1969-05-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-202, to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment.


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


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-36 (from the Senate), to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether I could have the permission of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of referring the reports of the Canadian Wheat Board to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The supplementary report of the Canadian Wheat Board for 1967-68 was tabled earlier this day. If the house is agreeable, by way of unanimous consent I would like to move that the annual 29180-572
and supplementary reports of the Canadian Wheat Board for the years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) What is the total resident population of the Northwest Territories (b) how many of these hold Indian or Eskimo status?
2.	(a) How many people resident in the Northwest Territories are qualified to vote in federal or territorial elections? (b) how many of these hold Indian or Eskimo status?
3.	How many eligible voters not holding Indian or Eskimo status and resident in the Northwest Territories are employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the territorial government?
4.	How many eligible voters not holding Indian or Eskimo status and resident in the Northwest Territories are employed by other federal departments or Crown agencies?
5.	What, over the last ten years, has been the average period of residence in the Northwest Territories for full-time employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or territorial government not holding Indian and/or Eskimo status?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1. (a) The population of the Northwest Territories, according to figures supplied by the Commissioner in 1967 on the basis of a projection of the 1961 Census, was as follows: Indian, 5,763; Eskimos, 10,278; Others, 14,202; Total, 30,243. (b) Information not available.
2.	(a) Records of the Chief Electoral Officer indicate that 13,807 names appeared on the list of electors at the election of June 1968; (b) Information not available.
3.	Information not available.

May 26, 1969
Questions
4.	Information not available.
5.	Records in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are not kept in a manner which would provide the information requested.


GRAIN DRYING ASSISTANCE
Mr. Stanfield: 1.	Has the government given consideration to representations from farm organizations requesting assistance of 10 cents a bushel in grain drying for Western farmers?
2.	Will the government amend the legislation to allow assistance up to $600 regardless of the size of the farm, removing the present 1,000 acre requirement for the maximum advance?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	The Government has no plans to amend the Act to permit advances up to $600 regardless of the size of the farm.


CANADA-FRANCE AGREEMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-: The Sydneys):
1.	What is the total expenditure by Canada to date under the Canada-France agreement?
2.	What is the total expenditure by France in Canada to date under the Canada-France agreement?
3.	What is the nature of cultural assistance offered by France to Canada under the agreements?
4.	Does such cultural assistance include subsidies or contributions by the Government of France to magazines, periodicals, publishing houses or other media operations in Canada and, if so, to what magazines, periodicals, publishing houses, etc., and in what amounts in each case?
5.	What organizations in Canada are receiving financial assistance from the Government of France under the Canada-France agreements and in what amounts and for what purposes?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. The department's financial contribution under the 1965 cultural agreement with France amounted to approximately $600,000 per year in the first two years of operation, i.e. 1965-66 and 1966-67. It increased to $850,000 in the fiscal year 1967-68 and it has reached about one million dollars in the fiscal year 1968-69 for a total of about $3,050,000 to date.

2.	The exact figures and statistics which represent France's contribution to the agreement could only be given by the French authorities themselves.
3.	French cultural exchanges with Canada under the 1965 agreement include scholarships, exchanges of professors, artists, scientists and technical experts, book donations and cultural events such as tours by theatrical or musical companies, film showings and other activities of that nature.
4.	No.
5.	None. Several French institutions (schools and cultural institutes) are however active in Canada, with the financial help- of the French Government. These institutions were in existence before the signature of the cultural agreement which does not mention these subventions.


RADIO SERVICE-NORTHERN CANADA
Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development been conducting negotiations or having consultations with the C.B.C. concerning the development of a policy providing AM or FM transmitters for the Northwest Territories and/or the northern parts of the provinces?
2.	Who initiated these discussions or negotiations, when did they begin, how many meetings have been held, and when did they conclude?
3.	Has the C.B.C. and/or the Department come to any conclusions, either jointly or separately, concerning the provision of this service?
4.	At what stage are these negotiations or discussions?
5.	When will a policy on this be announced by the government or the President of the C.B.C.?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: the North. A representative of the Department of Transport was included in this subcommittee which held a number of meetings and completed its report early in 1967.
3,	4 and 5. No final conclusions have been reached as to the responsibility for constructing, operating and financing the proposed stations. Discussions are continuing, but it is not possible to forecast when a policy decision is likely to be made.


AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Is the Canadian Commercial Corporation involved in any contracts related to the proposed Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and, if so, on behalf of whom?
2.	Is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce actively seeking contracts for the AWACS?
3.	Is any government department or agency actively involved in the development of AWACS?
4.	Have any Canadian companies been hired in the development stages of AWACS?
5.	Is the government committed in any way to AWACS and, if so, what is the anticipated expenditure?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Supply and Services, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. The corporation has no contractual involvement which is identifiable with the AWACS.
2.	The Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) qualifies under the Canada-United States production sharing program and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is assisting Canadian companies in their efforts to participate with U.S. companies in this program.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.


CBCT PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 
Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	The Corporation is now studying cost estimates of a new transmitter and antenna for CBCT which would cover the entire Island. If funds are available the best present estimate is that such service could begin in 1970-71.
2.	At present, the Corporation has tentative plans for the development of modest studio facilities in Charlottetown within the next five year period. The exact time for the start of this development has not yet been established and will depend to a large extent on the availability of funds.
3.	To the best of the C.B.C.'s knowledge there were no daily editorials on the P.E.I. legislature over CFCY-TV. At one time the station did telecast a wrap-up of news about the sessions each day when the legislature was sitting. This wrap-up was done by a freelance journalist but the program was discontinued long before the C.B.C. took over the station.
4.	At present, Prince Edward Island is served by the Corporation's station CBA Moncton and an affiliated station, CFCY Charlottetown. Investigation is presently underway concerning the possibility of providing a stronger signal whereby the Charlottetown area could adequately hear the full C.B.C. national network service.
I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows:
5.	The Canadian Radio-Television Commission has been working very actively on this matter, but has not yet set a date for providing CTV network services in Prince Edward Island. An announcement will be made on this matter in the near future.


CRUDE OIL MOVEMENT COSTS
Mr. Harding: Has the government undertaken any study to update estimates made by the Borden Commission of costs of moving western crude oil to Montreal under (a) public ownership of pipelines (b) private ownership of pipelines and, if so, when was the study made and what were the results of it?

May 26, 1969
Questions


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The National Energy Board reports as follows: While no detailed studies have been undertaken, the National Energy Board has reviewed the matter from time to time. These reviews indicated that the competitive position of Canadian crude oil in the Montreal market has not improved since the time of the Borden Commission.


POSTAL RATE ON PUBLIC HEALTH PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Chappell: What publications have been accepted to date, at second class rate, pursuant to the words "devoted primarily to the promotion of public health" contained in Section 11(1) (c)?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned:
Title of Publication The Caliper Paragraphic
Para-Elite
The Volunteer
Les Actualites de la Croix Rouge Red Cross News
Canadian Red Cross News Bulletin
The Despatch
Contact
Splash
Swim Signals
Newsletter
Juniors in Action Junior
Provincial News Junior
Canadian Welfare
Bien-etre Social
Crippled Civilians Quarterly
Candid Facts
Bulletin
The Canadian Le Signal
Explorations
Information Sur L'Alcoolisme Et Les Autres Toxicomanies
New Scotian
Canadian Journal of Public Health 
Publisher
Canadian Paraplegic Association Canadian Paraplegic Association-B.C. Division
Canadian Paraplegic Association-N.B. Division
Canadian Red Cross Society-Alberta and N.W.T.
Canadian Red Cross Society-Quebec Division
Canadian Red Cross Society-Nova Scotia Div.
Canadian Red Cross Society-Ontario Div. Canadian Red Cross Society Canadian Red Cross Society Canadian Red Cross Society-Ontario Div. Canadian Red Cross Water Safety Service- Alberta
Canadian Red Cross Youth-Alberta and N.W.T. Division
Canadian Red Cross Society-Ontario Div. Canadian Red Cross Society-Various Provincial Branches
Canadian Red Cross Society-B.C. and Yukon Division
Canadian Red Cross Society-Nfld. Division Canadian Welfare Council Canadian Welfare Council Society For Crippled Civilians Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Canadian Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association Ontario School for the Deaf League De Securite De La Province De Quebec
Quebec Association For The Mentally Retarded
Office de la Prevention et de Traitement de L'Alcoolisme et des Autres Toxicomanies (OPTAT)
Interprovincial School for the Deaf-N.S. Canadian Public Health Association
May 26, 1969

