some time that the government act in cooperation with other segments of the economy to establish voluntary wage and price guidelines, not as a permanent solution but as a way of breaking loose from the inflationary psychology in which the government is caught, because not only have we inflation but we have very excessive unemployment in some parts of the country, and we must recognize that anti-inflationary programs the government is pursuing add to these difficulties, as was recognized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over the weekend upon the occasion of his visit to the Atlantic provinces.
Inadequate though it is to meet the immediate crisis, this commission might hopefully be of some usefulness in considering longer term solutions. Yet it has taken the government since last December to find the chairman; we still do now know who the other members of the commission will be. These will be future exciting instalments to which we can look forward.
The minister today announced the so-called terms of reference for the commission. They really add nothing of any consequence at all to what we already know. In short, today's announcement is proof that the government has a phony war against inflation, just as it has a phony war against poverty; and the enemy inflation is a strong ally of the enemy poverty-the strongest ally poverty has.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the minister's pride in his newly born brainchild I fear that the long labour has provided but a puny
May 20, 1969

infant. Apparently the commission is to provide a sort of rarefied study seminar empowered to call for information to aid its deliberations and empowered to publish information as to how price stability can be achieved. It is expected to produce reports which will be referred to a second stage seminar in the form of a joint Senate-Commons standing committee.
As an instrument for achieving price stability this commission appears singularly handicapped. It should be noted that the sessions of the commission are to be held in private, giving consumers no opportunity to watch what is going on, thus eliminating any possibility that the proceedings might have some immediate effect on price patterns in Canada.
The achievement of price stability is not the private concern of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is a public matter of the most urgent importance and should be so treated. If this Prices and Incomes Commission is to be kept in the private cabinet of the minister along with the complaints of Box 99 and the deliberations of the Consumer Advisory Council, we have no hope of achieving price stability. We can hope to achieve price stability only when the white light of public scrutiny is let into the secret places of government and the marketplace.
A second thing to be noted is that the function of the commission is to be purely educative. It has no power to act as a policeman in defence of the consumer. It has no power to intervene in individual price and income decisions. It has no power to launch inquiries into rising living costs. In short it has no power except to use moral suasion, a weapon which was already proved a broken reed in the carnivorous jungle of the marketplace.
What the consumer needs is not a study seminar: The consumer needs teeth. This commission should provide a prices review board held in the white light of publicity, empowered to bring before it those who intend to raise prices and empowered to make them justify by full disclosure the need for such price increases. With such a commission the achievement of price stability would take on meaning and reality.
With such a commisssion, participatory democracy for the consumer would become more than an empty phrase. With such a commission a strong anti-trust, anti-combines and anti-conglomerate policy would become mandatory on the minister and would lead to a Combines Investigation Act with real teeth, instead of the dental falsies that face us now. With such a commission, what provincial gov-
Consumer Affairs
ernment would dare display reluctance in concurrent legislation to help achieve price stability? With such a Commission what provincial government would refuse concurrent legislation to deal with the wildcat costs of services such as the salaries and wages of doctors, lawyers, executives, directors of corporations and other groups not now subject to the collective bargaining process.
Finally, a genuine and effective search for price stability must find ways and means of making Canada less dependent on the United States than it is now. When the United States sneezes Canada catches pneumonia. In tackling rising prices in Canada the government has rejected any formal incomes policy or guidelines for price and income increases. However it has instituted guidelines on salary and wage increases for the Public Service of Canada. This is completely unjustifiable discrimination.
If guidelines are to be applied-which in the white paper the government has rejected-then they should be applied to all forms of income, including profits, rents, interest and professional fees. This is the kind of program which must be undertaken if price stability is to be achieved. Big Brother is undoubtedly watching; but so is the consumer. And for the consumer the time for action is long overdue.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. John H. Young on his appointment as chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission.
Mr. Speaker, whether it be Mr. Young or someone else who is chairman of the Commission, it will remain a commission like all the others already existing in Canada.
The purpose of the new Commission is to determine whether prices have increased or not. That is a question that everybody can answer and there is no need for a Commission to tell us so or to determine that this is so. As a matter of fact, prices have risen and continue to rise because governments at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal, and school boards are forever raising taxes, and that contributes directly to price increases. And so, the Canadian people must pay higher prices for the commodities they need.
We think we are fighting inflation, or at least, we say we want to fight inflation by establishing new commissions. However, the hundreds of commissions created in Canada

May 20. 1969
Consumer Affairs
have never solved any problems, because the government did not have the courage to take its responsibilities.
In his statement to the house, the minister said and I quote:
I am confident that this Commission, as it proceeds with its tasks ot investigating the inflationary process in Canada and of giving public advice on how we may achieve better price stability, will be able to bring about a greater degree of restraint on the part of those in the private sector who are charged with the responsibility of making current decisions about prices and incomes.
Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the same old story for some fifteen years, and things are getting worse all the time.
The minister said in conclusion:
I want to emphasize, as we did in the White Paper, that this is only one element in the government's policies-
The setting up of the commission is only one element of the government's policies.
-for price stability. Monetary and fiscal policy are the major instruments the government is relying on.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what prompts us of the Ralliement creditiste to tell the government, that instead of setting up commissions which will realize that prices increase and that the poor get poorer all the time, it should assume its responsibilities as far as monetary reform is concerned, as suggested by the Ralliement creditiste, and wage an efficient battle against inflation which remains the "baby" of the present monetary system.



THE PATENT ACT


Stanley Ronald Basford: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-194, to amend the Patent Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-195, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising from statements attributed to him when he was on his highflying weekend to New Brunswick, to the effect that "to counterbalance the effects of our anti-inflation measures we will have to spend more for regional development". Will the right hon. gentleman say whether the government has any new programs in mind to assist the Atlantic region, and if so, when an announcement may be expected?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for regional economic expansion will make an announcement in due course.


Mr. McCleave:: Was he along with you?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was not in New Brunswick this weekend. Is the Prime Minister or the government having any studies made of the impact of the lacuna in development funds which will take place because of the phasing out of the existing programs and the delay in passing and implementing the new incentive programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are very much aware of these problems. Any lacuna, if they do exist, are a concern of the government.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct to assume that despite the Prime Minister's position as outlined during the weekend, the government has no new policies to offer?


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



HOUSING


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, likewise based upon his weekend visit to New Brunswick. In view of some of the housing conditions the Prime Minister saw in certain parts of New Brunswick, is it now the government's intention to
May 20, 1969

introduce amendments to its housing legislation so that it will really provide houses for people who need them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in a very few days the house will have occasion to listen to the housing policy as proposed by the Minister without Portfolio from Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Prime Minister saw over the weekend, will he not agree that the government's housing legislation is hopelessly inadequate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the question as asked cannot be answered because it is clearly out of order.



MUNICIPAL PROJECTS UNDER NEW GUIDELINES

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question may I be permitted to compliment you, Sir, on behalf of the house, on the signal honour bestowed upon you by a university from which I also obtained a degree or two.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think you worked harder for yours, Sir, than I did for mine.
My question is directed to the minister responsible for housing, but before I start may I at this first opportunity compliment him upon assuming a very important portfolio. The question arises out of the trip made by the right hon. Prime Minister to New Brunswick over the weekend. Can the minister say when the municipalities will be in a position to start public housing projects under the new guidelines to be announced by the minister in a few days time?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister Without Portfolio):: In a few days time, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I had a question to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since he is not here, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the regrettable situation in which employees of the Canadian Vickers, in Montreal, find themselves, as a great many of
Inquiries of the Ministry them are being laid off, is the Prime Minister personally dealing with this situation and could he tell us whether the government has a solution to propose in order to help those employees or to find a solution to the serious problem existing in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not dealing personally with that problem; that is why we have appointed ministers.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister remains just the same, I believe, the Prime Minister of the country. Now, according to the list I have in hand, the responsible minister should be in the house today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Today is Tuesday.


David Réal Caouette: Then, Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should be in a position to tell us if the cabinet is considering any solution to the problems facing Canadian Vickers employees.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is only repeating the question he asked at the very beginning.



THE CORPORATIONS ACT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister disclose now the general nature of the amendments to The Corporations Act which he intends to propose to the house, and which he was so careful to disclose to the press prior to the weekend?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I expect the legislation to receive first reading in a few days time, and that is wren any announcement will be made. I have no idea to what the hon. member is referring.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's reading is not up to date. Would he deign to disclose to the house whether the minister and the government are going to insist on the passage of these amendments by both houses prior to the end of June?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The bill will be read the first time this week, I hope; but the progress of business of the house is really not in my hands.

May 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY



CLAIM BY U.S. TO INTER-ISLAND WATERS OF ARCTIC ARCHIPELAGO

Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether the United States has laid claim to the waters between the islands in the northern archipelago, and whether discussions are going on between officials of the United States and Canadian governments with respect to the sovereignty of these waters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of a claim to those waters by the United States government, nor indeed of any other claim apart from that of the Canadian government. I made a statement last week about the whole position of Canada in the Arctic and I indicated of course that claims established by previous Canadian governments over certain aspects of the waters were not recognized by all states. It is this aspect of the policy which we wish to study further in preparation for negotiations. However, we are certainly not neglecting to consider the practical question of whether it will eventually be in Canada's interest to have these waters declared Canadian internal waters, rather than to encourage their use for commercial purposes.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister said in his statement that Canada's sovereignty over the waters in question was not admitted by all states, did he refer specifically to the United States or were governments of any other countries laying claim to them; and if no country has laid claim to these waters would the Prime Minister inform the house how he is able to say that all countries do not accept Canada's declaration of sovereignty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the third question is a little too far out. I think the first and second questions might be in order. Perhaps the Prime Minister might want to answer them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not wish in any way to give publicity to our claims which may be contrary to Canada's long term interest. I think it is of general knowledge that not all seafaring nations are anxious to have such vast areas of ocean claimed by any one state. This is obvious in the case of the two other large archipelagos of the world, and we have

been given notice that this would be the position of certain countries with regard to the Canadian archipelago in the north. However I repeat that I do not think it would be in the best interests of Canada to give any publicity to our claims until we ourselves are in a position either to substantiate them with even greater force, or alternatively to withdraw them if it is in Canada's interest to do so.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without indicating what other governments are involved, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether there are currently discussions on this issue among governments of nations, including the government of Canada, and have they been going on for some time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My answer is yes, discussions are going on with regard to the general proposition of closing such archipelagos. Some nations have laid claim to them and other nations, which claim that these waters are part of international trading lanes, are contesting them. This is the type of general exchange that is going on. However may I repeat that I do not think it would be useful to be more precise in the case of Canadian claims. I can tell hon. members that there has been a lack of recognition of Canadian claims by important nations, either stated verbally or in writing.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Can he tell the house whether an agreement has been reached between the Ottawa and Quebec governments on the development of a federal park at Pointe-Forillon, in Gaspe and, if so, what are the terms and conditions of the agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope that such a question will not be asked every day. I have the feeling that the hon. members put the same question forward almost daily. Anyway, the minister seems ready to answer the question of the hon. member for Lotbiniere today, and I shall allow it.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. May 20, 1969

Speaker, I am not ready to answer. I was supposed to have the visit of the Quebec Minister of Tourism today, but he has informed me that he cannot come to Ottawa before tomorrow morning.



COMBINES


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Incorporated, the largest investment house in the United States, and the Royal Securities Corporation of Canada have agreed to affiliate. I ask him whether this will not place or tend to place the outflow of Canadian funds under the domination of the United States, and what action the Canadian government is taking in this connection. He will recall some of the statements made by Mr. Walter Gordon, formerly minister of finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: May I say in answer to the first part of the question, yes, I am aware; in answer to the second part of the question, no; in answer to the third part of the question, the matter is indeed being considered.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in that case I should like to communicate with another minister, namely the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the alleged combine that will result be made the subject of any investigation by the department to ensure that Canada's interest will be protected, rather than left to the mercies of a powerful United States corporation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows, having been prime minister, that it is traditional policy not to announce matters which the combines investigation branch is investigating.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just not so, if I
may say so. I ask the minister: Is it being investigated or are we not to be protected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the right hon. gentleman does so, may I suggest that there should not be a debate between the minister and the right hon. gentleman as to what is the government policy in such circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: My point is that the regard for truth in the statement made by the minister is as small as the benefit which the measure that he discussed today in the house will bring to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: That is of course neither a point of order nor a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Just a fact, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister, or have his officials, had an opportunity to study the cause of so many fish dying in Long Harbour and, if so, is there any evidence to indicate that the phosphorous wash from the British-owned Electric Reduction Company (Canada) Limited is the cause?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Certainly departmental officials and members of the Fisheries Research Board have been studying this situation intensively. There is an extensive fish kill in the general vicinity of the plant, and the red herring problem is indicative of pollution by phosphorous. However the cause of this fish kill has yet to be determined with finality.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the statement in Time magazine of May 16 that the inshore fishery has been decimated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has to ask a question directly and cannot use statements in newspapers or magazines as the basis for his question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister issue a statement immediately giving the true facts about the pollution which has caused the death of these fish, and explain what efforts his department is making to clean up this situation?

May 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Davis: We intend to make a statement shortly, perhaps within the next ten days, summarizing all the tacts which have been collected by our staff on the spot.



POLLUTION OF CANADA-U.S. BOUNDARY WATERS

Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl-Essex):: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Is the government following its customary policy of consultation and consideration, or is some Canadian initiative being shown in dealing with alleged d.d.t. pollution of the Great Lakes to such an extent as to cause American states bordering these waters to take legislative action?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: There is continuing negotiation with our United States counterparts at the level of the International Joint Commission and also through my department. Any legislation which is contemplated in this regard would, of course, be announced in the house in the normal manner.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskolca):: In view of the fact that special concern has been caused over the weekend by this d.d.t. problem, have there been any further negotiations with the United States authorities?


John James Greene: I am not aware of any specific special negotiations in this regard which have occurred since the weekend, but I shall take the question as notice and if there has been any special association or negotiations with our United States counterparts in this connection I shall be pleased to inform the hon. member.



POLLUTION BY D.D.T. OF INLAND FISHERY

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In view of the seriousness of this problem can the minister tell us whether the government has considered testing fish in all inland waters to ascertain whether the effect of d.d.t. is dangerous in terms of accepted public levels?


John James Greene: Specific testing of this kind would likely fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries, but I shall be pleased to take note of the question and advise the hon. member whether any special testing is being done.



HARBOURS


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning administration of small boat harbours on the Pacific coast. Will the minister make a statement to the house on motions at his earliest convenience indicating what steps, if any, have been taken since the summary of the report on harbour administration was issued on May 1, 1968, to implement the recommendations put forward by Dr. T. G. How with regard to this important and urgent matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisler of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Now that the regional air carriers have demonstrated during the recent air transportation crisis their competence in serving the people of Canada, will the government be formally implementing the regional air policy as it was enunciated in 1965?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure we are all pleased that the regional carriers performed so well. I think we all owe them a great debt of gratitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: However this particular incident has not made any difference to our planning in connection with regional air policy, and such plans will be announced in due course.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Will the regional carriers continue to operate on routes for which they had applied prior to the Air Canada strike, and which were approved to meet the exigencies of the moment?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would not be able to answer that question without knowing the precise routes involved. If the hon. gentleman is prepared to indicate the routes in which he is interested I will be glad to give an answer.
May 20, 1969



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: A question to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the salmon fishing restriction in Saint John harbour about which eloquent objections were raised last week. Has the minister received a telegram from the fisheries minister of New Brunswick expressing dissatisfaction with the decision taken on the grounds that it was made without proper consultation and consideration? And did the minister say in this connection that he would be looking into the matter again?


John (Jack) Davis: have not received the telegram which the hon. member mentioned.


Thomas Miller Bell: When the minister does receive it through the courtesy of the Postmaster General or whoever is answerable, will he make a reply to the house on this important matter?

WHEAT-QUOTA FOR WESTERN FARMERS Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-ICindersley):
A question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. What quota does the Canadian Wheat Board hope to provide western farmers by the end of July?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The best possible one, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thomson:: I was hoping for a more direct answer. Is it the intention of the board to equalize its quotas as between delivery points by the end of July?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is generally the policy of the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. I was not trying to be funny when I replied a moment ago. It is simply that it is impossible, now, to know what will happen in July.



REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO ASSIST PRAIRIE FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain): On Thursday last, Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence, the acting minister took note of it. I should like to repeat the question, now.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the fact that the committee mechanics seem to preclude the bringing in of an early report and related policy recommendations following the recent tour of western Canada by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, will the minister consider making an interim statement of government policy designed to alleviate immediately the critical economic situation facing western farmers today?
Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be improper for a minister to comment on the mechanics or procedure of one of the standing committees of this house. I think that answers the first part of the question. So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I have answered that a number of times in the house.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR LARGER QUOTA IN MANITOBA

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since a number of delivery points in Manitoba are still on a one bushel quota or just on a one unit quota for dry wheat, will the minister advise the house when these points can expect larger quotas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, instructions are to give a preferential basis to those points that are still on unit quotas.


Donald Craig Stewart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the house why most points on low quotas are Canadian Pacific delivery points?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. If there is a specific reason I will try to discover it and report to the house.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
He is probably aware that the Quebec government has recently signed a very important contract with the Brinco Company regarding the development of the Churchill falls and I should like to ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Jean-Noel Tremblay, the Quebec Minister of Cultural Affairs, has been in touch with the federal government or with him in order to complain because the said contract was drafted only in English?

May 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that such a question is urgent. The hon. member will perhaps want to put it on the order paper.



WHEAT-FURTHER SHIPMENT IN SETTLEMENT FOR INFERIOR QUALITY DELIVERED

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Canada has agreed to pay Japan $160,000 to settle a dispute over damp wheat shipped during last November. Will the minister tell us whether Canada has attempted to make arrangements for compensation similar to those made by the United States under which wheat was shipped in place of money by way of compensation? This would of course permit us to ship more grain, of which we now have a surplus in western Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This was an ex gratia payment by the Wheat Board in compensation for delays in shipping and in compensation, also, for some milling problems from the point of view of Japanese milling requirements in respect of Canadian lower grade wheat, namely No. 4 Northern. The grade of the wheat was not in question. As to the question whether wheat was offered instead of money, I will undertake to find out.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question. Was this situation investigated to determine responsibility and in order to ensure that it will not be repeated? If so, can the minister report on the results of the investigation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: One part of my previous answer covered that point, Mr. Speaker. I said the grading of the wheat was not in question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the $160,000 coming out of the Wheat Board pools or will it come out of the federal treasury?


Jean-Luc Pepin: From the Wheat Board pools.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Mr. Ralph Stewari (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. Since he is not here and since it is of considerable urgency may I direct it to his representative in the house. Since infiltration into the Company of Young Canadians

by revolutionaries has been alleged at various times and answered in general terms, may I ask whether the minister intends to take action. If so, what action does he intend to take regarding the latest and most specific instance of communist indoctrination of our young people at Kapuskasing high school by one Graham Deline, a member of the Company of Young Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I think this is the type of question that could easily be debated at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL PARKS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the minister advised this house last week that he had had a very cordial meeting with the citizens of Jasper, may I ask why he limited his contact with the businessmen of the town to the thirty seconds in which to receive a petition to the government? Was he advised at the time that they were to continue on as they had intended, and was the town to be on rotational one day strikes throughout the summer?

Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a correction-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member check his facts. I spent two hours listening to Jasper businessmen making representations. I received a petition from one minority business group and I told them, as I stated in the house, that I would put the interest of all Canadians before the interests of a few businessmen from Jasper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 

EDUCATION


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to my fellow egghead, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It follows up a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the very serious problem apparently facing Canadian scholars seeking appointments in the universities of this country. Can the minister advise if the government is taking steps to ensure that a high proportion of the staffs of Canadian universities will be composed of persons educated in Canadian graduate schools, or of Canadian nationals trained abroad?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I venture to suggest that this question is of very wide scope and ought to be placed on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's answer on May 13 with regard to railway safety and in view of still another derailment of a Canadian National freight train in Brampton on Monday, attributable to a broken axle, will the minister now tell the house whether he is to initiate a public inquiry into railway safety?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. No such decision has been made.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make representations to the Canadian National and ask them to curtail further reductions in car and roadbed maintenance personnel until such a decision is made.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to see that the request is passed on to the Canadian National.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Realizing how eager our new minister is to become
Inquiries of the Ministry involved at the earliest opportunity in matters of trains, buses and transport in Newfoundland, will he undertake to fulfil the commitment of his temporary predecessor-I am referring to the hon. member sitting to his immediate right and not to the one sitting on the far left-on April 30 and report on the result of the investigation into the recent, serious Canadian National bus accident in Newfoundland?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this.



AIR TRANSPORT


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Now that the Air Canada matter seems settled may I ask the minister when we can expect the government's answer to the question of opening the door to further coast to coast air carriers in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That question is of very wide scope and involves questions of general policy. I do not think it can be asked at this time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the minister seemed to want to answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
After the start of the negotiations between Communist China and the representatives of Canada, did the Prime Minister receive any indications that an agreement could be worked out soon between Communist China and Canada in connection with the diplomatic recognition of that country by Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the agreement can be arrived at soon-?


Martial Asselin: -if the talks will soon lead to negotiations on the matter of the recognition of Communist China by Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot foresee how long it will take, but the talks are going on pretty well.

May 20, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr, J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax Easi):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I direct it to the Minister of Justice. In light of suggestions by Cardinal Yu-pin of Formosa, made yesterday in Washington to the effect that "there are centres of communist Chinese subversive activity in Canada" and that this activity will intensify if Canada should succeed in recognizing Red China, will the minister assure the house that he will look into these allegations, advise the house if they have any foundation, and thus relieve fears and anxieties which have resulted from the remarks I have just alluded to?



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. On a number of occasions he informed the house that an expurgated edition-and I use the term without being in any way offensive-of the report of the Royal Commission on security would be tabled in the house. On a number of occasions he told us that the report was to be tabled soon, and that it was to be translated. Is such an expurgated edition of the report now being printed and if so, how soon may we have it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assume the house will have guessed that the task of expurgating a work of such dimensions is difficult and gives rise to many discussions, because the expurgators have to proceed in such a way that the authors may still lay claims to their work. The only problem involved here is one of national security, and the expurgating is being carried out with that in mind. I must report to the house that after several months of labour we have not yet arrived at any conclusive or, shall we say, definitive expurgated edition. I realize that the house is entitled to an explanation sooner or later, and I undertake to report to the house in due course.
I do not mind these constant questions because we are very much aware of the need to proceed with this matter. The difficulties are those which I have indicated and have nothing to do with governmental interest. They have to do with the problem of national security; and this is the only aspect causing delay.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I gather from the Prime Minister's explanation that there is disagreement between officials of the government and members of the royal commission as to what should or should not be expurgated? If that is the situation, should not the opinion of the members of the committee be listened to by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member is referring to the members of the royal commission itself?