Questions
Title of Publication The Advocate Alcoholism Review
Western Institute for the Deaf News News Bulletin Progress Against Cancer Progres contre le Cancer Canadian Cancer Society Newsletter Ontario Chapter Bulletin
Canadian Hemophilia Society Mental Health Matters
Re-Mind
C.D.A. Newsletter Your Health
Deficience Mentale-Mental Retardation
Health Health Rays Working Safely Canadian Hearing Review E.D.C.
Life Liner
Journal
Addictions New Horizon Concept


FOREIGN STUDENTS IN GRADUATE PROGRAMS
Mr. Salisman: 1.	Has the government been consulted by the Province of Ontario about the latter's inquiry into the numbers of foreign (as distinct from Canadian) students working in graduate programmes at Ontario universities?
2.	Has the government any policy whereby it is prepared to assist, especially with financial support, graduate students from the newer, developing Commonwealth countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. CIDA is not aware of any inquiry made by the Province of Ontario concerning the number of foreign students working in graduate programs at Ontario universities.
Publisher
Alcohol and Drug Concerns Incorporated The Alcoholism Foundation of British Columbia
Western Institute for the Deaf Sanatorium Board of Manitoba Canadian Cancer Society Canadian Cancer Society Canadian Cancer Society Canadian Hemophilia Society-Ontario Chapter
Canadian Hemophilia Society Canadian Mental Health Association- Ontario Division
Canadian Mental Health Association- B.C. Division
Canadian Diabetic Association-B.C.
Tuberculosis Christmas Seal Society Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded
Health League of Canada Nova Scotia Sanatorium New Brunswick Industrial Safety Council Canadian Hearing Society Ontario Association for Emotionally Disturbed Children
Royal Life Saving Society of Canada- Ontario Branch
Canadian Association of Children's Aid Societies
Alcoholism Research Foundation Alberta Association For Retarded Children Division of Alcoholism
Alberta Department of Health
2.	Yes. Graduate students from the newer countries of the Commonwealth may receive training awards for study in Canada under Canadian technical assistance programs: and under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan.


LEASES IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Sulaiycky: 1.	How many leases are held at present in Banff National Park, in Jasper National Park and in Waterton Lakes National Park?
2.	How many leases were held on July 1, 1960 in Banff National Park, in Jasper National Park and in Waterton Lakes National Park?
3.	How many licenses of occupation are held at present in Banff National Park, in Jasper National Park and in Waterton Lakes National Park?

May 26, 1969
Questions
4.	How many licenses of occupation were held on July 1, 1960 in Banff National Park, in Jasper National Park and in Waterton Lakes National Park?
5. How many different types of leases are there held at present in Banff National Park, in Jasper National Park and in Waterton Lakes National Park?
6.	How many different types of licenses of occupation are there held at present in Banff National Park, in Jasper National Park and in Waterton Lakes National Park?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. There
are 1,028 leases in Banff National Park, 676 leases in Jasper and 211 leases in Waterton.
2.	On July 1, 1960 there were 978 leases in Banff, 602 in Jasper and 212 in Waterton.
3.	There are presently 39 licences of occupation in Banff, 29 in Jasper and 9 in Waterton Lakes.
4.	On July 1, 1969 there were 44 licences of occupation in Banff, 30 in Jasper and 6 in Waterton Lakes.
5.	There are nine kinds of leases currently held in all three National Parks as listed below:
Type	Banff	Jasper	WatertonPerpetually renewable commercial	179	36	28Perpetually renewable residential	532	303	11242-year standard commercial	16	15	342-year standard residential	71	137	1642-year commercial sever and remove	16	11	842-year residential sever and remove	2	35	342 plus 21-year commercial	48	17	1042 plus 21-year residential	73	65	23short term (21 years or less)	91	57	8Total	1,028	676	2116.	Only one type of licence of occupation is issued.


JASPER PARK SKI FACILITIES
Mr. Sulalycky: 1.	Does the National Parks Branch propose the development at any future date of ski facilities at or near Maligne Lake in Jasper National Park?
2.	Have snow studies been made within the last 30 months in the Maligne Lake area and, if so, what is the purpose of these studies?
3.	Is it the intention of the National Parks Branch to allow development of accommodation facilities at (a) Maligne Lake (b) Marmot Basin (c) Mount Edith Cavell at any time in the future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. There are no such plans.

2.	Yes, there have been studies over the last 30 months. These studies are part of a comparative survey being carried out throughout Jasper National Park to provide historical data for Avalanche forecasting and the effects on the Maligne watershed and the water level fluctuations at Medicine Lake. There is also a local warden snowfall record check in that area.
3.	Maligne Lake-there are no plans for overnight accommodation at this time, however, this is subject to review at a later date. Marmot Basin-there are no plans for overnight accommodation. Mount Edith Cavell- there are no plans for overnight accommodation.
May 26, 1969


JASPER PARK-PALLISADES TRAINING SCHOOL
Mr. Sulalycky: 1.	What was the acquisition cost of the Pallisades National Park Training School in Jasper National Park?
2.	What amount has been expended in each year since its acquisition for the operation and maintenance of the Pallisades National Park Training School?
3.	What are the names of the individuals other than those bona fide receiving training, who were guests during the year 1968 at the Pallisades National Park Training School?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
cost of this school was $277,850.
2.	The accounting system in effect prior to 1966-67 did not provide for individual operation and maintenance cost breakdown: 196667, $3,858; 1967-68, $9,452; 1968-69, $17,666.
3.	Her Royal Highness Princess Margriet of the Netherlands and her husband.


JASPER PARK-MALIGNE LAKE BRIDGE
Mr. Sulatycky: 1 What was the cost of the bridge at the North outlet of Maligne Lake in Jasper National Park?
2.	What traffic is or will be served by this bridge?
3.	What was the purpose of clearing a road right-of-way beyond the bridge at the North outlet of Maligne Lake?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
cost of the bridge was $336,119.
2.	(a) boat concession; (b) warden service; (c) maintenance and garbage disposal; (d) fire lookout tower; (e) access to bald hills; (f) recreation areas; (g) parking areas; (h) possible road up and over Poboktan.
3.	To provide access to and development as shown in 2 above.


&quot;CIGARETTES-AMOUNT SPENT TO DISCOURAGE USE
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the total amount spent by the federal government in 1968 to encourage nonsmoking and to discourage cigarette disease in Canada?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: For the fiscal year 1968-69, the
Questions
Department of National Health and Welfare expended a total sum of $233,517 in the antismoking program and for the distribution of information dealing with the harmful effects of smoking upon health.
This figure does not take into account the contribution in air time made by the Canadian Eroadcasting Corporation for the broadcasting of anti-smoking television and radio commercials.


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the name of the Executive Director of the Company of Young Canadians and what is his salary?
2.	What are the names of the Associate Directors of the CYC and what salary does each receive from the federal government?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	Claude Vidal, Executive Director, Company of Young Canadians, $19,000.
2.	Not applicable.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Coates: What are the names and salaries of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Commissioners of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission?


Gérard Pelletier: Chairman, Pierre Juneau; annual salary $26,500. Vice-Chairman, Harry J. Boyle; annual salary $26,250. Commissioners, Mrs. Pat Pearce; Real Therrien; Harold Dornan. Commissioners receive annual salaries of $24,000.
Members (part-time): Dr. Gordon Thomas, St. Anthony, Nfld.; Armand Cormier, Moncton, N.B.; Gordon Hughes, Windsor, N.S.; Colomb Cliche, Quebec City, Quebec; Miss Helen James, Toronto, Ontario; Dr. Northrop Frye, Toronto, Ontario; John Shanski, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mrs. Gertrude Laing, Calgary, Alta.; George McKeen, Vancouver, B.C.
Part-time members are paid on a per diem rate of $100 an average of two or three days per month.

May 26, 1969
Questions


BOOKLET, &quot;INDIAN SUMMER&quot;
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Was Mrs. Eiko Emori of Ottawa, Ontario chosen to provide advice regarding a booklet entitled "Indian Summer"?
2.	Is there no one in the employ of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Department competent enough to have done this work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2. There is no graphic art consultant in the department.