David Lewis: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is the question, then the disagreement has not reached that stage. It is still officials and ministers themselves who are trying to arrive at a version which they have reason to think will be accepted by the commission. Following that, as I say, we will have to come to the house either with a refusal of the commissioners to approve it, or with an explanation that we do not even want to proceed. There has been no conflict, if that is the member's question, between the government and the commission members.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact one assumes the report will deal with all sorts of matters that are now current, such as eavesdropping, wire-tapping, the use of electronic devices, the extent to which public servants should have certain rights so as not to be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon, member ask his question?


David Lewis: I will, Mr. Speaker. In view of that fact, is it not possible to expedite the preparation of a report which would not infringe on national security, instead of taking all this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the government wanted to deal only with the questions mentioned by the hon. member, perhaps we could proceed more expeditiously; but that is not the name of the operation. We are trying to adhere as much as possible to the report of the commissioners themselves, and very large parts of the report do not deal with these matters but with ways used by the government to protect its security both in the national and international areas. The difficulty is in making sure we do not publish information which would permit the enemies of Canada for $1.50 to buy information about our own security services.
May 20, 1969



CHURCHILL, MAN.-ANTICIPATED TONNAGE OF GRAIN THROUGH PORT

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to advise the house of the tonnage or numbers of bushels of grain it is expected will be shipped through the port of Churchill this year in relation to shipping orders already on hand?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for statistical information which is not normally given during the question period.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, it has been customary at this time of the year for the government to divulge to the house the number of bushels they expect will be shipped through various ports in Canada, especially the port of Churchill.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this information
should normally be given by way of a statement on motions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 16, 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.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, because there does seem to be considerable doubt whether or not this bill, if passed, will be constitutional, I question the motive of the government in placing this piece of legislation before the house at this time. A former judge, who once held the second highest legal position in our country, as well as many others, have stated that Bill C-120 is unconstitutional. I am also aware that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) stated that his legal advisers have informed him that the bill is not unconstitutional.
All members of this house, including the ministers of the crown, are aware of the conflict of opinion on this constitutional issue between many people in this country, including members of the legal profession. A final
Official Languages
decision will only be achieved when a judgment is handed down by the Supreme Court. I suggest that such a decision be obtained before we proceed further with this bill. If the decision of the Supreme Court is favourable to the government's contention, nothing will be lost. Many needless words in this debate could be prevented. On the other hand, if a decision is sought after the bill has been passed and it is found to be unconstitutional, it will be most embarrassing to those who strongly support the bill. We will also have wasted a great number of days in debate which could have been used to greater advantage dealing with the economic problems that plague our country.
In the limited time I had on Friday I dealt mainly with the suggestion that this bill attempts to amend section 133 of the British North America Act and is therefore beyond the power of this parliament. Section 133 of the B.N.A. Act deals with the use of the English and French languages in the courts and parliament of Canada. Nowhere in the British North America Act is there a reference that French and English are established as the official languages of the government of Canada. I refer to "government" as contrasted to "parliament", the two being obviously quite different entities. The declaratory clause of Bill C-120 now under debates states:
The English and French languages shall be the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the parliament and government of Canada-
The use of the word "government" throughout the bill adds another sector to our democratic structure where the two languages shall be used. It is obvious that the bill as now worded effectively changes section 133 of the B.N.A. Act and by the addition of the word "government" attempts to amend the constitution by going beyond the terms to which the Fathers of Confederation agreed.
Another section of the B.N.A. Act explicitly prohibits the federal government from acting unilaterally in certain spheres. Section 91(1) forbids the government to tamper with language questions. In part the amended section now reads:
It is hereby declared ... the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say-
1. The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada except as regards ... the use of the English or the French language.
I draw the attention of the house to the word "except". I do not see how there could

May 20. 1969
Official Languages
possibly be much clearer constitutional guidance. The minister contradicted himself in his speech on Friday. He knows full well that to change sections 133 and 91(1) is not within the powers of the present government. I would like to put on record what the minister said in his speech on Friday, as found at the bottom of page 8 of his speech:
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is true that our constitution already provides for the use of both languages. At present, however, section 133 of the British North America Act applies only to the Legislative Assembly and courts of Quebec and to the federal parliament and courts.
He goes on to say:
Though in no way amending the constitution, the bill which is being submitted to you does concern language usage in connection with the federal government and parliament and the institutions thereof.
I would say that that last sentence is a direct contradiction of what he said in the first part of the paragraph. In the same paragraph he goes on to say:
Seen in this light, the present bill represents the culmination of an extensive evolution.
Evolution means change. In other words, what the minister is saying is that in the British North America Act it is forbidden to deal with it in this way but the government is going to do it anyway. I wonder why, Mr. Speaker? I am sure the minister knows that it is unconstitutional to tamper with the language in the way he has suggested, or the way this bill suggests. However, I covered most of that on Friday, so I will continue.
There is one other aspect of the constitutional question that is of interest and that I believe has not yet been sufficiently stressed. It has to do with the erroneous idea that has grown up in some areas, and was even expounded upon by some commentators of the mass media during the recent constitutional conference, that all that is necessary to secure passage of this bill as a constitutional measure is to get unanimous agreement on its worth between the federal and the provincial governments. Such agreement, however desirable, in itself means nothing. The next and inescapable step is to secure an amendment of the constitution to make this bill legal. Either the constitution of our country means something to us or it does not. I suggest that the government intends to ignore the constitution.
By way of an aside, Mr. Speaker, it was quite revealing, I thought, to hear the reaction of the Premier of Quebec to this bill at the recent conference. Its avowed purpose is to

satisfy the demands or expectations of French Canadians, largely resident in the Premier's own province. One might expect joyous and wholehearted support for it from that quarter. But what was his reaction? What was Quebec's reaction? It was cool and reserved. I believe the Premier said something along these lines: "It's nice, we can probably accept it without arguing too much, but what we really want is something quite different and much more." If Quebec does not want this bill, who does?
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that my second objection to this legislation was that I thought it was undesirable. I believe it is undesirable because I believe it will not achieve what it seeks to achieve. I believe further that it is the wrong method of pursuing the aims that the bill's backers claim to be seeking. I do not believe you can legislate to change people's emotions, mind or spirit. You cannot mould or regulate emotions, thoughts or spirit by legislation. I do not believe that understanding, tolerance or courtesy can be legislated into being. On the contrary, I think that legal compulsion too often has the opposite affect. It breeds the very difficulties it seeks to alleviate. It inflames the sores it seeks to sooth.
This bill envisages a tremendous, cumbersome and vastly expensive federal apparatus, set up to establish a complex system of language areas and to police what has already been established. Problems of human beings living together in reasonable accord are matters of the heart and mind, of mutual regard and respect, of understanding and brotherhood. In my estimation nothing will warp and pervert human relationships faster than government compulsion and the witches' brew uncovered by free, individual access to legal proceedings. I do not think the machinery to be set up under this bill will work. I do not think it is economically practical. I think it is self-defeating. I think it will damage national unity beyond repair. As I said on Friday, it will create disunity in areas where disunity never existed before.
This bill spells the end of the simple and honourable designations, "Canada" and "Canadian." It will forever entrench the hyphen in our national life. It will set one group against the other and damage rather than help the cause of that group it seeks to assist. It will end by creating what the people of French tongue in Canada profess to want the least-a compartmented French-English
May 20, 1969

country. The areas to be designated as bilingual areas will be nothing but language reservations, ghettos, refuges for specially designated Canadians. It means the end of the dream of one nation, with one citizenship and one nationality.
I believe the French speaking people of Canada are beginning to appreciate that this bill will kill for all time their bright dream of a Canada within which they can move freely, speak freely and live freely in their own language and in their own culture. In a country that already suffers from too many boundaries this bill will create a whole new set of frontiers.
I have mentioned several clauses of the bill already. In passing I would direct the attention of hon. members to the provisions of two other clauses, 9 and 10. One creates, without any constitutional or even popular authority, a bilingual national capital region. Aside from everything else, what will this do to the people in the public service?
In introducing this bill on October 17, 1968, the Prime Minister, among other things, said that it should not:
-involve any prejudice to the careers of civil servants who are not bilingual and who have devoted many years of their lives to the public service.
That is a noble sentiment, Mr. Speaker, but whom is he kidding? Careers have already been prejudiced, and many more will be in the wake of legislation such as this if it is passed. Prime Ministerial promises are no great protection. Even regulations and statutes are no great protection if the intent of those applying them runs contrary to their provisions. We have already seen what can happen in the incident of the commissionaires at the National Museum, and it is no isolated incident. We now have unilingual ships in our navy, if we are permitted to refer to a navy any more, and we are to have unilingual army units. No doubt this fashion for unilin-gualism that seems so popular in the province of Quebec will spread throughout the federal services and departments.
Government spokesmen other than the Prime Minister have given assurances that civil servants will not be prejudiced by this rush toward bilingualism. But, official or not, it is now a strong influence in the hiring and promotion of public servants. I dare say that tomorrow it will be a condition of employment.
As I read clause 10 of the bill regarding bilingualism and the travelling public, it will
Official Languages
mean that airports across the country will be compelled to make bilingualism a condition of employment for everyone working there, from taxi drivers and waitresses to char staff and porters. The absurdity of such a blanket provision will be more obvious in other parts of the country where, if the bill is enacted, jobs will go begging because there will not be enough bilingualists to fill a tenth of them. It may solve the unemployment problem in the province of Quebec but it will do nothing for other regions except breed resentment and trouble.
Lastly* Mr. Speaker, I said I objected to this bill as being frivolous. I believe it is frivolous because it has absolutely no business being given priority in this chamber over real national problems such as unemployment, inflation, the cost of living and agriculture. I am convinced that we would be doing a far greater and more significant thing for Canadians of French ancestry if we were to take measures to assure them of stable employment, stable prices and stable wages. Whatever the merits of bilingualism and biculturalism may be, they surely cannot hold the urgency that equality of opportunity and equality of economic benefit do for all Canadians in all regions. It is my convinction that this is a bad and inappropriate piece of legislation and that the government should now withdraw it.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The way would then be clear for us to deal with the continuing business of providing the most rewarding and abundant living possible for all Canadians of all tongues and all ethnic backgrounds. I want it made crystal clear that I oppose the principle of this bill and intend to vote against it at all stages. The implementation of this bill will restrict progress in Canada as much or more than occupation by a foreign power.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak at this juncture in the debate for two very specific purposes. My colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has already dealt with the basic principles underlying this legislation. He has described the purpose of the bill, the ends we seek to achieve by it and the methods proposed in the bill to attain them. I shall not cover that ground in detail again. However, I do wish to deal with the constitutional questions that have been raised in connection with the bill following its introduction by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last October

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
and, second, I wish to deal in general terms with the amendments the government intends to propose to the special committee which has been set up to deal with the bill.
Both the question of the constitutionality of the legislation and of the amendments that the government will be proposing to the committee are bound up in some of the criticism that has been levelled at the bill. It has been felt by some-and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) who has just taken his seat reflects this attitude-that the bill impinges on provincial jurisdiction in very practical ways, and a number of provinces have raised constitutional issues in relation to it.
As I have already reported to the house, I have had consultations on this subject with the western Attorneys General, with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and with the Prime Minister of Quebec who also happens to be Attorney General of his province. Both prior to the federal-provincial conference in February and subsequent to that conference I travelled across the country and a good deal of the conversations I had both with the Premiers and then subsequent to the conference with the Attorneys General bore on the question of language, particularly as it is reflected in this bill.
Hon. members will recall that the bill received first reading on October 17, 1968. As a consequence there has been ample opportunity for full public airing and, indeed, the most minute consideration by provincial governments both before, during and subsequent to the consultations in which I have participated. Let me therefore make clear at the outset of what I am saying that the amendments which the government intends to move in committee have been prepared with a view to the practical problems involved in implementing legislation of this sort and after serious and detailed discussions with the provinces. We hope the changes which will be brought forward will meet the practical objections and that by so doing a constitutional confrontation can be avoided, that is to say, that the provinces will not test the validity of this legislation either before a court of appeal in their own jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is my view as a Canadian-and the government shares this view-that a discussion of language, which is a sensitive subject historically and today, should remain in the political arena, that language should be discussed in the public forum and that language
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
should be discussed in the provincial legislatures and particularly here in the forum, the theatre, of the nation, the House of Commons of Canada. It is a political and not a judicial matter. I would hope the discussion of this bill, the implementation of it and the debate on it will remain in the political arena and will not be subject to the scrutiny of the courts because I believe the dangers inherent in that procedure are very real indeed. I hope the provinces most concerned about the bill will come to the conclusion that the consultations we have had with them have been meaningful.
I have taken it upon myself to present the amendments to the House of Commons first I am writing letters which will be sent this afternoon after I conclude to all the Attorneys General of the provinces. After these amendments become public I hope the provinces will give this bill as now proposed to be amended their best, fair and reasoned judgment and that they will allow the matter to remain in the political arena.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: The bill is entirely within the legislative jurisdiction of Parliament. It is in no way concerned with the rights and privileges granted by clause 133 of the British North America Act. Everyone will continue to enjoy the same rights as regards the official languages, as defined in section 133. The constitution of Canada, as to the use of English and French, will remain unchanged.
I do not think either that it is fair to interpret the constitution in such a way as to freeze the use of French outside the rights granted by section 133. If such is not the case, the same limitations would apply to the use of the English language. According to the constitution, the two languages are in the very same position, and my conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that parliament and the provincial legislatures are authorized to legislate in language matters insofar as their legislation does not conflict with the principles contained in section 133.
It seems to me that the position is clear. Those who maintain the contrary are motivated more especially, I think, by the conflict they see between the federal jurisdiction with regard to criminal law and procedures and the provincial jurisdiction with regard to the administration of justice in the provinces. Even if I do not think it is a legislation relat-
May 20. 19G9

ing to the administration of justice in the provinces, I understand the apprehension of the provinces with regard to the secondary effects of this bill on such administration.

I recognize that in some of the provinces there is a feeling that the official languages bill affects directly the duties and responsibilities of the provincial governments to an unwarranted extent. I have in mind the provisions of the bill dealing with the question of official languages in court proceedings and more particularly that section of the bill which permits proceedings in criminal matters heard by provincial courts to be conducted in either language in certain circumstances. A number of provinces have expressed the fear that these provisions of the bill entrench upon their jurisdiction relating to the administration of justice in that they affect the administration of justice relating to the courts in their provinces. As I said, as a matter of constitutional law and having been advised by the law officers of the Crown and others, I have not felt that this objection was well founded. Indeed, the appeal division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, in the case of Jacques Belisle and Jacques Moreau which was decided in June, 1968, unanimously held that parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to enact legislation respecting the use of language in criminal proceedings, but in practice it is obvious that these provisions might make it very difficult for the administration of justice in the provinces to be carried out if we attempt to achieve too much too quickly.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
With this in mind the government has decided to amend the bill so as to recognize more clearly this obvious impact on a field of provincial interest and responsibility. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, despite parliament's undoubted legal authority to legislate in respect of criminal law and criminal procedure, in my view the bill should avoid the effect of placing the provinces in a difficult posture by creating new burdens on the administration of justice that cannot be discharged immediately.
It is our hope that the provinces will wish as quickly as possible to take steps to achieve the goals that all governments set for themselves at the constitutional conference of 1968. Indeed, we should not forget that the Confederation for Tomorrow Conference, convened in Toronto by the Prime Minister of Ontario 29180-560
Official Languages
in 1967, accepted the principle of linguistic equality in Canada for Canadians.
So, Your Honour, it would be my hope that with this and other changes which we propose, no province will find it necessary to challenge the constitutional validity of the enactment. I wish to stress again as I have said already in this house, Sir, that we are prepared to meet that challenge if it is made, but it is our judgment that a constitutional challenge relating as it would to the fundamental aspect of national unity would be unfortunate, indeed, a tragic circumstance for Canada, particularly in this period of constitutional reform. By bearing in mind the practical concerns of the provinces, and in particular by following the process of consultation that was initiated by this goviernment, I hope that the federal government will have demonstrated a flexibility of approach necessary to the implementation of this very important legislation which we regard as fundamental to our confederation without in any way, Sir, sacrificing the principles of the bill.
Let me say that the discussions I had with the provincial Attorneys General of the western provinces, the correspondence I have had with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the meeting I had with Prime Minister Bertrand were all very frank and helpful. They led to a number of suggested changes in this bill other than those I have just referred to in order to meet problems in respect of the administration of justice in the provinces. I hope and I believe that the provincial governments will follow that process of consultation which has been meaningful.


David Lewis: Would the minister permit a question? Can he indicate a little more precisely what amendments he is referring to in respect of language in the courts? Is he only dealing with clause 11 of the bill or will there be wider amendments?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member will find that they deal particularly with clause 11 of the bill. I intend to go into as much detail as the procedure in this house on second reading will allow, and to table the amendments which we intend to propose at the committee stage.


John George Diefenbaker: There will be no restriction on the minister at all so far as I know. We will be very glad to hear them. This will give body to a bill which at the moment is very hollow.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I accept the right hon. member's courtesy without accepting the full import of his remarks.
I might say by way of background that I recognize the difficulty in respect of the acceptance of this bill in certain parts of Canada. I recognize the objections that were expressed about it in parts of western Canada, in the rest of English speaking Canada and in Quebec, and I recognize particularly the objections to the bill, not in principle but in what Premier Bertrand referred to as "les modalites", in that the concept of bilingual districts would in his opinion and in the opinion of the government of Quebec, as envisaged in the bill, serve to ghetto the minorities of French Canadians in other parts of Canada. This concept would serve to encircle those minorities in rural parts of our country outside Quebec and would fail to recognize the mobility of Canadians and the possibility of French speaking Canadians living in the great cities of our country. When I deal in some detail with the amendments I now propose I think hon. members will recognize that we have gone a long way to create more flexibility and opportunity for service in either language, beyond the concept of bilingual districts.
On February 17 I discussed this bill clause by clause with the four western Attorneys General at a meeting in Victoria. The position I took on behalf of the federal government was one of flexibility in detail, commitment in principle. Many of the suggestions made by the western Attorneys General were constructive and revealed an understanding of the essence of the bill. I go on the assumption, in dealing with provincial governments, that they are as strongly convinced in their Canadianism as I and other members of this government are, and I listen to them and deal with them as Canadians.
The purpose of these amendments is to avoid the confrontation by some provinces in the courts and make practical accommodations where we felt it was necessary and reasonable to do so. What were the principal criticisms of this bill that I heard in western Canada? I think it would be useful to put this on record here in the House of Commons.
The first criticism I heard was in the form of the question, why force us into bilingualism by legislation when by gradual consent it can be achieved in due course? I would concede that there has been great progress made in the last two, three or four
[Mr. Diefenbaker.i
years by provincial governments toward recognizing a wider use of both languages, and by widening the opportunities of education for young Canadians to learn both languages at an earlier age when it is easier.
The answer to this objection, to my mind, is that this legislation is a matter of converting symbols into reality. If we mean what we say we will put it into writing. I believe this will be concrete evidence of good faith on the part of the English speaking majority of Canadians and the French speaking majority in Quebec, that is,, to enshrine these principles recognized in this bill in the legislation of Canada. Rights can only be protected by law. No amount of good will, and I believe there is growing good will in Canada, can substitute for that.
The second objection I met was a feeling that some people had in respect of the problems of implementing this legislation in that it would involve the Canadian people in additional cost. In answering this comment one must bear in mind that educational facilities have to be improved across Canada to equip the next generation of Canadians with greater facility in either language than most of us have been able to obtain. I believe our children must be given an opportunity to learn a second language.
In my opinion the cost of bilingualism is part of the price of being Canadian. If bilingualism is a national policy, then the federal government will have to make a contribution toward implementing it.


David Réal Caouette: Welcome to this side.


John Napier Turner: Let me say
to the hon. member that it is a comfort that he is on my side for a change.
The third objection I met, and I am sure hon. members have also had occasion to hear this objection,, relating to the bill is that there will be a great many technical difficulties involved in implementing it.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
There is, for example, in this country a lack of qualified interpreters, stenographers and translators. The number at present is definitely too small to handle all the immediate requirements. The answer to this is that the obvious flexibility in the bill itself gives time for a gradual process in its implementation.
A fourth objection-this was an objection which I found very serious indeed-was that some people, particularly in western Canada,
May 20, 1969

indicated to me a great concern about the creation of what they thought was a second-class citizenship in that they felt those Canadians who were neither of British nor French descent would be excluded by the bill from full citizenship. That is the argument that is made.
I cannot stress strongly enough-the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was very eloquent last Friday on this point, and his personal experience justifies his sincerity- that there is only one class of citizen in Canada. In this respect I echo what the hon. member for York South said. Most of those who have come to this country have learned to express themselves in one or other of the French or English languages. They have not given up their own culture but they have enriched their lives by opting for one of the two languages and cultures which they have found in Canada. This bill does not deprive them of any of those rights or any of those historic, traditional, family advantages. I believe it would be useful to put on record the fact that clause 38 of the bill sets this out amply and clearly when it provides:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as derogating from or diminishing in any way any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this act with respect to any language that is not an official language.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow a question? Would he give an example of this? I endeavoured to think of an example and could not, but no doubt he will be able to do so.


John Napier Turner: I would say that in certain parts of western Canada where a language other than French has been traditionally used in the schools of some municipal areas or even, to a limited extent, in the courts by way of interpreters, those rights are guaranteed by this bill and are in no way excluded by it.


David Lewis: And parochial schools.


John Napier Turner: And parochial schools, as the hon. member for York South reminds me. Another objection emanating from western Canada and shared in some measure in the Atlantic provinces relates to the fear that our policy represented in this bill will bar English speaking Canadians from the federal public service.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It already has.
Official Languages


John Napier Turner: I agree with the hon. member that this is a question of prime importance, but I do not agree with the assertion he has just made. Of all the issues raised in connection with this bill, I believe the question of recruitment for the public service deserves the most serious consideration. Some people have expressed the opinion that if this bill were to be enacted it would limit recruitment to certain areas of our country or, if we want to be really blunt about it, the public service would become the preserve of French speaking Canadians. I do not accept that for one moment. I beheve it is encouraging to note that the government's policy on bilingualism has had no deterrent effect on recruitment in the English speaking parts of this country. Quite the contrary, because-


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is not correct.