C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;SOMETHING ELSE&quot;
Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	Was a program for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Ottawa series "Something Else" videotaped on March 6, 1969?
2.	What was the nature of the program and who were the participants?
3.	On what date was it subsequently shown and, if it was not shown, what prevented it from being telecast?
4.	What steps are being taken to prevent further instances of this kind?
5.	Was anyone reprimanded for the difficulties that were encountered and, if so, who and what was the nature of the reprimand?
6.	Are further steps being taken to tape and telecast this program at a later date?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	The program concerned bilingualism in the civil service. The participants were 16 civil servants who discussed problems associated with learning a second language.
3.	The program was not shown. The tape was erased by mistake.
4 and 5. The employee concerned has been reprimanded and the seriousness of his action has been emphasized in accordance with Corporation procedures in cases of this kind.
6.	The retaping of this program segment is under active consideration.


POST SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS
Mr. McIntosh: Are there any claims in respect of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, from any provinces for post secondary educational adjustment payments still unpaid by the federal government and, if so (a) from which provinces (b) for what amounts (c) for what reasons in each case have the claims not been paid?


Gérard Pelletier: Payments in respect of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, have all been made, pending any adjustments necessary when final audited returns for 1967-68 are received from all provinces, and when final calculations of both tax abatements and equalization are available.


DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government considering the setting up of diplomatic relations with communist countries and, if so, which ones, and when is it anticipated that the arrangements will be finalized?


Mitchell William Sharp: Negotiations are currently under way in Stockholm for the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China; at this stage it is not possible to anticipate when these negotiations are likely to be successful.
Canada already has diplomatic relations with eight communist countries. Apart from the current negotiations with the People's Republic of China no consideration is at present being given to the establishment of relations with other communist countries.


FOREST FIRES CAUSED BY SMOKERS
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the loss caused by forest fires attributed to smokers in 1968, 1969?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The
Department of Fisheries and Forestry does not record the dollar or acreage losses caused by forest fires attributed to smokers; it does record the percentage of fires caused by smoking material, including matches. Data for 1968 have not yet been received from the provinces. During the 10-year period 1958-67 the average percentage was 21.4. In 1967 the percentage was 23.1 of the total forest fires in Canada.


PERSONNEL AT SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I. BASE
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	How many service personnel were stationed at Canadian Forces Base, Summerside, Prince Edward Island, in each of the years from 1959 to April 1, 1969, inclusive?
2.	How many civilian personnel both permanent and casual were employed in each of the years 1959 through to April 1, 1969, inclusive?
May 26, 1969

3.	What construction occurred at Canadian Forces Base, Summerside, in 1968?
4.	What construction has occurred or is contemplated at Canadian Forces Base, Summerside, in 1969?
5.	What is the value of the permanent assets of Canadian Forces Base, Summerside?
6.	Are there buildings or facilities at Canadian Forces Base, Summerside, at present, not in use and, if so, for what reason?
7.	What buildings or facilities are presently required for Canadian Forces Base, Summerside?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: 1. As of
March 31, 1959, 827; 1960, 1,018; 1961, 1,058; 1962, 1,273; 1963, 1,421; 1964, 1,455; 1965, 1,452; 1966, 1,355; 1967, 1,305; 1968, 1,312; 1969, 1,164.
2. As of March 31,
	Permanent	Casual
1959	196	1221960	208	731961	238	1001962	236	1011963	231	641964	243	881965	243	1351966	243	1221967	248	721968	232	741969	265	53.	New construction at CFB Summerside completed during 1968: (i) Renovations to Hangar 5, $22,200; (ii) Renovations to Hangars 3 and 4, $19,000; Total, $41,200.4.	No major new construction planned for 1969 at CFB Summerside.5.	The estimated market value based on a 1967 assessment of the real property assets of CFB Summerside is $13,000,000.6.	Yes, Building No. 14 with an area of 900 sq. ft. and Building No. 112, with an area of 200 sq. ft. are vacant because there is no further requirement for their designed function and they would be uneconomic to use because of their size. Buildings No. 1 and 12 are also surplus and have been sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for removal from site.7.	CFB Summerside has a requirement for all the facilities and buildings currently occupied by the Base. Some of the space is not used to full capacity due to the fact that there has been a reduction in the number of aircraft operating from the base; however, from an operational viewpoint, it would not be economically feasible to consolidate activities in order to vacate additional buildings at this time.
Questions