John Napier Turner: -since the announcement of the government's policy by the former prime minister of this country, the right hon. Lester B. Pearson, in 1966 the total number of university graduates applying for positions has more than doubled from about 4,000 in the 1965-66 recruitment program to almost 9,000 this year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister have a look at the Department of External Affairs?


John Napier Turner: The breakdown by universities clearly indicates that the bilingualism policy has not scared away the younger people from any part of our country. I would like to read, and am prepared to table with the consent of the house, the figures comparing the year 1966 with 1969. Let me refer to a few universities chosen at random. McGill-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate the source of the figures he is going to use?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The source of these figures is the Public Service Commission of Canada. In 1966 there were 204 applications from McGill University; in 1969 there have been 309. For the University of Montreal, in 1966 there were 85 applications; in 1969 there have been 256. With regard to the University of New Brunswick, there were 76 applications in 1966 and 221 this year. For Dalhousie there were 77 in 1966 and 156 this year; Memorial University, 37 three years ago and 114 this year; Victoria University, 26 three years

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
ago and 152 this year; the University of British Columbia, to which I have a particular loyalty and in which I have a particular pride, 358 three years ago and 717 this year; the University of Manitoba, 248 three years ago and 560 this year; the University of Toronto, 236 three years ago and 538 this year; the University of Western Ontario, 100 three years ago and 428 this year; Queen's University, 80 three years ago and 236 this year; the University of Ottawa, 81 three years ago and 295 this year. Since I have mentioned one university in my riding, I might mention the other, Carleton and St. Patrick, 198 three years ago and 566 this year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How many of the applicants were bilingual?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, those are the figures which with the consent of the house I should like to table in full in order that they way become a part of the proceedings of the house.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Did I hear the minister mention McMaster University among those figures?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, it is true that those figures indicate that considerably more university graduates are now applying for civil service jobs. However, if they are to have any relation to the debate they would obviously have to indicate in the case of each university how many applicants have been able to meet the bilingual requirements of the civil service.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these figures indicate quite conclusively to my mind that the policy of bilingualism of the government, which has been public policy since 1966, has in no way discouraged young Canadians from any part of Canada applying for positions in the public service of this country. That is what these figures represent.


Harold Warren Danforth: They are applying, but what have been the results of their applications?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I have the consent of the house to have this table printed as part of my speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We can have the figures, but they mean nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also give the number of applications accepted and the number of applicants who were bilingual?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: As we
are on second reading of the bill the minister will need the unanimous consent of the house to have these figures printed as part of his speech. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for their courtesy in allowing this to be done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They mean nothing. They will just fill up Hansard.


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he will give us the number of applications made and the number of people whose applications were accepted.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a subject that is quite properly a matter for the committee. The policy of bilingualism as enunciated by this government has in no way diminished the interest of Canadians from all parts of Canada in joining the public service. Do I understand that I have unanimous consent to table these figures in Hansard as part of my speech?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
Total Number of University Candidates Who Applied For Positions With the Public Service Commission of Canada 1966 - 3482	1969 - 8994
INCREASE 1969 VERSUS 1966, 158.1%
UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE	1966	1969Victoria	26	152Notre Dame	12Simon-Fraser	168British Columbia	358	717Alberta	223	448Calgary	64	134Lethbridge	11Saskatchewan	211	505Winnipeg	169Manitoba	248	560Brandon	32	52Lakehead	94United College	100	Windsor	49	207Brock	55Guelph	77	133McMaster	70	292Toronto	236	538Waterloo	45	155Waterloo Lutheran	68	72Western Ontario	100	428
May 20, 1969

UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE	1966	1969York	35	98Trent	44Queen's	80	236Ottawa	81	295Laurentian	12	73Carleton & St. Patrick	198	566Sir George Williams	36	151Sherbrooke	51	106McGill	204	309Montreal	85	256Ecole Polytechnique	74Marianapolis	53Macdonald	111	111Loyola Hautes Etudes	37	156Commerciales	37	82Bishop's	11	35Laval	184	472New Brunswick	76	221Mount St. Vincent	33Mount Allison	38	87Moncton	30	62Acadia	50	68St. Francis Xavier	47	60St. Mary's	19	76Nova Scotia Technical	27	50Dalhousie	77	156Prince of Wales	1St. Dunstan's	12	47Memorial	37	114TOTAL NO. OF	CANDIDATES	3,482	8,994
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: I am saying therefore that the present policy is in no way an erosion of the merit principle on which our public service is founded. Bilingualism was established as an element of merit for certain positions and in certain places in the 1961 Civil Service Act and was re-enshrined by parliament in the passage of the 1967 Public Service Employment Act. Since that time the commission has been progressively recognizing bilingualism and/or the willingness to become bilingual as an element of merit wherever the need exists and to the degree that the need exists. But in effect bilingual capability is merely one element of merit along with education experience and personal suitability, the standard required being tailored to each position in each locality. The introduction of a new clause 40 in the official languages bill reaffirms this position and extends it to all appointing authorities affected by the legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What does the new clause 40 say?


John Napier Turner: As I said, within the terms I expressed it recognizes the merit principle as the principle required for
Official Languages
the recruitment, hiring and promotion of people within the public service.
I think that at this stage it is not possible for me, within the framework of the rules governing debate in this house, to consider in detail or even individually the amendments that will be proposed at the committee stage. I should like to table these in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), and if the house so desires they can be made an appendix to Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: would like to ask the minister a question. Are what he has just tabled his amendments?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: It would seem there are more amendments than there are sections now in the bill. I wonder if it would not be better to draft a new bill.


John Napier Turner: No. This is only to be consistent in the visual aspect of the matter. There is but one amendment on each page.


David Réal Caouette: Has the minister sent a copy of this to Le Soleil, so they can publish it on their front page tomorrow?


John Napier Turner: I think the correspondent for Le Soleil has eyes as good as the hon. member's.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I should like to remind the hon. members that on second reading, an hon. member who wishes to speak must have the unanimous consent of the house.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether it has been made an order of the house that this document be an appendix to Hansard?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: No such order has been made as yet.


John Napier Turner: I asked that that be made an order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is that
the wish of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is so
ordered.
[Editor's Note: For text of amendments see appendix.]


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Charlevoix on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: I should like to know whether the minister can provide the opposition with a copy of the amendments he has just tabled, for we shall have to study them. After the minister has finished his speech, some hon. members from other parties might wish to speak and give their views on the amendments. Has the minister got some copies for the opposition parties?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is a good number of copies available for those who wish to examine the amendments.


John George Diefenbaker: The press has copies, so I suppose they can also be made available to us.


John Napier Turner: The purpose of tabling this document is so that members will have a copy.
I think that the package of amendments will demonstrate just what is involved here in terms of change and will show, I hope, the government's flexibility in relation to the problem of the implementation of the bill. I want to reiterate that the bill has not been diluted in principle, that the amendments proposed affect both English speaking and French speaking Canadians, and that there is a balance in the amendments proposed which represents and reflects that delicate equilibrium which is part of Canadian national unity.
Essentially, sir, these changes break down into three categories. The first category is composed of technical amendments which we felt would clarify the bill. I do not think I need dwell on these. The second category includes those amendments directed to improving the bill from the point of view of implementation. They have been designed largely with reference to comments received from the Attorneys General of the provinces, in particular the western provinces, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Finally, there is a category of amendments that has some policy
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
dimensions which we felt would clarify the objectives sought to be achieved in the bill and would add something to the fundamentals of the bill. Amendments that are designed to improve the implementation of the bill involve a clarification of the situation in which court judgments must be rendered in both languages. I refer to clause 5 (1). They refer also to a situation where legislative instruments may be impugned for want of a second language version-clause 6-and in what circumstances regard must be had for both versions of an enactment.
It is felt that these changes, without touching in any way the principles of the bill, will make its implementation easier in some cases and clearer in others. It has not been the government's intention that public offices outside the national capital region or outside bilingual districts need, as a general rule, provide services to the public in both official languages. We therefore intend to modify the legislation to make this clear, and this is the reason for the amendment to clause 9(1). At the same time, however, we felt it important to stress that bilingualism in terms of the provision of services is not to be restricted to bilingual districts where there is a demonstrated need for it. Hon. members should refer to the new clause 9(2). This was perhaps the major issue that I discussed with Prime Minister Bertrand in Quebec city. We are therefore going to propose-and this amendment will touch on a question of policy not fully set out in the bill previously-that government departments and crown corporations be obliged, in the case of a significant demand for second language services, to provide such services notwithstanding the fact that the location in question may not be within a bilingual district.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to create linguistic ghettos. We are aware of the opposition expressed against the bilingual district concept, though this would represent in our opinion the best way to protect minorities wherever they may be.
But in order to widen the scope of bilingualism within the federal institutions, we think that it is important to emphasize that the duties and responsibilities of departments and other federal bodies are not limited exclusively to bilingual districts.
The government has therefore decided to bring in an amendment to the bill with
May 20, 1969

regard to bilingial services outside the federal bilingual districts and the bilingual services given to travellers. It is intended to ensure bilingual services to growing minorities in Canadian communities.
I hope that this supplementary concept will have the effect of allowing the quickest possible expansion of bilingual services as our resources will permit it.

I think hon. members will agree that it would be folly to ignore the numerically very significant minorities in various parts of the country where those minorities, in relation to the majority population, are not now, and perhaps never will be, sufficient to justify the establishment of a bilingual district under the 10 per cent principle. It is to the urban areas that Canadians are moving in ever increasing numbers. Where possible their cultural heritage should be respected in those urban centres, and this should be done even though the minority, although large in number, is not, in percentage terms or relatively, as significant as one in, say, a rural area.
It will also be moved on the part of the government that the provision relating to the services provided abroad by crown corporations be slightly amended in order that there be more flexibility concerning the application of these provisions. I refer to the amendment to clause 10 (2). There are circumstances in locations outside Canada where it may not be necessary or indeed appropriate to extend the bilingual qualification. An amendment will be proposed to provide for exemptions in appropriate cases.
As I mentioned a short while ago, there are also amendments relating to the use of both languages in court proceedings. As it stands now, the bill brings a new element into proceedings in that a witness will be able, as a matter of choice and of right and not merely when he is unable to speak the language of the court, to determine the official language in which he wishes to give his: evidence. It should be made clear that this provision is to apply only to witnesses or the accused. As there has been some misunderstanding as to its extent, it is proposed to revise slightly the language used. I refer to the amendment to clause 11 (1).
The bill also provides now that criminal proceedings may be conducted in one or the other of the official languages, subject to the right of a witness to testify in the official language of his choice, at the discretion of the
Official Languages
court. This provision is of fundamental importance. It also poses a real problem of implementation in many parts of Canada. The government realizes the real and practical provincial interest in this area. Obviously, a judge will not be able to accede to proceedings in the other official language if facilities are not available. As a consequence, we shall propose that this discretion be exercised in circumstances in which the second language is authorized by the law of the province to be used in civil causes or matters. This is the new section 11(4) of the bill. Thus, we shall not be forcing upon the provinces any regime which they cannot adequately implement. When administrative and other arrangements are such as to permit the province to authorize the use of the other official language in civil cases, the discretion of the court in criminal proceedings will operate. This is the case at the present time in New Brunswick and will be in the future under the proposed official languages legislation of that province. Hence, the change will result in the federal legislation serving as a complement to provincial law, something which I think should be acceptable to all the provinces.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We think this is a reasonable view and that it will enable provinces to move ahead, within their own jurisdiction, without any feeling of unreasonable compulsion such as they felt was present when the federal government legislated to authorize choice of language with relation to criminal proceedings. We are confident this will lead to a rapid extension of the important rights accorded by the bill.
In addition, we felt that as a practical matter the provision respecting language in the courts might best be regulated, where necessary, for each of those courts by the Governor in Council or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I refer to the amendment to 11(5). This will enable a more rational approach to be taken in circumstances where rules may be needed either at the federal or the provincial level. It should also avoid problems which would arise from a multiplicity of rules on the same subject applicable to various courts in a province, and at the federal level. Hon. members of the house who practice law will realize that each magistrate constitutes his own court; we are seeking to provide a standard procedure throughout the province and not to allow each magistrate to interpret the procedure in accordance with his own view.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages


David Lewis: Would the minister permit a question? Does this mean that the federal government will be able to make procedural rules with respect to the work of such courts? That is how it seems to me to read.


John Napier Turner: Where the federal courts are involved it would be a federal rule; where provincial courts are involved it would be a provincial rule.


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


An hon. Member:: Let him continue. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I thank the house for its indulgence.
Amendments will also be proposed for the purpose of clarifying a number of other provisions. Included is a provision dealing with the alteration of bilingual districts once established. We wish to make it clear that no alteration can be made unless the altered district would fulfil the criteria established in the legislation for the creation of a bilingual district. I am referring to 13(4). It is also proposed to clarify the powers of investigation of the Commissioner of Official Languages-this is to be found in 26 (1)-and the ambit of the expression "institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada" so that there may be no doubt that these include the Canadian Forces and the R.C.M.P. I refer now to 36(3).
Finally, an amendment will be proposed which would impose a duty on the Public Service Commission to see that the purposes and provisions of the act are carried out. This is important in the framework of realizing the goals of the bill in terms of the federal public service. I am referring to the new section 40(4). However, this duty will be qualified by the obligation to maintain the principle of the selection of personnel according to merit as required by the Public Service Employment Act.
I have attempted to give hon. members a thumbnail sketch of the package of amendments to be put forward at the committee stage. It will be possible to discuss the details of the government amendments as they are
 moved in committee. I believe this bill recognizes that one of the fundamental questions we have to face as Canadians is the question of equality of access to the federal institutions of government. I do not minimize what the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said in his speech on Friday nor what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) or the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said in the course of their speeches to the effect that economic matters are of great importance. Nevertheless, no one can gainsay the fact that one of the fundamental problems we have to face is whether the French language will continue to exist in Canada or outside of Canada-whether it will be spoken only in Quebec, or in a separate Quebec. This is at the root of our current constitutional debate and it is at the basis of the official languages bill.
This may be difficult for people in some parts of the country to digest. It may be difficult, particularly, in western Canada where there has long been a mosaic of many cultures. To many in Western Canada this bill may appear to be a reversal of history. But to those of us who support it it reflects a fundamental premise that this country as we know it can survive only if we broaden our recognition of the two founding cultures and the two founding languages.
I believe the provisions of this bill have been generally misunderstood, particularly in western Canada. Some people seem to feel that this legislation, if enacted, would oblige or compel the average citizen of Canada, or the average citizen in western Canada, to speak French-that it represents compulsory bilingualism. This is just not the case. I believe that no matter the source from which the criticism may come-and I respect the views held by hon. members-we must deal with the bill in terms of what it really says. The principle of this bill is that there should be equality of access to the federal institutions of government, that every citizen should be able to communicate with the federal government in either of the two languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: It is not
compulsory individual bilingualism; it is institutional bilingualism-equality of access to the federal institutions of government rather than compulsory bilingualism for individuals. People will continue to use the language that they speak now, but within the terms of the bill they will be able to approach the federal government in the language of their choice.
May 20, 1969

Why is there a need for two official languages? I believe we have to deal with the political fact that the territorial and geographical unity of the country demands it. It happens to be a fact that 80 per cent of those in the province of Quebec are French speaking and that 80 per cent of those speaking French in this country live in Quebec. The younger generation in that province is deciding today and tomorrow whether to opt for Canada or to opt for Quebec. We believe the young people of Quebec will opt for Canada given the principle of equal access in the French language to the federal institutions, in Quebec, yes, and across Canada. I believe this step will represent a clear indication to French speaking Canadians in this country that they are welcome not only in Quebec or in parts adjacent to Quebec but everywhere in this country. I believe this is fundamental to national unity in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: The 1967 Confederation For Tomorrow Conference accepted this principle of linguistic equality and in doing so the premiers were reflecting,
I believe, public opinion to a great extent. The need for an official languages act was one of the main conclusions of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. We endorsed it in our election campaign, and I say that to make it clear that the Prime Minister of the country and members of this party were absolutely clear and as specific as they could be in either language across Canada that there was a need for this bill. We spoke of the need for this bill and we said this bill would have to be implemented to assure us national unity. This bill is a reflection of the mandate we believe we have from the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: As I said before, I believe the principle of linguistic equality is accepted by the majority of Canadians. Even more, I believe this principle is accepted by an overwhelming majority of young, English speaking Canadians in this country.


David Lewis: That is what I said.


John Napier Turner: If there is any evidence of a generation gap in Canada that evidence will be found, as one travels across this land from east to west or from
Official Languages
north to south, in the different attitudes of the generations and in the willingness with which the young will accept change for the benefit of national unity in this country. If there is any evidence of that gap it will be found in the fact that the young people of this country are willing and anxious to accept this change because they believe that having two languages gives us an identity that separates us on the northern half of the North American continent from our great neighbour to the south.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: Our young people believe that having these two languages in this country makes us more civilized human beings and opens up new vistas to knowledge and new avenues of personal fulfilment. They feel that if we can arrange within the fabric of this country for both languages and linguistic groups to get along together we shall set an example to the world of how two different peoples can get along.
I believe that, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the languages bill is the core of our guarantee of equal rights and privileges for the two main linguistic groups in Canada. I do not believe it will immediately resolve all our problems-no. I do not believe it will dissipate all misunderstandings. I believe we shall have to introduce a new dynamic note into our lives. I should like to quote the words of Justice Learned Hand of the United States Supreme Court. He once remarked:
Liberty must reside in the hearts of men. Where it so lies it needs no government, no law and no court to save it, and where it is found wanting, no government, no law and no court can preserve it.
I believe that Canadians must incorporate in their lives this essential concept of our national unity. That concept is that citizens who speak either of our languages shall be free to live and grow and work in the language of their choice. That, sir, must be our national and emotional commitment.
I wish now to refer to what one of the greatest Canadians and certainly one of the greatest Prime Ministers had to say in parliament in 1890. Of course I speak of Laurier. He said:

Any policy which does not appeal to the soundest instincts of every class, of every creed, of every race, is branded with the stigma of mediocrity. The French Canadian who encourages his fellow-countrymen to

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
hold aloof from other nationalities, the Anglo-Canadian who prompts his countrymen to keep their minds set exclusively on their own interests may well be cheered by his hearers, but impartial history will deem his action as faulty in conception as it was pernicious and evil in purpose.
We are-or we want to be-a nation made of the most heterogeneous components; Protestants and Catholics, English, French, Germans, Irish, Scotch etc., each one, let us not forget it, with its own traditions and prejudices. In each one of these opposed components, however, there is a common link of patriotism and the only true policy is that which transcends this common patriotism and carries all those components towards a common aim and common aspirations. Where is the remedy? Certainly not in ostracism nor in hard or cruel means. The true remedy is to be found in tolerance and mutual respect.

The concept of bilingualism, Mr. Speaker, is that of a bilingual society and state rather than of a state and society in which every individual is bilingual. We do not require that every citizen shall be obliged to speak or write a second language; rather, we say that each citizen should be able to communicate or deal with the federal government or any of its agents in either of the two official languages, the principle being equal access to the services and institutions of the federal government.
I believe this policy will need the nation's Commitment. I believe that the bill will have to be explained to the people of Canada. I believe that whether we are English speaking or French speaking we shall have to make a reasonable accommodation, exercise patience and tolerance, wrestle with our own prejudices and understand this question with positive good will and an open mind. I believe this is a commitment which our French speaking and English speaking Canadians must make, because unity is a two-way street.
I believe we can solve our difficulties and reconcile our views. As Canadians, we have too much to gain and too much to lose. We have inherited the bounty of one of the richest lands on earth and together we can turn it to our benefit and to the enhancement of other peoples in our world.
Let us quicken the fashioning of a new nation of two languages so that we can move on to the harvesting of the promise that brought us all to these shores, no matter whether we came yesterday, the day before

yesterday, a generation ago or five generations ago. That promise brought us to these shores where we are and shall remain one of the most fortunate clusters of people to be favoured on the face of the globe.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix may I ask whether the hon. member for Temiscamingue has a question?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to ask the hon. minister a question.
He said a while ago he was convinced that the great majority of young English-speaking Canadians accept the principle of this bill. I would very much like the hon. minister to tell us whether he can also sincerely believe that the great majority of young French-speaking Canadians also accept it.


John Napier Turner: I also
believe that and I think one of our duties is to explain the magnificent option open to young French Canadians to become good Canadians.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since backbenchers will wish to participate in this debate may I ask whether copies of the amendments some hon. members have will be circulated among all hon. members generally?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am advised that copies of the amendments have been prepared and will be circulated to all hon. members as soon as possible.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we have just heard the Minister of Justice make a very good speech. I want to congratulate him for his introduction of the bill which, in some respects, I do consider difficult to explain to the Canadian people as a whole.
Of course, we have not had time to study in detail the amendments which the minister introduced this afternoon, since he only tabled the list a few minutes ago, and I must say that I am not in a position to discuss them. However, I take comfort in the fact
May 20, 1969

that these amendments are the result of consultations which he had with the attorneys general of the various provinces, mainly the western provinces, who were opposed to some provisions contained in the bill, as introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on first reading.
We remember how, at the last federal-provincial conference, several premiers or provincial attorneys general raised objections, especially with regard to the setting up of bilingual districts across Canada under Bill C-120.
I trust the amendments the Minister of Justice brought in this afternoon with regard to those bilingual districts will dispel the misgivings of the attorneys general or premiers of some provinces who had raised objections concerning the setting up of those bilingual districts.
I must add that I too, had certain fears for, if we were to consider what districts could be set up in the province of Quebec, that province alone, according to the spirit or the letter of the law, could constitute one single bilingual district.
I feel that the Quebec premier was right in some of his remarks about bilingual districts.
I trust the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice this afternoon will meet with the approval of the provincial attorneys general and premiers who raised objections in this regard.
We, members of the official opposition, have studied in depth the bill now before the house. From time to time, as parliamentary procedure allows, we shall introduce amendments or try to complete those introduced by the Minister of Justice, to clarify the provisions of the act and try to avoid the major objections that might be raised not only by the members of our party but also by the members of the party in power, with regard to certain provisions of bill C-120.
Mr. Speaker, as a French-Canadian from Quebec, I am in favour of the principle of the bill now before us. In my opinion, the bill confirms a reality. It is the confirmation of the Canadian duality. It confirms the fact that we must aim at making every effort in order to work together to establish here of a bilingual and bicultural country.
In my opinion the legislation introduced by the Prime Minister, namely Bill C-120, is not a legislation the philosophy of which is alien to that of the Conservative party, because during our convention in Toronto, we had included in our political platform a provision
Official Languages
relating to the recognition of the linguistic rights of all Canadians. Obviously, Bill C-120 puts in concrete form this section of our political program.
I for one, as a Quebecer, am in favour of the principle of the bill before us, as I just said. I am for it, Mr. Speaker, because we are obviously witnessing a new development not only in Quebec but in the other provinces as well, especially among the young people of the other provinces. In my opinion, young English-speaking Canadians find that to build a now Canada it will be necessary to know at least one second language. I do not mean to know it perfectly, but try to learn the second language, a language which was the basis on which the Canadian Confederation was established.
We meet this enthusiasm again among young English Canadians, and God knows that it is a great comfort to us, since we can hope that the old prejudices of some Englishspeaking people are starting to disappear. We can make the best wishes for the Canada of tomorrow and hope that it will be a Canada where the two main groups can live side by side, exchange ideas and discuss the problems now facing Canadian unity.
The principle of Bill C-120 is acceptable to the members from Quebec, because at the last federal-provincial conference, in its opening statement, the government of Quebec, speaking on behalf of all French Canadians, expressed its faith in the establishment of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an excerpt from the brief submitted by the government of Quebec at the Confederation of To-morrow Conference. On page 23, one reads and I quote:
Whatever their immediate functions, it appears essential to us that in the Canada of to-morrow, federal institutions take clearly into consideration, in their structure and direction, the binational character of the country.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We believe also that the federal capital of Canada should reflect the linguistic duality of the people.
First of all, it would be desirable that the proper means be taken to insure a real, efficient and equitable participation of the French-speaking Canadians in the federal public service. Improvements have recently taken place in that respect, but it would be advisable to speed up the process and, above all, to provide accurate machinery through which the reform could be quickly translated into facts.

May 20, 1989
Official Languages
Now, that excerpt from the opening statement by the Quebec government, referred as it happened to Bill C-120 now before us.
And in the same statement by the Quebec government, on the question of bilingualism of course, here is what I find:
But that cannot solve the whole problem. Essentially, French Canadians want to be themselves and develop normally as any other race, in the province of Quebec and in the other areas of Canada.
I quote this statement in answer to some hon. members, some English-speaking Canadians who suggest that the Quebec premier, when he attended the federal-provincial conference here, has some reservations concerning Bill C-120. The Quebec premier recognized the principle of the bill, but the reservations which he stated dealt with the establishment of bilingual districts in the province and throughout Canada.
I repeat what I said at the beginning. If the Minister of Justice has met with the Quebec premier and has reached an agreement as to the form of the proposed amendments, I think that the latter, if he is satisfied, will have no other reason to object if Bill C-120 becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, French Canadians, as we know, have never been inclined to apply for positions in the Public Service, because for too long no account was taken of that principle on which Confederation was founded, namely that English and French were the two official languages and were to be considered equal, so much so that the Fathers of Confederation thought of including a special provision-section 133-to ensure the respect of French and English in federal parliamentary institutions and in Quebec's parliamentary system.
We hear objections that I find very insignificant, to the effect that the bill is not constitutional. I say that if we take the time to consider all such objections, we will never build a bilingual and bicultural Canada, because the bill before us is a political instrument Canadians will need to develop bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker that for too long French Canadians were not inclined to apply for jobs in the federal civil service on account of its prevailing unilingualism.
The French Canadians who came here had to learn English before they could secure any employment. For too long, the federal civil service has been unilingual and that is what has kept French Canadians away from the 
executive positions they otherwise could have held.
It may be useful to add that Canada is actually at a turning point of its history. The tides of contestation are mounting against the federal government because there is unrest in the French-Canadian community; it is frustrated in its efforts to be understood and admitted as a full partner within confederation. If, unfortunately, there are extremists and separatists in Quebec, some are also to be found in the English provinces. To hear some English-speaking people in other provinces bring up constantly the victory of the plains of Abraham, one wonders if they are really working for Canadian unity.
If we condemn Quebec extremists who wish to set up an independent state, we should condemn just as vigorously the people from English provinces who are still harping on the same string who are still putting forward the principle that French Canadians have lost the battle of the plains of Abraham and that might is still right in Canada.
If it is intended to build the Canada of tomorrow with such obsolete principles, we shall never succeed.
Mr. Speaker, the extremists of other provinces are jeopardizing the achievement of Canadian unity just as much as the Quebec separatists1.
Naturally, if the English provinces are told that the purpose of this bill is to compel all English Canadians to speak French, or all French Canadians to speak English, serious objections will be raised, not only in western Canada, but in Ontario and in the Maritimes, to the passage of Bill C-120.
But such is not the purpose of the legislation, which is merely to give Canadians, both French and English, the opportunity of joining the public service and of being attended to in their own language by civil servants. I do not see any other purpose in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, if the bill is explained in this way to those English Canadians who have raised major objections, I think the objects of the bill will be well understood and accepted.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if one considers this legislation as a means of enabling a third of the Canadian people to communicate in their own language with government services, a major step forward will have been taken to show that in actual fact Canada is a bicultural country where the two major linguistic groups may live in harmony and may work together towards the solution of the problems that the country is now facing.
May 20, 1969

The protest movement and the separatist movement that have come into being in Quebec are a direct result of the fact that although much was being said at the federal level about bilingualism and biculturalism, for purposes of appeasement apparently, the talk remained concerned with policy-and never reached the legislation stage.
Today, Bill C-120 brings us something tangible. This bill will considerably undermine the validity of arguments put forward by those people in Quebec who argue that it is impossible at the federal level to derive advantages from their culture and their language.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill is to become an instrument of national unity, it will have to be explained clearly to the population, especially where it looks like an indirect means of taking away from the English-speaking majority its established rights.
This legislation does not mean that both English and French will have to be spoken all over Canada. Those who have explained in this way this legislation to their constituents have obviously been doing this in bad faith, and they belong to that group of extremists I mentioned at the beginning. The sole purpose of this legislation is to recognize in practice what existed already in theory by virtue of the constitution.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
At this stage, I would like to put a question to some of my colleagues who raise basic objections to this bill. I would like to know if Bill C-120 deprives the English-speaking majority in this country of any right? I would like to know if Bill C-120 is contrary to the claims or historic rights of English-speaking Canadians in this country?
I examined the text of the bill from every angle, but I never reached the conclusion that this measure deprived of any right the English-speaking majority in this country. The sole purpose of this legislation is to correct an injustice which had existed for a long time, while we neglected to give French Canadians the same opportunity as the English Canadians.
If this is not the meaning of the bill and if one absolutely wants to block it Mr. Speaker-because obviously it would insure for French Canadians the respect not of some privileges but of their rights

we can wonder what the devil are French Canadians doing in parliament? If we cannot agree on the objectives of Bill C-120, and if we are not capable
Official Languages
of obtaining from the English-speaking majority, not concessions, but quite simply the recognition of fundamental rights which the French-Canadian nation has always enjoyed since Confederation, we can wonder what we are doing here.
Mr. Speaker, we often like to say, when we travel abroad, that we come from a bilingual and bicultural country.
When I went to the United Nations from 1960 to 1962, I was extremely surprised to find that some delegates of member nations did not even know there were six million French Canadians in our country. Why? Because our representatives at the United Nations, most of the time, only spoke one language. In fact, when I arrived at the United Nations in 1960, representatives of eighteen French-speaking African nations were quite surprised to meet French-speaking Canadians. Sometimes I was humiliated to have these people meet our Canadian senior officials in the United Nations who could not speak French.
Often we like to say that Canada's prestige lies in the fact that we are a bilingual country. But, faced with concrete facts such as is the case today when considering Bill C-120, some people raise all kinds of objections saying that this will create difficulties.
The administration of this legislation will obviously create difficulties. How shall we succeed in changing our constitution, in building a new Canada, in changing certain customs, without being faced with difficulties? Obviously, we shall meet with them and efforts will be necessary. But we French-Cana-dians, those of good will at least-there are still a good number of them-we are ready to face the challenge, to study the problems with our English-speaking colleagues, in an effort to build for future generations, a country which will be a good place to live.
Whenever we travelled abroad-as many of my colleagues have done, and spoke French in an embassy, we were unable to find anyone to understand us. We have sometimes visited French-speaking countries where the ambassador spoke only English. He could not even say "Bonjour" in French. It was humiliating for a French Canadian to have to address his own ambassador, who could not even speak his language.
We hope-obviously this will take some time-that this bill will cope with the situation, as a matter of justice and not as a favour. I want to make myself very clear, because whenever French Canadians express

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
a grievance, some people always think they are asking for favours. We French Canadians never ask for favours. We are merely asking for the recognition of our legitimate rights. And here is a bill which recognizes legitimate rights as regards French Canadians.
I ask the English-speaking majority members, whatever their political affiliation, to be very open-minded in dealing with the bill before us.
It is obvious, as concerns the western provinces, that some members are in a fairly difficult position for, as the Minister of Justice pointed out today, perhaps the bill was not well explained to their constituents. I say to the Minister of Justice as well as to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who are piloting this bill together, that they will have to provide full information after the passage of this bill, in order to overcome the difficulties as to the interpretation of the bill in certain parts of this country.
Of course, it is the duty of the government to advise the people of what the bill entails so that Canadians, knowing all its details, can accept it objectively.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that although the bill is being studied in a tense atmosphere, although there will be major objections to it-there are fundamental objections to it, which some members have already started bringing up, and others, I am sure, will follow suit-we must still prove to the country that the representatives of the people, English-speaking as well as French-speaking, are capable of assuming their responsibilities, of studying a bill with serenity which, to my mind, is of capital importance to the future of the Canadian confederation.
What happens to this bill will tell us whether there is still hope for Canada as we now know it. If there is filibustering, if objections are raised irresponsibly to play up the misgivings expressed by some sectors of our population, under the pretext that there is no need for bilingualism or biculturalism in Canada, if life is to go on as it does now when the rights of a third of the Canadian people are being overlooked, we French-Canadians of the province of Quebec sitting in this house will have to ask ourselves certain questions with regard to our presence here in this House of Commons.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask our English-speaking colleagues to show some understanding during this debate. May I also ask for their co-operation.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, there is unrest in Quebec. English-speaking members often tell us: "You speak of separatism, but that is to blackmail us, to obtain concessions." I say, Mr. Speaker, that the percentage of separatists in Quebec is higher than one would think.
Recently, an important Montreal paper carried out a survey and, according to its findings, Mr. Rene Levesque's party could obtain 25 per cent of the votes in the next election. Well, I hope that those findings are inaccurate.
The fact remains that if one travels through the province, one finds out that there are important groups of separatists with leaders in every corner of the province.
Is it because the members from Quebec who sit in this house did not do their duty adequately or did not discharge their responsibilities? Better late than never. We must now take our responsibilities, we must show not only to the French Canadians of Quebec, but also to those living in other provinces, and to the English Canadians as well, that at least in the House of Commons it is possible to achieve unanimity on a piece of legislation as important as that which is now under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I say that all Canadians have a duty to make every possible effort to build the Canada of tomorrow, which cannot be anything but a bilingual or bicultural country. Otherwise, there will no longer be a Canada, and it will be useless to offer band-aid solutions to problems of French Canadians of Quebec or other provinces because they would be rejected straight off. In my opinion, Canada will be bilingual and bicultural or it will be no more. It would fall apart.
In spite of its defects, Bill C-120 is a step forward in making the country where we want to live bilingual and bicultural. If the country is not bilingual and bicultural, it will fall apart, because a major portion of our people can no longer live otherwise than as equal partners, in every respect.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted this afternoon to speak calmly and state the problem now existing throughout Canada. I represent a rural constituency of the province of Quebec. We know that there are problems. Let us build together this new Canada. I wanted to appeal to the goodwill and open-mindedness of my English-speaking colleagues and tell them: "Better late than never." We should at least agree about the bill now before us if we
May 20, 19B9

want Canada to be still in the future this bicultural and bilingual Canada which most Canadians wish to have.
I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that the young, either in the province of Quebec or in English-speaking provinces, are eager for a renewal in Canada and it is obviously by relying on them that we will build the Canada of tomorrow. That is why I repeat my request to my English-speaking colleagues, in order that together we may at least show all Canada that we are capable, with some goodwill, to build a Canada where it will be good to live in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! [English]


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamillon-Weniworth):: Mr. Speaker, it is not only a pleasure but an honour to speak in this house on this bill after such a thrilling, inspiring and eloquent speech as the one we have just heard by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). In my opinion the hon. member's words will do more to fuse national unity than many of the speeches we have heard from either side of the house since this session commenced. The talented and eloquent words of the hon. member for Charlevoix inspire me to take a stab at ma deuxieme langue. If he will stay with me I have something to say in French.

May I quote here an excerpt from the opening statement made by the right hon. Lester B. Pearson in February 1968 at the first meeting of the constitutional conference.
There are two facts which could not be denied by whoever considers the situation with impartiality. The first is that Canadians of French language and culture do not have the same possibilities as the English-speaking people to live their lives, to raise their children or to make in their own language their full contribution anywhere in Canada.
It is to such a question that I will attempt to give an answer. It would be necessary also to recall the evolution of bilingualism in Canada since 1967. Let us recall the stands taken by our party since the achievement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the actual Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), not forgetting the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and Lester B. Pearson, and ending with the urgency to legislate on the matter if Canada is to survive.
Mr. Speaker, what is our ultimate goal as Canadians of either language? The greatness, development and progress of our country, at
Official Languages
all levels. To reach that goal, we must combine our efforts and not divide them in futile struggles which in no way improve our lot or that of our country. We want a better life for all our citizens. Why should we quarrel constantly? Both the English and the French elements in Canada are there to stay and both are determined not to abdicate their language or their traditions.
Their increasing numbers will certainly not weaken their respective position. Why should we refuse to allow either of them to communicate officially in their own language with the government of the country or the various judicial or administrative agencies under its jurisdiction? Let us be more serious and more realistic.

It will be a great day for Canada when Bill C-120 is placed on our statute books. It has great effects for individual Canadians in all parts of the country, from one coast to the other and from one region to another. It will have great benefits1 in respect of one province and its relations with the others. The only result of this bill can be a fusing of this federation with a better spirit among the provinces and a better relationship between the provinces and the federal government. The composite result will be a vibrant and young nation growing in bilingualism and biculturalism.
I do not use the word "biculturalism" in the sense of a by-product. I have in mind the facts of French life-French levity, lightness and camaraderie-about which we are all aware. This is what French Canadians have brought to us, particularly many of us here in Ottawa where we have formed many friendships. These things are real and this is the message that we can spread.
This is the kind of thing we can teach our young Canadians so that when they grow up they will be stronger and better Canadians living richer lives that we ever had the opportunity to live. We will be the forerunners because we will have had the initial advantage of meeting our confreres from the province of Quebec on both sides of the house. We have learned from them and we pass on what we have learned without fear or reluctance. We move forward joyfully in this crusade for Canada.
We will take a huge step forward by adopting this bill. Perhaps we will not completely

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
achieve our goal, but I believe the amendments proposed today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), particularly the new subclause 4 of clause 40, which refers to the Public Service Commission, will represent tremendous progress. In the words of the minister, this amendment will make it clearly obvious that promotion is to be made on merit and that this is the principal consideration in respect of any promotion in the civil service. Certainly what the minister said today has gone a long way toward dispelling any doubt in this regard.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Charlevoix touched on the presence of Canada at the United Nations. I was there only very briefly as an observer last November, but one of the things that impressed me deeply about the Canadian delegation was that our young diplomats were bilingual and were establishing friendships with the Francophone nations. It was a wonderful experience to see representatives of a country such as ours making new friends throughout the Francophone world concurrently with our use of the English language. In this we are spreading our bilingualism and biculturalism in a constructive manner. We are fusing a greater Canada and proving that we are a great country, a country that will play a greater role in world affairs as time goes by. We know that the future of our country is great, but it will be greater because of the tremendous spirit and drive behind this bill.
As an English speaking Canadian I am shocked and ashamed to think that in the past French Canadians have not had the opportunity we have had. This is a terrible injustice. We have gone a long way toward curing that injustice, but we do not believe that simply passing this bill will be an end of the matter. We will proceed to build a society equalled by none other elsewhere in the world.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the government for introducing this bill recognizing the status of the official languages of Canada.
It should be noted, however, that the British North America Act already awarded us these rights and it is truly regrettable that during one hundred years, that is before 1962, we did not have in this parliament of Canada any members capable of demanding equal rights for us.

This afternoon, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) gave us some explanations concerning the amendments he is proposing. I hope they will not cause any harm to the Quebec people, especially if we were to judge them by the one he moved to clause 11 (3), and I quote:
That the French version of Bill C-120 be amended by striking out the words "tribunal du Canada" on line 16, page 7, and substituting therefore the words "tribunal au Canada".
So by simply replacing "du" by "au", it is implied that in Canada, as a result of both official languages being recognized, English and French will not have to be used in all courts in Canada.
Therefore, we advise the minister and the house that we will scrutinize all the amendments.
We have examined carefully Bill C-120 as submitted. We agree with it, but we will scrutinize all the amendments, because, as the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) said earlier, people are wondering whether Canada will remain united or whether separatism will develop.
Separatism is not all bunkum; it is not window-dressing meant to impress other Canadians. People want action, and if justice is done to our people, Canada will continue on the right direction. In any event, I made that remark because, too often, we are faced with superficial bilingualism.
Earlier, we received notice of questions to be debated tonight at ten o'clock; this notice is perfectly bilingual. But as regards those to be discussed in the days to come, everything is in English. Then, I understand that we want in this parliament to give justice to our own members, and I hope that such small hitches which we want and hope to eliminate will be taken care of, so that we can feel at home, really at home, everywhere in Canada.
When I personally visited western Canada in 1959 and went up to Vancouver and recently, during a trip in April which took me into western Canada, as far as Victoria this time, I realized that in the West, especially beyond Winnipeg, French speaking people are few and far between except in the French minority groups who have made a tremendous effort to remain bilingual. Western Canadians have probably realized that to preserve their mother tongue they had to be unilingual. President Nixon and General de Gaulle understand this, because when they get together they talk in their mother tongue and use interpreters to be understood.
May 20, 1969

We, French Canadians from Quebec, contrary to some people in Western Canada, have adopted this bilingual posture. And as the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) pointed out last week, when an English-speaking Canadian wants to be served in his own language while visiting "La belle Province", Quebecers go out of their way to please him.
However, that makes me ask myself the following question, because we have tried to show such good will in endeavouring to become bilingual, holding that in the remainder of this country, other Canadians were imitating the stand we had taken, but unfortunately we have found out that such was not the case everywhere. That is why today I wonder whether it would not have been better to preserve our French, even if we had had to hire interpreters to make ourselves understood by the remainder of Canada, for every day, I realize that we have still a lot to learn of our own language and of our French culture, and that it may be dangerous to become a people of translators rather than Canadians with a French culture and Canadians with an English culture, communicating through translators, in order to become fully aware that basically we have two cultures.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
At any rate, I want to analyse the problem from an entirely new point of view, that is considering bilingualism throughout the world, and I think the best way to understand a problem is to consider it under a new angle.
When we, Canadians, have to face some national problems, we tend to withdraw into ourselves. If we look around us, we merely note what is happening in England, in France or in the United States.
These traditional sources of inspiration can hardly inform us on bilingualism. Besides, professor Mackey suggests to take the whole world as the frame-work for our analysis. If we follow this wise piece of advice, very soon we will realize that most of the people of the world, at some time or another in their history, had to face the same problems which now concern Canada and several other countries.
Bilingualism has almost always been considered as a marginal phenomenon. It has never been the prime purpose of specialized sciences such as sociology, psychology and linguistics. In the mind of the general public, bilingualism has always been rather an
Official Languages
exceptional, if not abnormal, phenomenon concerning only a few bilingual countries in the world or a few individuals in a community.
Therefore, I shall attempt to prove that bilingualism, far from being an exceptional problem, reserved to bilingual countries,, is in fact common to most of the people of the world. Indeed, there are fewer bilingual people in bilingual countries than in so-called unilingual countries. In fact, we do not always realize that bilingualism is recognized in some nations, not so much to promote it than to provide for the maintenance and the use of two languages or more, in one nation.
A bilingual statute, for instance, ensures the integrity of the Swedish community in Finland and protects that of the Lapps in Norway.
In a federal state, such as Switzerland or Yugoslavia, official bilingualism maintains the linguistic status quo.
In the new African states, it allows the contribution of international knowledge and thus becomes a means of communication at world level.
Bilingualism is maintained by two unilingual blocks. If one of the two becomes bilingual the other one enjoys a linguistic superiority and can then absorb the bilingual community. Such has been, in the past, the fate of several bilingual communities. That is why bilingual nations consider regional unilingualism as a means of preserving their national bilingualism.
Four factors contribute to make bilingualism a universal fact. These four factors are the following: first the number and distribution of languages in the world, secondly, the comparative utility of national idioms; third, the scope of the international languages; and fourth, the migration of populations.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker we have the question of the number and distribution of languages. If we look at the situation in the right perspective, we find that there are about 30 times as many languages as countries to house them. This means that a number of countries have more than one language and if we observe the distribution of those languages we can see that this is practically the case for most countries.
There are, for instance, about 200 languages spoken in the U.S.S.R. though only 70 of them are official languages.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
Whether the world is enriched by having a smaller or a greater number of languages is a matter open to discussion.
According to some people, it would be of the greatest advantage if we had only one language. It is a fact that when a larger number of people understand a language, the quality of national and international communications can be improved. On the other hand, from the cultural point of view, the disappearance of a language is an irretrievable loss. One's position in this debate depends on one's point of view, but the fact remains that the languages already widely spoken are already gaining at the expense of the minority languages.
What is the reason for this phenomena? In the past, it was said that one of the reasons laid in the increasing number of political alliances. At the present time, however, that factor is of less importance compared to the vast improvement in education together with the recent revolution in the communication media.
According to King Stephen The First of Hungary, a kingdom, where only one language is spoken, is weak and powerless. For most nations, the necessity for a certain measure of bilingualism is not always justified for educational purposes.
In fact, a person leaving his country cannot expect in most cases that his language will be spoken elsewhere.
People from Norway, Yugoslavia and Rumania, for example, who for some reason or other must cross the frontier and their number is increasing due to better means of transport cannot expect to be understood in foreign countries and, conversely, they cannot be expected to speak the national idiom of everyone they meet. They must therefore learn one or more of the most widely used languages, which permits them to communicate with a greater number of people, not only with those who speak their own language, but also those who like themselves had, for the same reasons, to learn those languages.
Mr. Speaker, we can imagine at the present time that the political and industrial power of the nations for which those languages are official vouches for their authority and their prestige. Those languages are English, French, German and Russian, and to a lesser extent, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, Italian and some others. As compared with the latter and what they represent, the great majority of languages of the world have little to offer