INCOME TAX APPLICATION TO INDIAN ESKIMO ASSOCIATION
Mr. Asselin: 1.	Was the Indian Eskimo Association of Canada denied status as a charitable organization for income tax purposes on the grounds that its objects include activities "promoting a closer relationship and better understanding", which has been held not to be a charitable purpose?
2.	Have other organizations been denied status as a charitable organization for income tax purposes for the same or similar reasons and, if so, which organizations?
3.	Is the Minister considering changes in the standards for determining status as a charitable organization for income tax purposes, to accommodate organizations like the Indian Eskimo Association of Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The Indian Eskimo Association of Canada has not been denied status as a charitable organization for income tax purposes.
2 and 3. In view of the answer to part 1, these two parts are considered to be not applicable.


WHALES QUOTA UNDER COMMISSION REGULATIONS
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What is the Canadian quota under the International Whaling Commission's regulations for (a) fin whales (b) sei whales (c) sperm whales, in the North Pacific for 1969?
2.	Are these quotas to be taken by Canadian whalers, or, if not, what is the nationality of the whalers who are authorized to take the Canadian quotas?


Eugene Whelan: 1. No Canadian national quota has been established under the International Whaling Commission regulations for fin, sei, or sperm whales in the North Pacific area for 1969.
2. Answered by 1.


OKANAGAN BOUNDARY ARDA PROJECTS
Mr. Howard (Okanagan: Boundary):
1 How much money has the federal government spent on ARDA projects in Okanagan Boundary constituency?
2.	What was the provincial government's expenditure on these projects?
3.	What was the largest project?
4.	How many projects have been commenced to date?

May 26, 1969
Questions


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. $2,920,787.
2.	$2,920,787.
3.	Black Mountain Irrigation District Rehabilitation.
4.	36.


FORESTRY PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Forestry and Rural Development have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many people (a) male (b) female, have been allowed entry into Canada as students during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	From what country of origin did each student come and how many came from each country represented in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3 What is the racial origin of each person (a) male (b) female, allowed entry into Canada as a student during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
4.	Have any people (a) male (b) female been refused entry into Canada as students during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the reason for refusal in each case?
5.	How many students from outside Canada received support and/or allowances from the federal government, directly or indirectly, and what was the value received by each student in Canadian dollars during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT BONDS-MATURITY AND REPLACEMENT
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Which Canadian Government Bond Issues reached maturity between April 1, 196? and April 1, 1969?
2.	Which of these issues was the government able to pay on maturity without further borrowing?
3.	Which of the issues maturing within this period were replaced by new issues on new conditions and rates of interest?

4.	In each case, what are the interest rates and terms and what are the differences between the interest rates of the old issues and those of the new?
Return tabled.
SUBSIDIES AND/OR SUPPORT PROGRAMS- LABOUR DEPARTMENT

Question No. 1,924-Mr. Robinson:
1.	Does the Department of Labour provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada, and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a second appeal for an answer to question No. 2,252 from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the Digby manpower office. I hope this question can be answered soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the severe criticism over the weekend levelled against the government by the shipbuilding industry and in view of the continuation of the shutdown of Canadian Vickers Company and the controversy in respect to it, can the minister say whether a meeting will be held with the shipbuilding industry officials to lay down definitely the government's plans in this regard?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why I should be held responsible for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. I would understand the hon. member meeting the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration
May 26, 1969