to the millions of people who everyday achieve a greater degree of knowledge and who will try to learn everything that the modern world can offer in the field of knowledge and information.
In the case of an independent multilingual country, the adoption of a language as the national language, to the exclusion of others, can even bring about a civil war. In order to be convinced, one has only to meditate on the recent failure of the Indian government when it tried to impose a national language to India, and the uprising generated by the new language policy.
Thus certain countries must face the following problems: give official status to local languages, or keep the language of the colonizing nation as the official language. To solve both problems, there is but one imperative solution: to adopt some degree of bilingualism at the national level, and this requirement, in most countries going off on such a venture, will affect a sensible percentage of the population and help those countries to be recognized all over the world.
That necessity does not automatically hinder the intellectual life of those nations. Today, an author or a scientist who belongs to a linguistic minority must often write in a priority language to make his ideas or findings known to a wider public. Such a trend gives the priority languages in an even stronger position. A large proportion of scientific papers released in the Netherlands or in highly civilized countries, in the technical field for example, are published in English, French or German.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
One can therefore wonder whether those whose mother tongue is a priority language have any need for bilingualism, since theirs is the language of the country where they live and work. Besides, it enables them to acquire the knowledge they need and since, finally, it is spoken and understood in many countries, they would like to visit, why should they need another language?
Such considerations lead people to give too much importance to their mother tongue. Such linguistic chauvinism often disturbs those who took the trouble of learning a second language, perhaps less important than their own.
If Dutchmen learn English, why do not Englishmen learn Dutch? Is it because English is better than Dutch? It is true that we can consider English as a great language,
May 20, 1969

just as French, and that for many reasons but none of them dealing with linguistics.
For a linguist, English and French are not more important than any of the 3,000 other languages spoken in various parts of the world. Moreover, no language has the monopoly of universal knowledge.
This is why Milton urged the English people to learn Italian, which was the most widely used language then, and in which Queen Elisabeth and Mary Stuart published edicts.
The postwar era saw thousands of people going to foreign countries in order to find temporary jobs. The countries they found more attractive, such as Switzerland and Germany, welcomed a great number of foreign workers because of their lack of manpower.
It is estimated that in Switzerland, right now, more than 10 per cent of the population is made up of workers and people from abroad. It follows that because of their work requirements thousands' of Italians, Spaniards and other foreign labourers have become bilingual.
It is reckoned that the United States alone had more than 20 million bilingual people before the postwar influx.
How long does a community stay bilingual? The duration of bilingualism varies greatly. But what is important is not the political border but the linguistic one, and they are seldom the same, except when they correspond to certain natural elements such as oceans, mountains or deserts which can prevent the spreading of language. A quite important difference in the linguistic border and the political one can bring about the existence of a bilingual country such as Switzerland and Belgium.
Historic events can also upset the geographic distribution of bilingualism. Historic events alter national borders and political groups.
On the political level, federalism has promoted bilingualism in Malaysia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. The number of unilingual people in each of those linguistic communities is a determining factor for the importance of bilingualism.
If Ireland, in spite of strenuous efforts is still one of the least bilingual countries, it is largely because unilingual Englishmen exceed bilingual Irishmen in a ratio of 50 to 1.
If on the contrary, South Africa, where 73 per cent of the population can pride themselves of speaking both languages, is the most bilingual country in the world, it is largely
Official Languages
because the unilingual people for both official languages is almost equivalent, 15 per cent for English and 11 per cent for Afrikaans.
The larger the difference in number between two linguistic communities, the higher the percentage of bilingual people in the minority community, provided however, that other factors do not intervene to change the order of things.
In Wales, 82 per cent of Welshmen are bilingual at 12 years of age, as against 4 per cent of Englishmen.
Around 740 A.D., the slaves of the Arabic army had to learn Arabic. In Britain, after the Norman conquest, the Normans occupying nearly all the key positions contributed largely to the establishment of bilingualism among a good number of Anglo-Saxons and kept French alive until the Hundred Years' War. We all know what influence these generations of bilingual people had on the English language, which is still replete with French terms.
On the other hand, the Romans never tried to impose their language, nor did the Greek, although both their imperialisms were founded mainly on language and not on race or nationality. The language was not imposed on the population; rather it was offered as a privilege. As the language became more uniform and standardized, it gained more converts. The standardization and the diffusion of the language were due to a network of schools.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in Canada also, through teaching, which can, it is true, help the ascendance of a language, we could increase the influence of a tongue by including it in the curriculum. For instance, the use of English was forbidden in the British schools in the thirteenth century.
If prosperity can destroy a language, poverty can bring the same result. A period of economic recession in the area where the minority language is spoken can bring about disastrous effects.
During the second half of the nineteenth century, almost all the Irish Gaeltacht was affected by a famine led to massive emigration. In the course of one generation, the language, which was that of half the country's population, became that of a small minority.
The predominating language in Luxemburg, where a Teutonic dialect is spoken, is alive perhaps only because the national economy requires the existence of a trade treaty.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that French Canadians are concerned about the turn of events, and that, in turn, they plead with English-speaking Canadians to understand them, in order that Canada may be maintained as the country we want it to be.
The case of the Aramaic language shows, as I have explained a moment ago, that effective means of communication can develop the influence of a language. Aramaean nomads went to Mesopotamia, adopted a similar writing to that of the Phoenician,-a running and efficient handwriting,-which resulted in the establishment of Aramaic as the international language throughout the East, beyond the sphere of influence of those who spoke the language. Since business papers were written in that language, it spread very rapidly through the great commercial channels and, in some countries, it became the court language.
Another factor, Mr. Speaker, is isolation which may preserve the existence of a language. That was the case for Frisian, Lappish, Romansch, Welsh, Irish and Scotch.
Besides, that is the reason why some separatists say: Even if we are isolated, we shall continue to protect our French language. Isolation is a way for minority languages to avoid being absorbed by majority languages.
Some languages survive longer than others. How long does it take for a language to disappear when survival conditions no longer exist? It took a thousand years for Coptic to disappear from Egypt, while in one generation Norse had disappeared in France.
The language that survives the longest is the one that generally boasts the most literary works. Latin and Greek are excellent examples. They are taught even now as second language in our schools.
All the causes I have just enumerated, Mr. Speaker, give some variations of the main dimensions of bilingualism: distribution, stability and function that affect the individual, the language and the group. The effects on the individual may be emotional, intellectual and cultural. Some of them have been considered as hindrances, other as advantages. Let us first consider the so-called hindrances.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As far as the emotional effects of bilingualism are concerned, it has been maintained that bilingual children lack self-confidence or have a low level of maturity, that they show symptoms of introversion and that

they have the feeling that sometimes then-thinking is not clear.
It is maintained also that, in South Africa, since bilingual pupils are instructed in the tongue which is less familiar to them, emotional troubles develop.
The so-called intellectual inconveniences of bilingualism are connected to the part played by the language in the way the child learns to think. The younger the child, the more important is the part played by the language in his intellectual development. According to some, bilingual children cannot express themselves with precision; they have difficulty in handling abstract concepts and the rational faculties of the child, discouraged by bilingualism, interfere with his development of ideas or concepts.
That is why, faced with the incoming tide of that English uniligualism, we, in the province of Quebec, have seen bills such as the one passed in the legislature that in Quebec the working language be the French language.
However the fact remains that there are cultural impediments. Some maintain that a bilingual person is deprived of cultural roots or has an hybrid culture and cannot reach deeply in neither one nor the other cultures and thus remains a marginal person.
Undoubtedly bilingualism has an effect at least on one of the languages and in the end changes it or suppresses it. Generally speaking, it is the dominant language which influences the other, as can be assessed by the number of words borrowed from the other tongue.
When in a given country, a language other than the original one prevails for some time, the latter is never the same again.
To wit, the state of English after the Norman conquest, and that of the Persian language after Arab control.
In some cases, a hybrid or a creole tongue is born, as in the case of Haiti and New Guinea.
When a language is submitted to the influence of another, people often react to save it by setting up various organizations, by launching out campagns to rid it of the words borrowed from the prevailing language. But few of these movements ever meet with success, Mr. Speaker, unless they are fostered by outside conditions.
Generally, the State does not do away with the tongue of a minority; it merely ignores it and apathy does the rest. In this way, bilingualism leads ultimately to the complete
May 20, 1969

elimination of one of the languages. Such was the case, generally speaking, of the languages of Britanny.
Take Egypt, for instance: over a period of 1000 years, it went through five stages of transitory bilingualism. First of all, under the domination of Persia in 323 B.C.; then, under that of the Greeks until roughly about 146 B.C.; later under the Romans until about 640 A.D. And finally under Arab domination. Still, the Egyptian language remained a living language until the 18th century.
Finally, what is the effect of bilingualism on the group, that is the community or the nation? From bilingualism, spread intelligently within a multilingual nation can grow the feeling of belonging to one and the same nation.
In Czechoslovakia, for example, bilingualism managed to overcome the extreme exclusivism of national groups which had been a destructive force within the family and at school.
In the Soviet Union, it would seem that bilingualism was the main factor of equality amongst the various national groups.
The debates concerning the effects of bilingualism result to a great extent from the multiple-dimension character of this phenomenon and to the high degree of variability of every dimension. For instance, an immigrant child will benefit from bilingualism because it is easy for him to comply with it, while another one will not profit by it, because he cannot become easily adjusted to it.
The importance and value of every factor vary from one person to another and from one area to another. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so difficult to establish a causality between bilingualism and other aspects of human behaviour.
In a country where bilingualism is inevitable, the policy should strive to take advantage of all the benefits derived from bilingualism and to minimize its disadvantages. But if a country ignores bilingualism, disadvantages will most likely outweight advantages.
That is why an officially bilingual country, as Canada might be, should encourage the study of the phenomenon of bilingualism as such. It is that phenomenon I tried to explain. It is gaining ground and I believe the English-speaking people also wish to promote French culture, as I found out during my trip to western Canada and personally, it appears to me as something really complex and of
Official Languages
multiple dimensions, unsteady by nature but nevertheless liable to be studied in a scientific way.
The basic solution to our Canadian problem does not lie in documents, however useful they may be. Complete unity will be achieved when the Canadian people will understand its meaning and will truly want it. It will be the outcome of what you and I and 18 million-21 million people now-think and do. If we show tolerance, imagination and foresight, then the light will shine on our future. The two great communities which make up Canada have fostered prejudices and made mistakes. But, I think that today, as a Canadian, I am quite aware of our past and present errors, and I think that by giving a few examples, the vague and erroneous view which we often witness among our people will be completely cast off some day.
A few years ago,, before the royal commission which bears a long name, in Winnipeg, the manager of a local radio station was telling about the linguistic problems he was up against in establishing his broadcasting timetable. To the question as to the number of foreign languages in which he was broadcasting his programs, he answered more or less the following:
There is German, Ukrainian and French.
He should have been reminded that in Canada, French was not a foreign language since it was spoken before English. His remark was nevertheless quite candid, but as long as such answers will be given in Canada, we will certainly not be able to approach some vital questions in a climate of justice and truth.
The Right Hon. Vincent Massey said one day that the French culture came first to Canada. It has been said, and rightly so, that Quebec is indeed a motherland in itself, that is, homogeneous community which defends and perpetuates the great traditions it has inherited. It is a stronghold of French culture whose links with French-speaking Canadians from coast to coast are very powerful. And it is good that it should be so.
A very learned man stated once, in Quebec City, that language is a key which opens the door of your neighbour. If all Canadians could speak our two national languages, one can assume that the basic problem of lack of unity would still exist. But even if bilingualism never completely solved this problem, it will contribute a great deal to increase the real dialogue between our two cultures, a

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
dialogue that Canadians of good will, whether of English or French expression, have kept going but which is in danger of being interrupted today.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Of course,, we cannot expect that every Canadian will eventually speak both languages. However, we can focus on a high though attainable objective, and bend all our energies to it.
The Right Hon. Vincent Massey added:
1 feel that we should insist that all our young people be able, as early as the second year of high school, to read an easy text in French and express without hesitation at least a few correct and understandable sentences in that language.
He was then speaking to English-speaking Canadians.
In Scandinavian countries and in the Netherlands, classical students, in high school, study three modern language to which they can add two ancient languages. Are we lazier, less intelligent or less aware of our duty and of our true interests than they are? I do not think so.
Let us consider the situation of the French Canadian who has learned English, speaks it and understands it well, or if not well, at least enough to get along. He is called upon to sit on a national commission with other Canadians from various parts of the country. Matters will almost certainly be dealt with in English. This man is handicapped in two respects. First, though he may express his ideas properly, he probably does it more slowly and with less accuracy than his colleagues who speak their maternal tongue. He has the feeling of not being perfectly understood, or both at the same time. If the debate waxes hot, he feels his handicap more keenly.
We all know that in such meetings, it is sometimes difficult to precise clearly one's thoughts, even in one's own language. We have all at some time had the feeling that we had not done ourselves justice. Well, French Canadians have that feeling nearly all the time. If only they could in their own language, get this subtle shade of meaning across. But nobody would understand them anyway. They are fighting but on someone else's ground. It is not surprising therefore that the discussion, which normally should have been friendly, leaves them with a feeling of uneasiness, when it is not of downright frustration.
Few people know that extreme weariness, when it does not affect the very faculty of

thinking, leaves one with a very poor vocabu-lory. This paralyzing weariness can quickly appear when one is using a language which, though mastered, is not one's own.
I think the differences and even the tensions existing between Canadians could become the source of a new vitality. This surplus of energy could be harnessed for the benefit of all Canadians, to improve economic and social conditions, to increase the opportunities for every citizen, regardless of his or her language, and to enable Canada to increase its contribution to the well-being of humanity at large. Then the enormous resources of the two cultural groups, French and English, would be tapped, with the addition of the enriching contribution made by Canadians of other cultural backgrounds, everybody working in his own way to the achievement of common objectives.
It is interesting to note that in Switzerland, as in Belgium, the French-speaking people have a reputation to be the less eager to use the language of their fellow-countrymen. This is particularly true in Belgium. It has often been said that if a group of Swiss, Italians or Germans speak French among themselves, it is because there is at least one Frenchspeaking Swiss in their midst.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks, I say that we Canadians of Quebec will support this Bill C-120, because it will encourage dialogue between the two great races of Canada and thus put an end to this monologue which has existed in parliament for one hundred years. I congratulate the government on having introduced this bill, and I will vote for it, conscious that I will be helping all Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Income tax-request for exemption of old age pensioners; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Communication-Bell Canada-alleged disregard of investment return regulations; the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau)-Regional Economic Expansion- Atlantic Development Board-government policy.
May 20. 1969



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to open a short parenthesis and thank the hon. leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) for the advertising he did twice last week for a choir from my community; this choir is made up of some 110 young people between 18 and 19 years of age, who can perform in both languages. I would like to support his recommendation to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) that the government finance trips across Canada for these young people so that they can serve as an example of national unity for the whole of the country.

When rising to speak on Bill-C120, one is prone to remember we have been talking about bilingualism for at least 200 years. It is probable we will discuss it for another century or two, but we must admit that in the last few years there has been a great deal more discussion, mainly as a result of the progress made in this country.

I am among those who try to be authentic Canadians and who want unity in diversity for Canada, and I believe, like Antoine de Saint-Exupery, that the greatest vocation in the world is to try and unite men.
But to unite them they surely must be persuaded to speak both languages, or at least to understand them, because I believe that the only way to be united is to understand each other.
That is why I shall, as briefly as possible underline a few important facts, for instance that the use of French is an historical right for French Canadians, that the use of French is a natural right throughout Canada, that bilingualism is an everyday fact in several countries, that bilingualism is a cultural factor, an enrichment for everyone, and finally that bilingualism is a factor of national unity
Official Languages
recognized and practiced for many years by French Canadians.
I think it should be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, that we ask of our English speaking fellow Canadians to do what we have been practicing for over one hundred years in Quebec, where we accept even unilingual people in our midst and we get along fine with them and as we provide as best we can Englishspeaking Canadians with services in their own language.
It seems to me that in the field of bilingualism, there are some misunderstandings. It is a fact. It was mentioned here this afternoon. There are misunderstandings. At the outset, the bill should define what is meant by bilingualism. I believe that what is wanted is official bilingualism, and nothing more.
English-speaking people imagine that French Canadians want to force all Englishspeaking Canadians to speak French all the time. That is not the idea, not in the least.
On the French side, there are some people, above all Separatists, who think that the French language is in jeopardy and that some Great Wall of China should be built around the province of Quebec so as to protect our mother tongue.
Other people claim that unilingual officials could be dismissed. I think it will not be the case. But even if it were the case, some of our French-speaking colleagues should be reminded that for a hundred years, in the province of Quebec we have been dealing with English-speaking federal officials. We have put up with it, as Christians should, for all these years. Now our young people are angry, they refuse to stand it any more. They will call for bilingualism, and for an equal statute in the whole of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, what we want, I will say it again, is that the French-Canadians who are one of the two main ethnic groups in this country, who of course enjoy a kind of seniority right, since they came first to come to this country, who have for two centuries given the proof that they are faithful subjects of the Canadian nation, and even of the British Empire, want to be now considered and treated as full-fledged Canadians. They accept no longer to be treated as second-class Canadians, outside their province.
What we want is that they have a right in provincial Assemblies, in the courts of justice, within the Crown corporations in Federal departments, to use their mother tongue if they want to.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
It goes without saying, that I shall not dwell on all the objections of the fanatics, of the "jingoes" that we talked about this afternoon. Those people -can be found on either side. I believe we should try and discuss this problem of bilingualism as serenely as possible. Today I would like merely to speak to Canadians of goodwill, and avoid partisanship as much as possible, as I notice with a great deal of satisfaction that members of different parties seem to have come to some sort of agreement in this respect. It is fortunate indeed that there is no partisanship and that nobody takes advantage of such a difficult issue to resort to demagoguery. There are a few exceptions, unfortunately, but perhaps it would be better not to grant them undue attention.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Historically, England and the government of Her Majesty have probably better understood French Canadians than some fanatics at home, who would like to see the battle of the Plains of Abraham still be fought and to remind us, Quebecers, that we are conquered, colonized, in short!
As for those who fear the domination of French Canadians in the federal public life, we can reassure them; there is no question of that for many reasons. The first, is that we are too few in number and all we are asking is to be masters at home, first in Quebec; then, to be on an equal footing with the rest of the people in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize a little what the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) and a few other members said a while ago.
The people who are really responsible for separatism in the province of Quebec are precisely the English-speaking Canadians who have not understood the fundamental fact that there are two founding races who speak different languages. It is the uncompromising attitude of these people which has imposed upon us, French speaking Canadians, laws of exception, of discrimination, as it happened in Ontario, in Manitoba, in the Northwest Territories and in some other provinces, when the question of the teaching languages in the schools was being discussed.
That is what brought about the separatist trend that we are witnessing in the province of Quebec and which we, supporters of federalism and Canadianism, want to fight unreservedly, through practical measures. That is why we ask all hon. members of goodwill to co-operate with us to prevent the

fabric of the Canadian federation from being torn apart.
Our young people in Quebec are angry; they will not accept for another century the glaring inequities they had to bear in the past.
From a historical point of view, practical bilingualism has always been recognized in our province, at least in principle.

Around 1774 Lord Edward Thurlow, who was Attorney General of Great Britain, expressed this way the intentions of the British government towards the French Canadians:
You ought to change those laws which relate to French sovereignty ... but with respect to all other laws, all other customs and institutions whatever, which are indifferent to the state ol subject and sovereign, humanity, justice and wisdom equally conspire to advise you to leave the people just as they were-
The language laws related of course to all of Canada at the time.
The great Edmund Burke did not think differently when he said:
I consider the right of conquest so little, and the right of human nature so much, that the former has little consideration with me. I look upon the people of Canada as coming, by the dispensation of God, under the British government. I would have us govern it in the same manner as the all-wise disposition of Providence would govern us.

And Lord Grenville, setting forth in the House of Lords in 1792 the principle of the Canadian constitution, said and I quote:
The province of Canada differs by reason of its situation from the other British colonies in America. It was not founded or originally conquered by this country and the British laws could not be applied there unchanged. It is a province conquered over another country, a colony having already its system of laws, its agricultural industry and its trade.
I continue with the quotation:
The French Canadians' love for their customs, their language and their manners which they prefer to those of England has been called prejudice. Such a love deserves a better name than prejudice.
Such love is based on reason, on something better than reason, on the best feelings of the human heart.
And it is not a French Canadian who says that.
At about the same time, a French-Canadian parliamentarian, Mr. de Lotbiniere, stated in
May 20. 1969

connection with the same problem and I quote:
The statute of the 14th year of His Majesty's reign proves the truth of what I am saying. Our religion is preserved, our property rights are assured and we should enjoy all our civil rights as amply, as extensively and as profitably as if there had been no proclamation, ordinance, order nor other public act. After the issuance of such a solemn legislation which has not been repealed, can we believe that Parliament wanted to withdraw what it has so generously granted us;
He is speaking of the British Parliament of course.
-can we believe that by assuring us our rights as citizens, by maintaining our property rights,
-Therefore, the French language-
-they would refuse to listen whenever we use that language, that they would refuse to read the notes we present to them on a text they have granted us. That cannot be. We see a continuation of the benevolence of this august Parliament in the act of the thirty-first year of the reign of His Majesty.
On July 3, 1793, the right hon. Henry Dun-das, the Home Secretary of the British Parliament wrote to lord Dorchester, governor of Canada:
About the orders of the house that bills relating to laws, traditions, customs and rights of the province will be introduced in French ... At the same time, I have no objection to a standing rule providing that any bill of the nature mentioned above be introduced in the house with a French translation.
It will be agreed that this was a great deal if one bears in mind that those words were spoken after the conquest, almost 200 years before the enlightened century we live in, when kings had power of life and death over the conquered peoples. All that had been prepared by British authorities, whose broadness of mind is all to their credit.
On October 27, 1764, Murray wrote to Lord Eglinton, and I quote:
French Canadians are perhaps the most noblest and bravest races of the world. If they are granted certain rights, they will be the most loyal and most useful group of men in this American empire.
All that was ratified about 1769, when another British governor won his case before the London parliament. I mentioned Lord Carleton who then objected to the theory of attorney-general Maseres, as those who have studied history will recall, who preached on behalf of assimilation. One can see that fanatics existed long before today. As for Carleton, who recommended reconciliation, 29180-561
Official Languages
against Maseres' extolling of assimilation, he declared, and I quote:
-we must not forget that the Canadian people is not made up of British emigrants, who brought with them the laws of England, but of inhabitants who are part of a long-established colony, which her Majesty's arms forced to submit to its power, under certain conditions.
We must also consider that their laws and traditions are very different from the laws and traditions of England, but that like the latter they are based on unwritten law and equity, that their honor, their properties, and their income as well as the king's taxes depend largely on those laws and traditions.
And in 1770, attorney general Marriott, who to this day is known as a fanatic, wrote the following to the British parliament. He said:
From the point of view of international law, I consider capitulation not only as a national agreement, but as an agreement made with the inhabitants in consideration of their will to cease all resistance. The honour and the interests of this kingdom are at stake, and the agreement must be fully complied with.
However, we were promised that all our rights would be preserved, our language included, and we never understood this to be only for the Quebec "reservation".
Mr. Speaker, is it necessary to make further quotations in order to show our hon. friends that from the beginning of British regime, here in Canada, the most brilliant minds were advising the British crown which had already accepted that view, to consider French Canadians as first class citizens who would retain the right to speak their mother tongue throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the sitting stands suspended until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, before dinner, I tried to explain, with quotations and facts, that politicians who presided over the early relationships between Canada and Great Britain, from 1760 to 1800, were rather well disposed towards the French Canadian group, in particular in

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
connection with that question of languages, and I believe their statements fully prove it.

I shall continue for a little while in English. I realize that it might be annoying to my listeners if I speak for a while in French and then in English, but I believe it is still the best way to set an example for the rest of Canada if we really believe in bilingualism. I have a special quotation I should like to read. I chose it on purpose to refute what I heard on television last Friday night when the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) opposed the bill for a lot of specious reasons. He blamed the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) for having introduced the bill. He thought it should have been introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). The hon. member should realize this is such an important bill that the cabinet decided two ministers should introduce it. I am surprised that the hon. member for Prince Albert, a very devoted follower and admirer of Sir John A. Macdonald, holds this opinion. I repeat that I dedicate this quotation from Sir John A. Macdonald to the hon. member for Prince Albert. The Father of Confederation once said:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other: I believe that would be impossible if it were tried and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is a conquered country is a propos de rien.
Whether it was conquered or ceded, we have a constitution under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having rights of every kind, of language, of religion, of property and of person. There is no paramount race in this country, there is no conquered race in this country, we are all British subjects, and those who are not English are nonetheless British subjects on that account.
Let me go further, Mr, Speaker, and say that in or about the year 1818 the British government appointed a committee to inquire into the position of modern languages and the educational system of Great Britain. Here is one of their conclusions:
French is by far the most important language in the history of modern civilizations-
We are better than all other people.
-for England was in the fourth century the pupil-notwithstanding the enemy, the rival-but always in some degree under the influence of France. From every point of view French is for us above all the most important living tongue.
[Mr. Mongrain.l
Also I am sure everybody realizes that the Queen is perfectly bilingual. I do not doubt that the hon. member for Prince Albert will be willing to follow her example. After all those citations, let me bring forth the argument that the Queen is fluently bilingual; she has practically no accent. I think most of her predecessors whom I have known or heard about on the throne of England spoke French with a tremendously judicious choice of words. Should not this serve as an example to those who still hesitate to master two languages and thus deprive themselves of something that could enrich their lives?
We speak French but we are bilingual in Quebec. We did not wait for this bill to become bilingual. I hail from the second French speaking city established in North America, which was founded in 1634, a century before the ancestors of the member for Prince Albert came to this country. I was born in a small country village where I do not think anyone could speak English or had any need to learn it except for the sake of culture and mutual understanding with our fellow Canadians of English descent. We have learned it.
In our courts of justice, our municipal councils, our legislatures and our associations our English speaking fellow Canadians are treated as members of the family. Most of them are bilingual. There are still a few who are not. We, I think, have set an example. That is the example we wish the people all over the country to follow. I think this is one thing that should convince those who hesitate to accept this official bilingualism. We are only asking them to make the effort to do what we have been doing for decades, if not for centuries. I know there have been incidents, and I will talk about them later.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that bilingualism is impossible, that it is utopian but I am going to try to prove the contrary. Once again, it should be clearly understood that we are not speaking of integral bilingualism; what we want is official bilingualism for those who need it.
A few years ago, a society was formed in France which was named the Bilingual World; it put out a magazine entitled A World Where People Get Along With One Another. Here are a few excerpts from its manifesto:
To get to know one another,
To get along with each other.
May 20, 1969

To live in peace
The peoples of the whole world will have to learn, in addition to their mother tongue, a second language. We must build.
A bilingual world or, in other words, a world with two languages.
What languages shall they be?
For the English and North Americans, French.
For the French and French-speaking peoples, English.
For the other peoples, French or English, as the nationals choose.
As you can see, Canada is not the only country where bilingualism is important.
At the Atlantic Community Studies' International Conference held at Oxford from September 7 to 13, 1952, the representatives of the 14 Atlantic nations adopted unanimously a motion approving the principle of that bilingualism, and providing for its implementation in primary schools and in the armed forces.
Mr. Michel Debre, a well-known French statesman, said about the same time:
French-speaking nations should learn English, English-speaking nations should learn French. The other nations could choose between one or the other for their external relations. Language is one of the keys to solidarity. The promotion of the two most common languages is certainly the only means at our disposal to give the western world an instrument for understanding and to build, according to the rules peculiar to the free world, a power that is essential to the safeguard of a civilization.
I said a while ago that the Queen is bilingual. I have here a text written by the Queen mother when she sent a note to a magazine on behalf of Princess Margaret. This is what she said:

Her Royal Highness has read with interest of your purpose to encourage the cultivation of a bilingual facility in English and French. This has so many advantages that I need not assure you of Her Royal Highness' sympathy in such an effort.

I also dedicate that to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), Mr. Speaker.
I have here also other evidence a brief reading of which might prove interesting. For instance, professor Martini Hartman, from Leipzig, chairman of the neo-philological association of Germany, said the following, and I quote:
As a German citizen, I wish my mother tongue were granted the honour... however, from an objective point of view, I have to admit that the opportunities for French in combination with English are infinitely greater than those of German combined with French, or of German combined with English.
29180-561J
Official Languages
Daniel Rops, a French philosopher, known internationally, read even by English-speaking philosophers, a master with followers in the whole world, has stated his opinion as follows, and I quote:
On the whole, to do away with this tower of Babel-
-the misunderstanding between people-
-it would suffice that one language be declared compulsory, from primary schools, in all countries, or else to admit the use, as a second language, of two languages of universal significance, English and French, for example.
And he added:
Would not a pool of languages be as important as coal-steel pool?
The late lamented President Eisenhower, whose memory is regretted, also expressed on this subject an opinion published in newspapers. He declared himself fully in favour of the bilingual movement which extends throughout the world and pledged his personal support to it.
Mr. Anthony Eden, an English statesman, also expressed his opinion on this subject. I quote his words for the edification of hon. members who refuse to get out of this habit of fanaticism and who do not want to recognize that there are really two founding nations which have legal rights. Before leaving the field of politics, let us come back to what the former Prime Minister of England, Mr. Anthony Eden, said and I quote:
I sincerely wish to do all I can in order to promote the study of our two languages on the widest possible scale, and I shall not fail to consider the proposals for bilingualism which have been made to us-
He was then addressing the Association of the bilingual world, we were referring to earlier-
-as a means to reach this highly desirable goal.
He made that statement in 1952.
The late Adlai Stevenson, who was a candidate to the presidency of the United States, also made a statement in this respect. I quote:
I am in favour of French-English bilingualism and I shall do my utmost in order to promote its concept and its application in the United States.
It is said that bilingualism may be a utopia or a fad. However, Mr. Speaker, there have been bilingual countries in the world for many centuries. In the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, everyone who had pretensions to culture spoke Latin and Greek besides his mother tongue.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
In every Chancery of every newly-formed country, people had a knowledge of both those languages, and sometimes of three or four other dialects.
The Italian, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the English, Duns Scot, the German, Saint Alber-tus Magnus, and many other great philosophers and scientists understood one another very well because they were bilingual, and that enabled them to bequeath to the world philosophical masterpieces which are still read by today's philosophers and scientists.
Everyone knows that the use of Latin and Greek is decreasing while French and English are making progress. That is why enlightened and broad-minded people advise those who take pride in being cultured or competent, to those who wish to communicate with their fellow men, their brothers, of all races, to learn a second language.
And this afternoon, a member of the Rallie-ment creditiste mentioned a large number of countries where bilingualism is in favour.
More than 2,000 years before the Christian era, Mr. Speaker, we find in Mesopotamia-as a member of the Ralliement creditiste said- an example of a bilingual state-


An hon. Member:: The honourable member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont).


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: -the hon. member for Frontenac, thank you-the example of a bilingual state where two official languages co-existed, Acadian, the language of the Semite conquerors, used in everyday life, and Sumerian, the ancient pre-Semite tongue of the conquered people, which became the sacred language.
Today, Switzerland is a bilingual country, as well as Belgium and Luxemburg; there are African and South American nations where the people speak fluently their mother tongue and French or English, and sometimes three languages.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Again, several countries are a proof that bilingualism can exist even if it sometimes gives rise to certain inevitable wrangles. As quarrels sometimes arise between members of the same family, so can they happen sometimes, as to details, between members of a bilingual nation. But as concerns the essential, people understand themselves better when they can speak in languages they usually understand, and when they do not need interpreters to be understood.

After all, Mr. Speaker, what is it we want in this country? If an English-speaking Canadian can speak French, apart from the personal prestige this will give him, the pleasure of being more easily on friendly terms with his fellow-citizens, of being more efficient, he will be able to count on his government's gratitude if he works in the public service. As for the French Canadian who has made the effort of learning English, he will benefit from the same advantages.
The purpose is also to make French Canadians feel at home throughout the country, as English Canadians feel at home when they come to Quebec, because their language is spoken there, first as a gesture of courtesy and also for the sake of brotherhood between fellow-citizens of a same country.
Again, nobody will be forced to know both languages at once. It is merely a matter of prompting all those who can do it to do so and also of asking that public service officials deal with all Canadians in one or another of the official languages.
The fact will obviously remain that apart from professional efficiency, people able to speak two, three or even four languages will always be more qualified and superior, all things being equal, to others. To those who understand that, I would suggest that they learn three or four.
Still, this is a field, Mr. Speaker, which can lead to anger, sentimentality, stirring of popular passions, demagoguery, fanaticism or jingoism-it could easily be done-because one's mother tongue is something fundamental to the human being. It enables him to express his innermost feelings. I have seen several cases such as that. I have seen many cases of it back home. I still see some occasionally but I do believe I see more cases of it elsewhere in Canada when persuing its history in the last few years.
I am appealing to our English-speaking brothers elsewhere in Canada who are sensible, that an end be put to the exaggerations of recent years of our angry young men in Quebec, because they are fed up with injustices, with promises that never come to anything.
Once again, I appeal to the conscience of all the members. I urge them not to listen to the complaints of those who in fact indulge in this type of discrimination and who will not, or cannot, understand that there really can be two peoples who are both entitled to their own mother tongue.
May 20, 1969

I feel it behooves each and every member to go back home and explain that principle to those of their constituents who And it difficult to understand, and to show them that Quebec is not asking for favours but, as the hon. member for Charlevoix said this afternoon, merely to be treated as all the other citizens are across Canada, as we were treated with fairness. .. .so far, when it was a question of paying taxes or of serving in the army to save the fatherland.
Mr. Chairman, corporations realize these things today; and they offer courses to their employees.
A constitutional argument is put forward. They are trying to be legalistic in order to oppose this decision of parliament which will entrench once and for all what we have been waiting for over a century. However, it is not a question that will be solved simply by raising constitutional objections because there are six millions Canadians who feel in their hearts and souls that time has come for them to be put on an equal footing with everybody else.
Out of this number, more than five millions in my province will no longer accept, tomorrow, to be treated as inferior beings. They were requested, in order to be allowed to work in the public service, to speak English. They learned it, even when they did not need it. We ask our English-speaking fellow-citizens to do the same thing towards the French-Canadians.
It is possible to add fuel to the fire, but I think that in conclusion I could do no better than to thank and to congratulate all the members who have acknowledged this principle.
In particular, I congratulate the leader of my party, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who had the courage to bring in the bill.
I thank and I commend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) as well, for approving the guiding principle of the bill. I also thank the leader of the Rallie-ment Creditiste (Mr.. Caouette) for defending that cause.
We may have different opinions on how to implement the bill, but I think that if, as a matter of principle, we favour demogoguent and discrimination, if we are divided instead of being united and trying to persuade all Canadians that this an important and urgent matter, we shall have done a disservice to this country.
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, this bill is too important to allow such an attitude. That is why I am happy to see that many of my colleagues of all parties approve the principle of this bill, which will make the next century a more prosperous one, because Canadians will understand each other better. Instead of creating confusion in their relations, they will speak languages they will understand.
I conclude by recalling a few words from Saint-Exupery, and I quote:
The greatest vocation for men is to unite men-
-and the best way to unite them is to help them speak languages they all understand.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, under the new rules of procedure in the house, at this stage we are making suggestions preliminary to the submission of the legislation to the special committee that will be set up to deal further with this matter. Ordinarily, there would not be an extended debate at this period. However, I shall take this opportunity afforded by second reading to make recommendations which I trust will be taken into consideration by the committee when it begins to focus on this bill. I do so at this stage because, from rather bitter experience, I am discovering that the new procedures have a tendency to make it extremely difficult for a private member of the House of Commons to have direct participation in discussion at the committee stage.
We have only a few members of the house represented on the committee. I recall the recent debate on Bill C-150. It was impossible, following the consideration of the matter at the committee stage, for a private member to have amendments to the bill taken seriously into consideration. Again this afternoon we ran into a further complication arising from the committee system. The Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, which is concerned with matters pertaining to the department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), was called together to sit while the house was sitting. Some of us raised a protest in the committee this afternoon and pointed out that there was another extremely important matter under consideration in the House of Commons. I think all hon. members will agree that the House of Commons has first call upon the services of members of parliament, including the members of the executive. It was doubly important that members of this committee should be in the house, because the

May 20. 1969
Official Languages
Secretary of State is piloting this legislation through the house.
As a result of attendance at the committee I was, unfortunately, unable to hear the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) whom we thought would be responsible for dealing with this important issue in the house. Therefore, the comments I shall make this evening will be without the benefit of having heard his speech. The attention of several hon. members of the house was divided due to what I thought was the unnecessary calling together of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to deal with another matter, that of putting Telesat into orbit. Telesat has never been mentioned by the government house leader as having great priority. It is very difficult to understand why at this stage the government is putting pressure on hon. members to deal with other matters, particularly when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State and other hon. members have pointed out that Bill C-120 is considered of most urgent importance, inasmuch as it is concerned with the preservation of national unity in this country.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) has just said that when the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) criticizes the fact that the torch has been thrown to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), this is not the case at all. He says this bill is so important there are two ministers piloting it through the House of Commons, and this indicates the government is giving top priority to the measure. Why then are we diverting the emphasis?


Mr. Osier:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Will the hon. member allow the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) to ask a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, if the hon. member wishes to do so.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I want to ask a double-barrelled question.


Mr. Monteith:: Of course, it would be.


Edmund Boyd Osler: When I was attending the meeting of the broadcasting committee this morning, the hon. member was not present. He could have attended it had he been interested
IMr. Dinsdale.]
in broadcasting, and I wondered why he did not do so. My other question is this: If the hon. member for Prince Albert can give all his opinions ex gratia, without having attended the committee, I do not know why this hon. member cannot do so.


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


An hon. Member:: Where was the hon.
member last month?


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Winnipeg would be glad to hear what you said.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member said he had a double-barrelled question. I think he had a question with a double meaning because, as I explained in the committee before the hon. gentleman arrived this afternoon-he had not arrived there by the afternoon, let alone the morning-


Mr. Forreslall:: Everybody sleeps in once in a while.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I explained in the committee, and this is one of the problems with our committee system which is destroying the effectiveness of this House of Commons, I was busily engaged in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is impossible to be in two places at once. But the point I am making here, which seems to be irritating the hon. gentleman opposite, is that the government is downgrading the role of parliament, and this has been the case in respect of this bill. It was introduced before we actually knew its final form. Some amendments have been placed before us, but they have no significance at all until they are put before the committee and a decision is made on whether or not the committee approves them. Opposition members have not even had the opportunity to propose amendments, so it is in a sort of never-never atmosphere that we are debating this important subject at the moment. I think it was Mr. Charles Lynch, in an article following the debate on Friday, who said that it was an act of lunacy on the part of the government to irritate parliament on a controversial matter of this nature by failing to put the amendments before the house.
I enjoyed the statement made by the Secretary of State when he introduced the bill. He speaks English with an accent that would have charmed the heart of my old Irish mother, and he speaks it in a way that indicates he has already assumed the mantle of the
May 20, 1969

minister of culture. Of course, the ministry of culture, when and if it is established in Canada, would require all the arts of the propagandist. I thought that the Secretary of State on Friday afternoon handled his assignment very effectively from that standpoint. But the truth of the matter is-and this is proof of the fact that the government is schizophrenic and of two minds on these matters-the government was emphasizing in the committee the fact that Telestat and other developmental programs that are concerned with the economy of Canada are the real stuff and substance of national progress and development. I am speaking tonight as one who has strongly supported the notion that the government priorities at this stage in the parliamentary session should be in the direction of economic matters rather than symbolic or cultural matters. This opinion is supported by some very sound leaders from the province of Quebec as well as from other provinces of Canada.
I speak tonight as a representative of a western constituency, a part of Canada that is faced with a problem of extreme economic consequence if it is not dealt with very quickly by this dilatory government. I am referring of course to the problem of the grain situation on the prairies. Ever since parliament came together last fall, western members have been asking the government for emergency action to deal with the crisis among the grain growers of the prairies which is becoming more acute with each passing day. All we get in response is the lethargic attitude of the government that in due course they will do something about this matter. Obviously, they do not understand the economy of the prairies because the farmer is into another crop year. He is faced with indebtedness from the past year because he cannot pay his debts until he sells his crop. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) this afternoon, a good many shipping points in the west are still on the unit basis. They do not even have their initial quotas.
I want to protest in the strongest terms against this failure of the government of the just society to come to grips with the real issues that are gnawing at the vitals of national unity and of the Canadian confederation. I have good support for this stand from within the cabinet ranks and I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) will deal with this matter in the House of Commons because, in a strongly worded speech to the provincial Liberal leadership convention a week ago Saturday in the city of
Official Languages
Winnipeg, he put his attitude on the record in the following words:-


Mr. Orlikow:: He will regret it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The article reads:
James Richardson, newly appointed federal supply minister, says it is time to end western alienation by eastern Canada.
The Winnipeg South M.P. told the Saturday Liberal leadership convention the West should be allowed to set up its own trade tariff agreements and that big business should let the West retain earnings now "funnelled" east through head offices there.
He said westerners do not want to pull out of Confederation but are anxious to renegotiate the terms upon which they stay in.
It goes on in that vein.
"At the present time, a disproportionate amount of economic benefits accrue to eastern Canada as a consequence of both government and business structures," he said.
While the West is willing to offer its vast resources and economic strength to the whole of Canada "what westerners do not want, is to be made into a vassal state".
Those are the words of Canada's Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson), and they reflect the attitude that prevails to an alarming degree in an important region of Canada, namely, west of the head of the lakes. I would like to point out also that in the past the problems of confederation and national unity that have torn the body politic asunder have not been related to cultural, social or linguistic issues but rather economic discontent.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Let me go back to the period of the progressives. The progressives spawned the C.C.F. movement which gave birth to the New Democratic Party. In addition, the progressives, which was essentially an agrarian protest movement, also spawned the social credit movement. It is interesting that both these groups which have migrated to the east in strong numbers are now emphasizing the importance of symbolic and cultural matters in contrast to the basic economic issues which were stressed by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson).