regarding the readjustment of workers, but as far as regional development is concerned, this matter is certainly not within my jurisdiction.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has some responsibility in this, and since he was the one who made the indelible promises in the heat of the campaign in the last election when he was worried about things, will he stand up and say something to the industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he could indicate to the house when, if at all, the government would be in a position to indicate their over-all maritime policy.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he is considering bringing in legislation to ensure that in matters such as the Vickers closing-and there are other examples- proper notice is given by industry to workers affected by such actions?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I recall making a statement on this subject last October when I had an opportunity of speaking in the house, and if my memory is correct the hon. gentleman supported my premise that such legislation is necessary. I pointed out at the time that in view of the need to study the Woods report such legislation could not be expected until next spring.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a supplementary question and in doing so to congratulate him on his statement over the weekend to the effect that there ought to be legislation defining the moral responsibility of employers in cases such as that of Vickers. I want to ask the minister whether the government intends to implement the recommendations of the Freedman report which dealt with the questions of notice, severance pay and negotiations along lines which he himself declared over the weekend to be desirable.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I might point out, also, that the unions, too, have a responsibility. Some of
Inquiries of the Ministry the unions, in their efforts on behalf of their own members, leave an awful lot to be desired in their policies, and when we see one union blocking the efforts of another union this calls for the same kind of castigation as I have devoted to industry. I have said on several occasions that I intend to bring in legislation based on the philosophy of the Freedman report. I said this during the time the hon. member was not in the house. I am pleased to say I had the support of all parties when I made that statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a further question, in view of the vagueness of his answer? Could I ask the Babe Ruth of the negotiating table whether the tender solicitude he showed for the workers over the weekend was genuine or whether it was more Irish blarney spread out to kid the workers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that neither the question nor the reply the minister is about to make would be in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Would the government or the Prime Minister consider taking over the management of Canadian Vickers until a solution has been found to the problem of the 1,000 laid-off workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Ralliement Creditiste is advocating the nationalization of all industries or just that of Canadian Vickers?


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to ask the minister whether, in considering legislation, he would bear in mind that it is frequently the ill-advised and misplaced intervention of this government in economic affairs of the nation which brings about conditions resulting in these lay-offs.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may wish to rise on a point of order. Let me say that the type of question asked by the hon. member for Peace River gives rise to difficulties because it is obviously out of order; his question is, really, a statement. Questions of this kind have to be ruled out of order, and then there

May 26. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry is a temptation on the part of ministers to reply.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, I think you are right and I shall not make the point I was about to make. However-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister, having ruled me to be right, will not be allowed to go further.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view of the fact that all parties in the house supported the minister last fall when he said he would bring in legislation based on the Freedman report, can he tell us when this will be done?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Last fall I undertook to bring this kind of legislation forward and, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, all parties supported me. I said on that occasion, however, that I could not visualize such legislation being before the house until late fall or early spring, and I see no reason which would enable me to advance that date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Late fall or early spring of what year?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the reported immediate success of the governments' new policy of welcoming United States army deserters, will the minister assure the house that applicants for landed immigrant status from Greece, Italy, Portugal, Trinidad, Hong Kong and elsewhere will receive exactly the same prompt and solicitous consideration, even though they have not broken the law of their own country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LICENSING OF CZECHOSLOVAKIAN DENTISTS

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Oxford.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question was in order but the hon. member may wish to ask another question.


Robert Norman Thompson: I will direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Czechoslavak refugees of the Soviet rape of their homeland were assured in Vienna that they would have no difficulty in obtaining suitable positions in Canada, and in view of the failure of all of the 16 Czechoslovak dentists who sat the special licensing examination of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, will the minister assure the house that the government will extend all necessary support to enable these men to take courses in Canadian dental techniques?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to one point raised by my hon. friend I want to make it clear that professional people who were seeking admission to Canada during this movement were fully and carefully advised of the situation in Canada. Applicants, especially those in the professions, were required to sign a statement recognizing that they might not be able to practise their normal trade or profession and that they were willing to accept alternative employment should this be necessary.
This statement was made to all the professionals, including the Czech dentists, and indicated they fully understood that the licensing requirements in Canada were such that their entry into the profession was solely at the discretion of the licensing authority. These statements were given in their own languages to the persons coming to Canada.
It is unfortunate that such persons have been unsuccessful, but they have been examined under the authority of those responsible for licensing arrangements. We have given every assistance to the Czech dentists, and particularly the one whose remarks were reported in the press this morning.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the great shortage of dentists in Canada and considering that, according to the College of Dental Surgeons, the dentists in question are deficient in the area of Canadian dental techniques, can the minister assure us that the Department of Manpower and Immigration will do all within its power to help these people overcome this difficulty?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we can do all that it is within our power to do; but as I understand it, the dental authorities here have determined that these Czech applicants, along with others from other countries,,
May 26, 1969

including the United States, did not meet the necessary requirements. In some cases it will be necessary for them to take additional training in Canada, but that is outside the purview of this department. We are continuing to give these persons adjustment assistance and language training where necessary. We take a very sympathetic view of their situation and that is why we took great pains during this movement to ensure that they have as full an understanding as possible of the situation here in Canada.