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg your indulgence but I should like to be informed what subject we are discussing in the house this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am
pleased to advise the hon. member that we are studying Bill C-120.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages


Mr. Guay (SI. Boniface):: I presume, Mr. Speaker, you are making reference to the official languages bill. I have it here. I just thought I would like it made clear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I think the hon. member is coming to the subject.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Speaking to the point of order for the moment, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) would have shared the opinion of his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) that economic issues are just as important as these other questions, if not more so, when it comes to solving the problems of the Canadian body politic. I think that what I am saying has to be said by the western members. I trust the hon. member for St. Boniface will join with us and with his hon. friend the Minister of Supply and Services, in repeating here in the House of Commons what the latter had to say in Winnipeg last week.
Economic problems are always reflected in social and political issues. I have already intimated that the progressive movement was a reflection of economic conditions in agrarian Canada. It is trite to say that Canada is a difficult nation to govern. Our friends of the just society government are finding this out. Problems do not wither away in the aura of charisma; one has to deal with continuing economic reality.
In his speech the other day the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) said that unity does not demand uniformity. We all agree with that statement. Others have said you can only get unity out of diversity in Canada. It has required great quantities of goodwill and tolerance to achieve the splendid degree of national unity from sea to sea which has been realized in Canada out of such diverse ethnic groups. It always amazes me when I travel to different parts of Canada to see the way in which we have been able to continue as a nation, and to progress as a nation, while at the same time permitting the various ethnic groups which make up Canada to retain their language and certain aspects of their culture-in western Canada, even certain linguistic rights.
I do not think western Canada has to apolo-pize to anybody, including the Secretary of State,, with regard to the progress which has been made in recent years toward the acceptance of what is commonly known these days as the French fact. The province of Manitoba has offered leadership in this respect under
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
the Hon. Duff Roblin when he was premier. There was no coercion; this was based on a spirit of goodwill and tolerance which is the essence of the mosaic concept so widely held in Manitoba.
In recent years, unfortunately, Canada, which used to be a shining example to the world of the virtues of tolerance, goodwill and mutual respect for ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences has begun to sound somewhat like a banana republic rather than the true north, strong and free. This relates to what is sometimes called the quiet revolution-actually, it has not been very quiet. It has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and disequilibrium which has made it difficult for many parts of Canada to continue along the pathway to nationhood which had become established as a way of life.
I have some relevant quotations here but time will not permit me to read them. Serious commentators have pointed out that what is really disturbing the balance of national unity in Canada is the export of the quiet revolution. As that quiet revolution is exported it tends to become more noisy, with the consequent debates which have been rocking the Canadian body politic in recent years.
Canada is a nation of minorities. We talk about the English speaking majority but in terms of population this majority is made up of many minorities most of which, in western Canada, still retain their ethnic ways of life. I do not need to belabour this point. In my own province, as in each of the prairie provinces, there are islands of cultural identification which are quite distinct. These people conduct their church services in their own languages, even broadcast in their own languages; this is something which is difficult, perhaps, for other hon. members who come from other parts of Canada to appreciate, but it does belie statements made by some people to the effect that the west is intolerant, that it wants to go back to the Plains of Abraham, and all that other nonsense. We are trying to get away from all that narrow nationalistic nonsense which tore up Europe and which was, in fact, the reason so many of those who belong to these ethnic groups came to Canada in the first place. They had suffered too much in the wars and quarrels of the 19th century and they came to Canada because it was a shining example of goodwill and tolerance toward ethnic and cultural differences.
It is not hard to stir up trouble in Canada because of the variety of ethnic minorities which exist. We like to say we are all equal, although I suppose it is possible to add that
May 20, 1969

some are more equal than others. We talk of founding races. For myself, I do not like this phrase; it sounds too much like the racism of Germany before the second world war, the kind of propaganda which Dr. Goebbels, minister of culture of nazi Germany, used to try to get across to the people having to do with pan-Germanism and all that nonsense which tore Europe asunder in the most bloody holocaust the world has ever seen.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I often wonder what our Indian friends who, after all, were here long before any of us, think of this. As one of them said humorously, if the Indians had had more restrictive immigration laws perhaps Canada would not be facing the trouble it faces at present.
Progress has been made through gradual development. It is always encouraging to see the children of immigrants, the second generation Canadians, proudly declare their unhyphenated Canadianism. Unfortunately, as I say, there is trouble in Canada at the present time and parliament will have to deal with it in the next few weeks. Why is there trouble, particularly in western Canada? I think the nub of the matter is that this legislation represents compulsion to many, and no one likes legislative compulsion. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) had this to say to the Social Credit League of Manitoba recently, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 19:
I'm against that kind of an act, because it implies compulsion and I'm strongly opposed to government compulsion.
If passed, the act would guarantee French in the federal civil service, the courts, and schools in areas throughout Canada where there is a large French population.
Then he spoke about the point I was referring to a few minutes ago. The newspaper report reads as follows:
The problem of the wheat farmer is worse, as far as Canada's economy is concerned-much more than the language question. Mr. Trudeau's fault was that he gave the impression everyone ... would have to learn French, said Mr. Caouette.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is the compulsory aspect of legislative prescriptions that disturbs all the folk who have come to Canada to escape the sort of thing that has bedogged pre-war and post-war Europe and that has produced the worst global wars of history.
Some have said that the bill is unnecessary and all that is necessary is for us to carry out the spirit of the British North America Act. I
Official Languages
agree. The spirit of the British North America Act has been moving forward with amazing speed in recent years, as seen by the application of broadcasting principles and the introduction of simultaneous translations in the House of Commons. When I was first a member of Parliament eighteen years ago, French was rarely heard here. Only those hon. members coming from Quebec, certain parts of northern Ontario and New Brunswick were truly bilingual. I studied French all through college and I am still not bilingual. It is not a living language for me because I have not been exposed to it and have not had to work with it. It has not become the language of my everyday life, and here lies the problem with legislative compulsion. The government realizes this, and that is why it has introduced amendments. The government has heard complaints from the prairies and from its own supporters. It is introducing these amendments to try to sweeten the semblance of legislative compulsion inherent in the bill, and thus make the bill more acceptable to its own supporters as well as to the people of Canada. Whether the amendments will do this we do not know. In any event, those amendments must be produced in the committee.
The constitutional question has been raised. I referred to it in passing. Many say this legislation is unnecessary; that it is a bit of window dressing and that it will give power to some. Perhaps this bill is the basis for the ministry of culture that the Secretary of State wishes to set up. As he has said many times across Canada, once this legislation has been passed he will have the tools in his hand with which to operate a ministry of culture and impose the views that he wishes to get across to us. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the committee will have to consider very carefully the constitutional question. The question of provincial rights is of great concern to the premiers of western Canada.
The Prime Minister blows hot and cold on this issue. Recently he had a quarrel with the former Minister of Transport on the interpretation of federalism. The former Minister of Transport says that he is a federalist, whereas the Prime Minister is a provincial rightist. That is an internal, family quarrel about which we have no exact information. I hope the Prime Minister will take part in this debate, because it is most important for him to do so. It seems that on this question the Prime Minister is espousing the other side of the coin. He seems to uphold the right of Ottawa to interfere in the cultural affairs of each of our provinces.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
The bilingual district issue has been raised. Bilingual districts obviously will lead to ghettos which will engender problems similar to those of Indian reservations. Segregation of people always creates cultural ghettos. This issue has raised a strong reaction from the other western ethnic groups. "What about us" they say. When the Prime Minister campaigned in the west they asked him, "will we have the privilege of establishing linguistic districts or bilingual districts," and the Prime Minister said, "yes, if there is a request for that." Mr. Speaker, that answer only confused the situation. You cannot have cultural purity in the sort of world we live in and you cannot keep your linguistic purity. For instance, it is said that Americans, and particularly those of the United States, no longer speak English; that the language they speak has now become completely transformed. If a person from the southern United States speaks to someone from the northern half of the continent it is said an interpreter is needed to bridge the gulf between the two kinds of English spoken. Adulteration of a language takes place very rapidly, and we see that happening in western Canada where a new Canadianism, distinct from anything that has existed hitherto, is being created. It is rising rapidly and is based, as I have indicated, on the goodwill and tolerance generated by those who live in our western Canadian mosaic.
In its present form this measure is divisive. The Prime Minister understands this, and that is why he is trying to bring in amendments. The Minister of Justice also understands this. He travelled across the country trying to soften the divisive impact of the legislation. The Secretary of State has travelled across the country, too, but his statements have aggravated the situation. I do not think he realizes what the effect of some of his statements in western Canada has been. I will mention one or two of those statements, then perhaps he will understand why so much concern was expressed in western Canada following his pilgrimages there. In his speech before the founding meeting of the Societe Franco-Manitobaine in St. Boniface, he forecast the placement of federal inspectors or control officers across the country to promote bilingualism in the designated bilingual districts. They would be sort of "gauleiters" for bilingualism in the west.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) rising on a point of order?


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mine is not exactly a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member for Brandon-Sour is permit a short question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: At the end of my speech, if you please. I do not think these interruptions are fair.


An hon. Member:: The speech may take all night.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I see some hon. members are trying to restrict freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Say something.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If I am not saying anything why are hon. members so agitated? Why are hon. members asking so many questions if they are not interested-
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cochrane on a point of order.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to remind the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to say whether he is in favour of the bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If I were under the Liberal whip I would have to declare myself right now, as does the hon. member for Cochrane. Liberal members do not think for themselves. In this party, we have a chance to consider the issues and make up our own minds.


Mr. Pelletier:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was quoted by the hon. member. He said, "unless this quotation is misleading"-I would like to tell him it is.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: From the same speech,
Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Are you quoting?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I am quoting, Mr. Speaker.
"In order to do this public education," he said, "we shall rely heavily on the findings of the behavioral sciences. They will enable us to arrive smoothly at that degree of civilization where groups no longer try to impose their opinions by the strength of their number and size."
When the Secretary of State starts mentioning the behavioral sciences-


Gérard Pelletier: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. The text of this
May 20, 1969

speech exists. I can hand it over to the hon. member and he will not find the words he has just quoted. I do not know from what he is quoting. These were not improvised remarks.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am quoting from a newspaper report of the speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That part is in quotation marks, and the article is under the byline of a very distinguished journalist.


Some hon. Members:: Who?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Charles Lynch of the Southam News Services.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, hon. members do not seem to have much confidence in Mr. Lynch. They, themselves, can deal with that issue. I am just pointing out to the Secretary of State that his presence in the west has become a matter for concern. I could go on and give further quotations. I have come to the conclusion the bill is divisive because it is discriminatory.
I will now deal with the main problem, one which has been presented to me on many occasions. If bilingualism is a prerequisite to civil service positions, obviously people in many parts of Canada who are otherwise qualified will be placed at a disadvantage. It is difficult to become bilingual in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and western Canada, because we do not have the opportunities we would like.
If bilingualism is a pre-requisite, as it seems obviously to be, then discrimination exists, particularly with respect to the scientific personnel and the professional qualifications. Professionals and scientists speak a jargon of their own. You must be engaged in those fields to know their scientific jargon.
The areas of Canada which are bilingual are very restricted. English and French residents of the province of Quebec have an obvious advantage. They are bilingual by reasons of many, many years of bilingual tradition and heritage. The merit system must be emphasized in this legislation beyond any shadow of a doubt. We must consider the veterans' preference. We would not be here debating this issue if it were not for the sacrifice of Canadians in two world wars.


Some hon. Members:: 
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I mention in passing the case of the commissionaires, who have no involvement in this whole business but who, even before the act is passed, are having the terms of Bill C-120 arbitrarily imposed upon them. These are the men who are least able to defend themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made the facetious remark, if you are not bilingual you will run the elevators. Statements such as these are not designed to help national unity.


An hon. Member:: Put up or shut up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do you deny he made the remark?


An hon. Member:: When?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read the papers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The spirit of unity always motivates westerners. In the west there is a saying that all wise men come from the east. Those who are popularly known as the three wise men are the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Regional Economic Expension (Mr. Marchand). They are the moving spirits behind this legislation. We have another expression in the west to the effect that all wise men come from the east and the wiser they are the faster they come. The Prime Minister has been to western Canada. He made certain remarks about wheat and the wheat problem I think he has returned a wiser man. The Secretary of State has also been to western Canada. He obviously returned a wiser man because he no longer accepts the speeches made when he was in the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This matter is not to go before a parliamentary committee. It is something which must be sorted out by the elected representatives of the people. The B. and B. Commission which moved across this country caused a great deal of anxiety. It consisted of people who were not elected representatives of the people. If we are going to preserve national unity we must get to the heart of the matter. We must avoid the technique of confrontation. That is not the kind of dialogue that Canada needs at this critical juncture of Confederation. We need more co-operation.

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
In conclusion I will refer to the Prime Minister's statements. He said that we are politicians and not philosophers; that second best solutions are often necessary and the spirit of compromise must prevail. That is a restatement of the old political saw, politics is the practice of the art of the possible. Let us not pursue the divisive course on which we have embarked on too many occasions during the current session of parliament.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, no one in this party, and certainly no one who comes from a metropolitan area as I do will deny that there are immense and pressing economic problems that face this parliament. I am sure the same would be said by members who represent rural areas. Yet in my view it is wrong to say that this bill, the official languages bill, has come here too soon. To my mind, in principle, this bill is designed to remedy an ancient but serious injustice.
Some fcon. Members: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If anything, Mr. Speaker, it comes too late.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If in this parliament we are going to solve our economic problems within a federal system, then we must have the unity without which a federal system cannot flourish or even exist for very long.
I have had occasion recently to study the tragic case of a federation that failed and in failing has given way to a bloody war. If there is one lesson we can learn from the tragic failure of the Nigerian Federation it is that the very basis of a federation must be consent, consent to operate a system which does together some of the things which can best be done by a central government but which at the same time fully recognizes cultural diversity.
There is no more important aspect of culture than language. Canada could not have existed without respect for the differences of language between the two major elements that created Canada's existence as a nation. This is exemplified in the British North America Act itself, but it is my belief that the majority of the Anglophone population of Canada has shown, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, a lack of respect for the equality of the two official languages in many ways. I say we should hasten, in a spirit of generosity, to seek to remedy our neglect.
IMr. Dinsdale.l
This legislation in my view is an act of simple justice.
The bill itself is largely declaratory. The core of it is clause 2 which proclaims official languages of Canada for all purposes within federal competence, with the right to possess and enjoy equality of status, and equal rights and privileges as to their use. All the rest of the bill is machinery. I hope it will be possible for members of the committee to make sure that the machinery is fitted to its purpose, is not coercive and, does not, in the guise of protecting some people's rights, impinge on the rights of others.
How can anyone, I ask, oppose the principle of the bill? It is a simple statement based on historic fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is something of which, if we wish Canada to continue as a nation, we should constantly remind ourselves.
This afternoon in an excellent and eloquent speech the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) spoke of objections to the bill which he had heard in different parts of Canada. I will deal only with the first of these objections, and I believe he put it in the form of a question. Why force us into bilingualism by legislation when we are progressing towards it by voluntary means?
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that we are progressing without legislation. I will say a word or two about that later. But legislation is not merely coercive and I do not think this legislation is coercive. The Commissioner set up by the bill-if that is the form the bill takes after final review in the house-and indeed the bilingual district advisory boards which may be set up by the bill, if it remains more or less in its present form, will investigate privately. If they are wise they will use persuasion and not coercion. But legislation of this nature expresses or can express the moral conviction of the people of Canada. It can be, and I believe it will be a solemn statement of the will of the people of Canada on a point essential to the compact of confederation.
As I said a moment ago there has been a tremendous growth of practical bilingualism in Canada. This is no doubt partly due to a new attitude. It no doubt owes something to modern communications, to more up to date methods of teaching languages. There is no reason that an increasing number of Canadians should not enjoy the great privilege of acquaintance with more than one language.
May 20, 1969

I am one of several members of this house, some of them French speaking, some of them English speaking, who from time to time are undergoing the benefits of immersion courses in the one or other of the official languages. I have not yet reached the point where I want to inflict my halting and imperfect French on the house, although I warn the house the day is not far distant when I shall make the attempt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: But, Mr. Speaker, I have made enough progress, and I think my other colleagues have done so too, to appreciate that knowledge of the beautiful French language is an enrichment of the spirit and understanding. No one is trying to force it on us, but the more we make the effort to understand then the better Canadians we shall be.
I come from a riding in the east end of Toronto which has very few French speaking residents. In the past some people could have said-I am not going to say I agree with them-that it was an area that was narrow minded if not actually bigotted. But all of that has changed. The Minister of Justice referred particularly to the younger people, and I want to pay tribute to the new tolerance of younger people. Perhaps there are still a few bigots left, but they are few and far between. I think I can speak not only for my constituency but for the area of Toronto from which I come. Today, the French fact is accepted not with reluctance but as something which enriches and distinguishes Canada and makes us happy to be Canadians.
We cannot, in this house, hope for unanimity, and we cannot expect there will not be honest, differing convictions. This bill is not the end. I think it is just the beginning. There is much more that needs to be done in the constitutional field before we have a modern, up-to-date constitution. There are, as I said at the beginning, challenging economic problems that we have to face. But this bill, improved and clarified as it well may be in committee, in my view is a step in the right direction; a token of tolerance, an important means to achieve justice based on equality. For those reasons I support it.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for the very fine and enlightening speech he has given on this subject tonight. I wish that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale),
Official Languages
and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) whom I heard earlier this afternoon, had spoken along those lines because I was ashamed to listen as they purported to represent the thinking of western Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I am a western Canadian and I want to tell you what I think of the language bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I want to tell you that Premier Bennett is one of my constituents, and although he did not exactly help to get me here, in a way I can speak for him too. There are some who say the west is alienated. There are some who even say Canada is falling apart. Some of them are in this house. Some of them have seen better days in politics, but they stand ready to give the country a shove in that direction if only to prove their point. These are the men who are using the language bill to warm up the prejudices. They would stew the bill in a miasma of ignorance and serve it garnished with old racial distrust. Is the west alienated? To the extent that the bill is misrepresented, to the extent that you can buy a pound of prejudice in the office of any western premier, it is alienated. To the extent that the west lacks strong federal authority it is alienated. There are two forces in western Canada opposing the language bill. The first is a small group of rock-ribbed western Tories, the same crowd that opposed the idea of Canada having its own flag. They opposed the unification of the armed forces and the modernization of the Criminal Code. Now, they oppose the language bill.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Have you ever driven through Drumheller, Alberta? In Drumheller scientists dig up the remains of dynosaurs and fossils. They send them to museums all over the world because they are a very interesting scientific phenomena.


An hon. Member:: They missed a few.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Yes, they missed a few. A few years ago a number of these dynosaurs and old fossils joined the Tory party and were sent to parliament. There they sit, unware of the discovery of fire or the invention of the wheel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: They are unaware that justice in the world must

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
begin with justice at home. They are unaware that tire people of Canada gave the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) an overwhelming majority to bring about that justice.
Are westerners afraid of the language bill? Of course they are not. The west is a young country. People who think young understand the need to be fair to French speaking Canadians. Westerners are secure in their youthful strength and are not afraid to make room in the rest of Canada for French speaking Canadians. Westerners have known immigrants of many tongues. They know how these Canadians have added to the colour and richness of the west. We also know that the largest minority group in Canada by far is composed of French speaking Canadians. They were guaranteed special language rights in 1759 and at the time of Confederation in 1867. We have not always honoured the letter or the spirit of those agreements. This is a time in history when people of goodwill throughout the whole world are trying to redress past wrongs.
Some people ask, "Where is the just society"? I say to members on the Tory benches that here is the just society. The just society begins in the language bill. You will find it in the omnibus bill and pretty soon in the Indian claims bill and the new Indian Act. Only five short years ago the same rockribbed Tories who oppose the language bill were against Canada having its own flag. Five years from now they will look as incredibly ridiculous over the language issue as they do today over the flag issue.
Who else in the west is alienated? None other than the western premiers who, like many premiers in Canadian history, have used scraps with Ottawa to promote themselves. But Strom's huff and Thatcher's puff are no more than the skilful political conniving that we saw, used so many times by Ontario's Mitch Hepburn and Quebec's Duplessis. Westerners are not fooled by this kind of power play by strong provincial leaders. They rather like it. They respect strong provincial leaders, but that does not mean they want them meddling in federal jurisdiction.
Do western premiers speak for westerners in the federal field? The answer is a resounding no. They speak only for themselves. Westerners, like all Canadians, recognize the legitimate separation of provincial and federal authority. To each his own or as the French say, "chacun pour soi". If the west is alienated, it is only to the extent that the federal government has not grasped its power

firmly enough. It has paid too much attention to provincial politicians who in reality have no special authority in federal matters, no more authority that is than any other voter who votes in a federal election. The people of Canada recognize the separate political jurisdictions. It is only the politicians who are confused.
If the federal government wants to earn the gratitude of westerners, and I suspect all Canadians, it will play the role of a stern father encouraging and helping the provinces but always ready to take them out to the woodshed if their personal ambitions endanger family life. If westerners are at all confused about the language bill it is because the truth has been distorted by some of those who oppose it. There will be only five or six bilingual districts in all of western Canada and none in British Columbia. That is a small price to pay to see justice done in all Canada.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) say that language rights need not be guaranteed by law and that they were better left to the conscience of men, or some such phrase.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You did not hear that at all.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: It was
very close. He suggested this kind of thing could be left to the control of men. How often have we heard reactionaries speak this way? Fair employment laws, anti-discrimination laws of all kinds, of colour, of race, of language and creed, have always been fought by people who have been so blind to injustice that their ultimate reason for opposition has been that all this can be left to men of goodwill and that such laws are not necessary. It must be obvious to even the most reactionary that we would have had no problem in the first place if such selfrighteous dreams were true.
We believe it is a noble purpose to support this bill for we seek to build a nation no longer weakened by the division of language but strengthened by the diversities of two great cultures. To that end we in western Canada will support this bill and mark it as a milestone in the progress of a unique Canadian nation.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we are now embarked on what obviously is a very sensitive debate. As we pursue this matter, it is my sincere hope that we do not do anything which might tend in any way to hurt unity within this country. The purpose of the bill-and I stress that this
May 20, 1969



is only my own interpretation of it-is not to compel anybody to speak anything but the language of his own choice. To my mind it does not in any way require that every person in Canada speak or write a second language.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Remember, Mr. Speaker, I interpret this measure as an attempt to assure that each and every citizen can communicate or deal with the federal government in either of the two official languages. It does not, as I see it, compel English speaking Canadians to speak French. Nor, on the other hand, does it compel French speaking Canadians to speak English. I rely, and I certainly hope the rest of this country, can as well on the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he addressed the last federal-provincial conference. His statement on this matter is so very important I think perhaps it should be read into the record of this house, then if any misinterpretation arises at a later date we can refer to it. This is what he said when he spoke to the last federal-provincial conference:
Our policy of bilingualism has been widely misunderstood. It does not mean that every English speaking Canadian must learn to speak French any more than it means that every French speaking Canadian must learn to speak English. It means that every Canadian will have access to public education in either official language and will be free to use either language in dealing with the federal government and other public bodies in all areas of the country where the size of the minority justifies it.
I hope I am not naive enough to believe that the Prime Minister of this country would make that statement at such an important meeting as a federal-provincial conference, to all the premiers of this country, unless he really believed that to be the purpose behind the bill. I suggest the bill itself does not impose bilingualism on the people of this country, but rather attempts to insure that all Canadians irrespective of where they live will feel equally at home.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) also made a very important observation during the same federal-provincial conference which I feel should be read into the record of this house for future reference. This is what the Minister of Justice said:
This is not a bill to force compulsory bilingualism on the citizens of Canada. This is a bill enabling the citizens of Canada where they are found in sufficient numbers to approach the facilities of the federal government in either the French or the English language.
Official Languages
I suggest in all seriousness that there is nothing the matter with that objective. As a result of reading what the ministers said at that conference, I can tell you I have been assured that nothing in this bill will militate against the recruitment of young men and women from the western provinces, or from the central provinces in Canada, for the public service of Canada. This has been one of the serious fears expressed in reference to this bill. If I thought for one moment this bill would work against the recruitment of anybody of any linguistic origin into the public service of this country I would very definitely oppose it. I very definitely believe that is the wrong interpretation. We have the word of the Minister of Justice that this is not going to be the case.
This being my interpretation of the bill, fortified as it is by these statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, I personally am prepared to support its principle. The bill, as I see it, in no way renders the use of any language compulsory in Canada.
Although I am in accord with the principle of the bill as I understand it, I am also convinced of two things. First of all I am reasonably convinced, and I hope somebody corrects me if I am wrong, that the bill is not necessary. Secondly, I have the feeling that as it is presently drafted it has a great many defects which I hope the government will recognize when the bill goes to the committee.
Let me deal for a few minutes with my first contention, that the bill is not necessary. I submit very seriously that the character of this bill is totally administrative. Everything we find contained in this bill can be implemented administratively now by the federal and provincial courts, by the federal government or by any of the provincial governments which choose to do so. I would be very happy if someone-perhaps the minister who is promoting this bill-would point out anything that can be done under this bill which cannot be done at the present time. As a matter of fact, some of the things about which we now hear complaints are being done. This is a pretty clear indication-I trust they are not being done illegally-that they can be done without the passage of this bill.
I can see no substantive civil rights being given to anybody by this bill and no civil duties being imposed upon anyone. There is no criminal offence being created and no criminal sanctions imposed on anyone. It does not entitle anyone to sue or be sued. The bill

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
does not suggest that anyone can be prosecuted or convicted. I suggest this is a purely administrative bill.
Clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the bill are the clauses which relate to the role of the federal government. If we examine these clauses carefully, we must conclude that they do not place any duty on persons within the government services to implement their provisions if and when the bill becomes law. Perhaps unfortunately, the bill does not indicate under which department of government its administration will fall. We do not know which minister of the Crown will be responsible for its administration. In all seriousness, there is absolutely nothing in the bill which imposes any duty on those who may be called upon to administer it.
It is true there are clauses in the bill which purport to order the administrative implementation of the provisions of the bill by the Senate and the House of Commons. It has been established for some time that the Senate and the House of Commons, in spite of the provisions of any statute much less this bill, are the masters of their own houses. They and they alone can interpret any statute purporting to impose duties upon them. Therefore, I say that this is an administrative bill in substance and in form. Everything it suggests can be done, can be done under the present administrative powers of the federal government. I say, therefore, as I have already suggested, that for the most part this bill may be just window dressing.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There are some defects in the bill. For example, it sets up what is known as a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board. Under the provisions of the bill, this board is set up for the purpose of conducting an inquiry into whether or not an area should be designated as a bilingual district. This is a very important function so far as the proper carrying into effect of the bill is concerned. But unfortunately the bill as drafted provides that the board shall consist of not less than five and not more than ten people. In effect, this means that a board could be set up consisting of only five members. I seriously suggest to the government that a board as important as this one will obviously be, should have on it representatives of all the provinces of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Melvin James McQuaid: I say this because this board will determine whether a district shall be

established as a bilingual district. I think that in all fairness every province of Canada should have the right to be represented on the board rather than, have it limited to five members.
Another serious defect in the bill, is that the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board is not required to conduct any public inquiry before it arrives at a decision. I suggest that public inquiries should be held. This government holds itself out as an exponent of participatory democracy. If we want to carry participatory democracy to its ultimate conclusion, I suggest that the people affected by a decision of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board should have some say as to whether they want their district to be categorized as a bilingual district.
For example, I suggest there are in Canada areas which have in them 10 per cent of French speaking people who feel they are getting along perfectly well as they are. They are not anxious for change and perhaps do not wish to be categorized as a bilingual district, as a ghetto, as one hon. member suggested earlier in the debate. Therefore, I say that in fairness to these people the advisory board should be authorized to hold public hearings in respect of those areas where there is to be a determination as to whether they shall be classified as bilingual districts.
Clause 17 of the bill provides that the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board shall lay its report before parliament. Unfortunately, there is no provision in the bill for getting this report off the table of parliament. There is no provision whereby the report can be debated, unless of course it is debated on one of the opposition days. I think there should be an opportunity for the representatives of the people of Canada to debate the report of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board.
Unfortunately, and I say this advisedly, the bill as drafted prevents the people of Canada, through their elected representatives in this house or the appointed representatives in the other place, asking any questions concerning the report of the advisory board. They cannot question the government on it at all. It is perfectly meaningless to write a provision into the bill that the report shall be laid upon the table, and not provide any means whereby that report can be debated. Surely, this is a serious defect which I suggest, in the interest of the proper administration of the bill, should be corrected.
These are some of the defects of the bill that I see at first glance. I have not had an
May 20, 1969

opportunity to examine in detail the amendments presented today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I apologize to the minister and the house if any of the matters I have criticized tonight with respect to the bill have been corrected in those amendments. However, I believe those matters I have mentioned should be corrected in the interests of the proper administration of the bill.
As I said at the beginning of my speech and as I now repeat, I do not see anything wrong with the principle of the bill. I think the bill is not necessary because it is purely administrative, but if it does become law I believe that some of the safeguards I have attempted to point out in my remarks should be considered by the committee with a view to their being written into the bill before it is sent back to the house for further consideration.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill and its real thrust is stated at the very outset in the clause which declares the status of languages. That clause reads:
The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the parliament and government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the parliament and government of Canada.
This principle seems so appropriate, so logical and so inevitable for our country that looking back from the vantage point of 1969 it seems rather surprising that we did not have its provisions written into our constitution in 1867. Perhaps, indeed, the Fathers of Confederation were closer to this principle than we now realize, because if we look at the federal act of 1870 which established the government of Manitoba we find that the same linguistic guarantee which occurs in section 133 of the British North America Act is found in section 23 of that act. If we had continued to have what is perhaps the early spirit of confederation, along with the good will which seems natural to it, we would probably not have had the school question in Manitoba, regulation 17 in Ontario, or the innumerable slights, too small for history to record but too large for memory to forget, which have marked the experience of many French speaking citizens in various provinces of this country. But we now have a second opportunity, a second chance, and the wit and resolution to take advantage of it. It is to be hoped that this measure we are debating tonight will be soon supplemented by provincial action and ultimately by constitutional amendment.
Official Languages
The principal legal arguments against the bill are without either substance or shadow of merit. The argument based on section 91 (1) of the B.N.A. Act is to the effect that that section denies to parliament any power to legislate respecting the use of the English or French languages. But the fact is that section 91 (1) merely prohibits the amendment of section 133 to prevent any derogation from the limited constitutional rights granted in that section respecting the use of the languages. The official languages bill does not in any way derogate from the guarantees contained in section 133, and therefore does not offend section 91 (1).
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The second argument is based on an interpretation of section 133 as a limitation on the use of the French language rather than as a guarantee of the minimum use of that language. The fallacy of this interpretation is obvious from the fact that section 133 refers equally to the English and French languages. The limitation in section 133 is thus clearly for a minimum and not a maximum of usage.
The third legal argument is to the effect that the coincidence of what is proposed in Bill C-120 with constitutional changes proposed by the federal government shows that this is a matter for which a constitutional amendment is necessary. But even if there were an identity of content, the argument would be a non sequitur. What constitutional enshrinement would add would be a limitation on federal power henceforth to repeal the law which by ordinary federal standards of statute making would be repealable.
As a simple example may I point out that I assume many hon. members join with me in feeling that even if we are not able to get a bill of rights in the near future which may, among other things, prohibit the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in the court room, we should go ahead and insert a provision in the Criminal Code to prevent the introduction of such evidence even in the absence of a constitutional provision. There may be a coincidence of the two provisions, but this does not prevent legislation in advance of constitutional amendments.
It is true that there is no explicit power with regard to language in the British North America Act for either level of government. This means that it either comes under the federal residual power or-and this is the more usual interpretation-it is ancillary to other powers in the constitution. The federal government therefore can legislate with

May 20, 1969
Official Languages
regard to language only in areas of federal jurisdiction, federal government institutions, and areas of federal authority such as procedure in the criminal courts.
It seems to me that the only legal argument which presents some difficulty is that which gets us into the rather murky divide between criminal procedure, which is a federal power under subsection 27 of section 91 of the B.N.A. Act, and the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, which is part of the administration of justice and a provincial power under section 92(14) of the B.N.A. Act. This situation is even more confused because of the procedural jurisdiction which the federal government has allowed the provinces to exercise over the years even though constitutionally the power was in the hands of the federal government. But except with regard to this point, the force of which has now been largely removed by the amendment which the government proposes to introduce, and on which therefore I will not dwell, the legal case against the official languages bill does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of intellectual respectability.
What is important is not that the legal arguments are bad but that they are raised at all. This shows the concern among many of our fellow citizens about the effect of this legislation. To the extent that such concern arises from a rejection of the symbolic nature of the change which we hope to bring about by virtue of this act, it seems to me that we can neither accept it nor compromise with it. Both historically and functionally this country has a bilingual character.
I would not want this to be confused with biculturalism. Our country is, and I hope will remain, a multi-cultural country in which many cultures which have come from other parts of the world continue to exist and enrich the Canadian mosaic to which we sometimes refer. Our country is multi-cultural but it is also bilingual. The symbol of bilingualism must be maintained. The fact of biculturalism must also be maintained.
But to the extent that the concern about this bill expresses the fear of discrimination against people themselves and their families, especially with regard to employment, there is something I believe, that we must take into account.
My own riding of Windsor-Walkerville is one in which all the currents of the country at present are felt. We will have the privilege of being part of the bilingual district which I expect, on the recommendation of the Royal 
Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Essex county will become. We have a very large ethnic population and we also have a heavy concentration of industrial employees. These last two groups are among those which in our country have subjectively real fears, that some aspects of this bill, or rather some possible means of carrying it out, might restrict their opportunities in our country. I believe we must see to it that these subjectively real fears do not become objectively real and valid as the act begins to be applied.
The official who will enforce this act has been referred to as a linguistic ombudsman. I believe he will have the duty of seeing to it, not only that the rights of French speaking peoples in various parts of the country are protected, but also that in the creation of new rights for the French speaking minority the opportunities of other groups in the country whose native language is neither English nor French are not subjected to unduly restrictive pressures. The linguistic ombudsman will have a job to do on both sides.
We share a continent with an economically powerful and culturally aggressive neighbour. I say to some of my friends opposite who are troubled about this bill and yet are very concerned with the importance of maintaining our separation from the United States, that there is no surer guarantee of our retaining our independence than through the institution of official bilingualism in this country. It is historically true that our French speaking compatriots in large part saved us from being submerged in the United States both at the time of the revolutionary war and during the war of 1812 to 1814. But the argument in favour of bilingualism is not such a negative one-it is a positive one. It creates an opportunity, not only for our French speaking citizens, but for all of us, to share in a cultural life which is richer by reason of being linguistically fuller.
There is no compulsion in this bill except on the federal government. There is no compulsion on the citizens of this country to learn or speak French. The only compulsion is on the government. For the people, there is freedom.


Mr, Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member that it is ten o'clock. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to put the questions to be debated at this time.
May 20, 1969	COMMONS



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 23, as recorded in Hansard at page 7859, after there had been a reference to the budget or the budget speech which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said he would be making toward the end of May or in the early part of June, I put the following question to the minister:
In preparing his budgetary statement, is the minister still considering including in it a provision so that taxation will not continue to be levied on old age pensioners who have only their pensions and the guaranteed income supplement on which to live?
The reply of the Minister of Finance was in these words:
In the preparation of the budget we consider all submissions which have been made to the government in this regard.
That was about the fourth or fifth time that the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary had assured the house concerning the question of making necessary adjustments so that those who have only the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement will not have to pay income tax on that income. The matter was discussed in the late show on April 1 as well as on March 5 and on one or two other occasions. There have been a number of questions on the orders of the day, and it came into the debate on March 17 when we spent a full day on the question of pensions.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I want to say quite frankly that I have been around here long enough to know that budget secrets are not given out in advance. But I have also been around here long enough to know that there are certain things which have to be pressed for repeatedly, desirable though they may be, before the government can be induced to act as it should. I plead very strongly that whatever else the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) may do in his May or June budget he will deal with this matter, because I am sure all of us in the house think it is most unfair for
DEBATES	8879
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the government, with one hand, to provide a guaranteed income supplement to bring old age pensioners up to a certain level, and then to take away with the other hand a portion of that guaranteed income in the form of income tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: realize that the people who are hit hardest by this arrangement are those between the ages of 65 and 70; once a pensioner is 70 years of age he qualifies for the extra $500 income tax exemption which formerly applied from the age of 65 onward, and the hardship suffered in many cases by those below the age of 70 eases, to that extent, when the age of 70 is reached. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is a situation which nobody intended. I do not blame the government for it happening in the first place, but I do blame the government for not doing something about it.
The present income tax exemption levels were set in 1949. They are due for a change, there is no question about that. But in 1949 the old age pension was much lower. It was not in sight of the income tax exemption levels. Things have changed and old age pensions have got caught in the technicalities which have arisen in consequence of some of the changes that have taken place.
Speaking of technicalities, I was quite interested in a sentence used by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on Friday of last week. The occasion was the discussion during the oral question period of the $80 million which the government forgave to the automobile industry. This is a case of $80 million which should have been paid, according to the law, by the automobile manufacturers, but it was forgiven by order in council. The issue arose because the Auditor General drew attention to it. I still think, along with the Auditor General, that the course followed by the government was a wrong one. Be this as it may, when the matter was the subject of questions and answers on Friday of last week, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said this: "This is why we have been quite willing to accommodate the industry when some technicalities arose. This is what we have done in the remission of $80 million in potential tariff which the government of Canada could have collected under an agreement."
Without defending what was done on that occasion-in fact, I think it was indefensible-if the government can say to the
May 20, 1969
8880	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
automobile manufacturers "This $80 million you are required to pay is just a matter of a technicality; we will pass an order in council to get around it", then I think something should be done about the technicality which arises when old age pensioners get $105 or $109 a month on the basis of the guaranteed income supplement only to find that part of it is taken away in income tax.
I say that if a technicality is good enough ground for action in the case of the automobile manufacturers, the same kind of action should be taken to the advantage of old age pensioners. This could be handled quite simply; a tax credit could be provided, or the additional $500 exemption could be allowed at age 65. Another solution would be for the guaranteed income supplement to be declared as non-taxable income. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is sympathetic about this. I know there is sympathy on all sides of the house. I earnestly hope that that sympathy will express itself in appropriate action by the Minister of Finance when he brings down his budget before the end of June.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has confirmed that there is sympathy for the concept he has raised this evening on all sides of the house. I say this because, obviously, our traditions of budget secrecy would not permit me to give any indication of possible changes, if I happened to know what they were. At the same time I wish to make clear that any changes he seeks which are desirable and which might be presented to the house by the Minister of Finance would not be brought in solely or primarily because of the hon. member's repeated asking of the same question, followed by a repetition of similar answers by myself, but because of representations made from all sides of the house, including representations made from the Liberal side, as well as the government's own intention and desire to do the right thing for the people of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine, as long as you do it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think it should be noted, Mr. Speaker that it is my impression that the purpose of the adjournment debate is to permit an hon. member to raise at 10 o'clock a matter to which he may feel he has not received a satisfactory answer when the question was asked on orders of the day. The hon.

member has been kind enough to make this clear. Certainly, he is one of the oldest and most knowledgeable parliamentarians here in terms of service at least and he certainly knows that traditions of budget secrecy prevent disclosures of tax changes before a budget is presented. Therefore, he could not have expected any definite indication of any change here. He must in fact have been satisfied by the answer of the Minister of Finance at the time when the question was asked, in the sense that as a person knowledgeable with respect to the rules he would know that the answer the minister gave was the only one that could have been given. This answer was that in the preparation of the budget we consider all submissions which have been made to the government in this regard." I think that this is really the answer the hon. member was expecting and is expecting at this time.



COMMUNICATION-BELL CANADA-ALLEGED DISREGARD OE INVESTMENT RETURN REGULATIONS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 I asked the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) whether he, on behalf of the government, would make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission in order to oppose the request of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to increase its profit to 9 per cent on invested capital. This is not the first such request on the part of Bell of Canada. On a number of occasions that company has asked for its rates to be increased. It has wished for higher profits but has consistently ignored orders issued by government regulatory agencies. During the 1950's the regulatory agency of the day, Board of Transport Commissioners, fixed Bell's return in a judgment at $2.43 per share. In 1964 this rate was equivalent to a 5.9 per cent profit on Bell's over-all capital.
Despite that order of the board limiting Bell's profit to $2.43 per share, Bell earned substantially more than that in 1959 and every year following. In 1959 the company made $2.48 per share; in 1960 profits were $2.52 per share; in 1961 they were $2.50; in 1962 they were $2.66; in 1963 they were $2.58; in 1964 they were $2.71 and in 1967 they reported a return of 6.8 per cent on invested capital. At that time the Board of Transport Commissioners, in a ruling handed down, had allowed the company a return of about 6.6 per cent on invested capital.
Despite its earlier order, the Board of Transport Commissioners in January, 1968,
May 20, 1969	COMMONS
decided that Bell could maintain a 6.8 per cent return without reducing its telephone rates. For the year ending March 31, 1969, Bell's return on invested capital was 7 per cent. Yet the Board had set a legal limit on profits of 6.8 per cent. Not satisfied with twice violating the orders of the Board regulating their rate structure, Bell Canada now has the gall to apply for permission to increase telephone rates so they can make a return of 9 per cent on their invested capital. The ability of Bell to ignore orders of the regulatory agency is a serious matter to the people of Ontario and Quebec. The minister, as a member of parliament from Quebec, certainly realizes that a profit increase of J per cent to 1 per cent for Bell Telephone represents an overpayment by the people of Ontario and Quebec of between $10 million and $20 million a year.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In a similar situation a few years ago in the State of California, the public utilities commission of that state ordered a refund to the telephone subscribers of $60 million because they found that the Telephone Company of California had overcharged the subscribers by that amount. I suggest the government of Canada insist that the regulatory agency enforces its rules. The government has the staff,, economists and statisticians, necessary to examine the whole problem of rate structure and profits of Bell Canada. I suggest they make recommendations to the regulatory agency, the Canadian Transport Commission, along these lines.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: I have answered this question on previous occasions, Mr. Speaker. I answered by simply stating the Canadian Transport Commission is a creation of this house. This house endowed that Commission with all of the authority and responsibility necessary to make the judgments and rulings that are necessary in the interests of the Canadian people. In other words, it gave to the Canadian Transport Commission authority as a quasi judicial body to either accept or reject any demands that Bell Telephone can make. The hon. member suggests this government should, in effect, make representations to its own body. I do not accept that. I believe the Canadian Transport Commission is perfectly competent to consider the application of Bell Telephone and to make a proper judgment.
The hon. member suggests we in the government have the proper research facilities. It
DEBATES	8881
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is about time the hon. member and other members of his party did something. They are great talkers, complain at great length, and whine a great deal. The hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) felt substantially the same way as the hon. member who has just spoken. He went to a great deal of trouble to prepare a very lengthy brief. The hon. member for Essex is a member of the government. He is a member of the Liberal Party. There was nothing to prevent the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) or anyone in his party from doing the same. For the first time in history, this government has given to all opposition parties research funds in order to enable them to do a better job, both in the questions they ask in the house and the statements and positions that they take regarding various legislation being debated in the house.
I think it is time that they made an appropriate and constructive use of these funds. In particular, I think it is high time that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) followed the example of the hon. member for Essex.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on May 8 I asked a question concerning the third report of the Atlantic Development Board on fisheries. I must admit that I am in favour of most parts of this report, but the portion that concerns me greatest is the idea of concentrating operations in a single port. I am wondering how you can take a viable, established fishing industry and suggest that it be dismantled in favour of other parts of the country.
How can we suggest to a fisherman or farmer, as other reports have done, that he must move to another part of the country? What we are really telling him is to sell his gear and equipment and move to the city. I am not against the Atlantic Development Board. It has done a tremendous job, but I am concerned about this whole idea of centralization. I suggest there is a lack of planning, particularly on the part of government, with respect to the way we are presently going. The present trend is to centralization, to get rid of our countryside and to urbanize everything. But what will happen in 20 years time? In 20 or 25 years time we shall have to think of moving the people back to the country, and of getting them away from the city. I suggest that the computers have not calculated far enough ahead.
May 20, 1969
8882	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I object to the idea of certain growth centres being built up at the expense of rural Canada. For example, I can think of Halifax and Saint John in Atlantic Canada. I do not mind these centres being developed at the expense of Montreal or Toronto, but I object very strongly if they are to be developed at the expense of the countryside surrounding them. The people living in rural Canada are slowly being deprived of the necessary facilities and services. In this connection I am thinking of post offices, customs houses and other facilities. If taking away these things is the answer to our problems, then again I object very strongly.
What is happening in our fishing communities? Post offices are being closed. Wharves are being allowed to deteriorate. Fish are being taken by foreign vessels, thus reducing markets for our own fishermen. Fishing communities do not need much to survive and survive well. They require that their wharves be maintained, that dredging take place in some places, and that lighthouses and coast guard facilities be provided. These are the basic and simple things required for the proper management of the fishing industry. Once these services deteriorate then one has no choice but to think of centralization, and this has been happening within the past couple of years.
I know of one company in my area whose manager told me last week that if something is not done soon he will have to move out and go to another part of the country. Industry is viable in the southwestern part of Nova Scotia, as in many other parts of Canada. At least the present industries there are viable. One need only look at the statistics to see this. We find an increase in the number of boats, and in the catch in all parts of southwestern Nova Scotia. Why should we want to concentrate all this into one single port?
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
We might look at the statistics in respect of Yarmouth, Digby, Pubmico and Cape Sable

Island. I received a brief last week from the Clare Board of Trade. It shows that in 1950 the approximate value of boats owned by fishermen was $350,000. Now, it is over $5 million. The landed value of the catch in 1950 was around $389,000. Now this has increased to $2 million or almost $3 million. The number of fishermen employed has increased greatly.
This is the reason I am concerned about any report or any thought of too much centralization. I hope the government can base its policies and decisions on facts and weigh these facts against the present tendencies. Last week I expressed concern outside the house and I repeat that the cities are getting richer and rural Canada is getting poorer. We must at least provide the basic facilities.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The minister considers the reports of the Atlantic Development Board to be important and valuable studies. He was, therefore, very glad to act on the board's request that they should be published even though most of the texts are reaching their final stage only since the board in its previous form was replaced by the Atlantic Development Council.
The minister and his officials will certainly be paying close attention to these studies in their formulation, in consultation with the provinces, of plans and programs for economic expansion in the Atlantic region. The factual and analytical material in the studies will, indeed, be essential to the work of the new department.
Recommendations made in the reports will also be carefully considered, but of course it should be understood that the publication of the reports in no way means that the views expressed are necessarily those of the minister. The recommendations will be considered along with others.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, May 21, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Watson.
[Stage Direction]
Nineteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]