Mr. Lincoln Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the government has the situation of the Czech dentists well in hand, I wonder whether the minister would consult further with dental authorities in this country so that, notwithstanding statements made by these immigrants, some changes may be brought about to the dental regulations to permit these people to be accepted here as dentists?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have continuing consultations with professional licensing bodies in the provinces with respect to the admission of professionals from other countries. But standards are set by the professional bodies. In this case examinations were held or made available as a special concession. I understand that sixteen Czech dentists failed; in addition there were four from the United Kingdom, two from the United States and others from such countries as Ireland, South Africa, Norway and so on. I understand these people can re-apply for another examination in the Fall.
It is unfortunate if any professional has come to Canada with the impression that the situation is different from the existing one. I wish to assure my hon. friend that we have taken pains to advise these people in time of the situation, and we are taking pains to ensure they are receiving the best possible treatment in Canada. Nevertheless, standards are still a matter to be determined by professional licensing bodies.



ADMISSION OF PERSONS WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On what basis does the minister decide just what constitutes a criminal record when applications are made for the status of landed immigrant. Is that decision made by the minister's department
Inquiries of the Ministry or is it based on the law of the country of origin?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I think that type of question ought to be placed on the order paper.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in some ways my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Oxford. It is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. Has an investigation been undertaken to determine whether a United States criminal who crossed the border last Friday carrying a hidden tape recorder escaped customs duties?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Following his attractive appearance on television yesterday when he dealt with agricultural matters, and in view of his admission that there is a crisis in western agriculture, will the minister now say when some action is going to be taken in regard to what has been described by the Western Producer as a callous disregard for the western farmer? In particular, will the western farmer be given guidelines as to expected sales; and is it the intention of the government to give an acreage payment or a summerfallow allowance to encourage farmers to summerfallow rather than seed even at this late stage?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman is aware that it would take more time to respond to the broad range of subjects that he raised in his question than the question period allows. However, I will tell him that this morning we received the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the members of which toured western Canada. On Wednesday, I think it is, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is sending a delegation to Ottawa to discuss the grain problem with some members of the cabinet. I should like to assure my right hon. friend and the house that these representations are important to the government, and therefore ought

May 26. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry to be taken into account before recommendations are made.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the members of the opposition have been directing the attention of the government to these matters for the last seven or eight weeks, is it not about time the government had enough backbone to announce its policy?


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


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister assure the house that the government has given this matter serious consideration, and that some emergency measures are under consideration and will very soon be reported to this house?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is perhaps better aware than any other single member of this house of the consideration that was given to this question by the Standing Committee, its observations and recommendations. Indeed, there was some delay in presenting the report as a result of legitimate opinions expressed by members of the opposition. However, as I say, the report was received this morning.



DAIRY POLICY OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, in connection with the dairy policy announced on March 31.
Many producers will suffer rather heavy losses owing to that new policy. May I ask the minister whether he intends, following the protests he has already received or will undoubtedly receive, to suggest to the government that this policy be changed, so that there may be an increase in prices?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the major change in the dairy program for the 1969-70 dairy year is the change in the holdback that we will need to meet the increased costs of exporting milk powder and other dairy products for export. I should draw to the hon. member's attention that these changes are designed to hold down surplus production, and to the extent we are successful there could be an increase to the producer.



WHEAT-FLOOR PRICE ON EXPORTS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the government preparing to establish immediately a floor price under wheat being exported? I do not think such action depends on the recommendation of any committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion, and it has been received a number of times, is one of the matters the government will take into consideration when deciding what will be helpful in the situation that exists in western Canada.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I wonder if the minister could give this house some indication when we can expect a decision as to that particular aspect of the committee's report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister advise whether his department has been consulted by the Quebec government regarding the new welfare legislation, Bill 26, introduced last week? Will he also advise if the program outlined in the bill qualifies for federal assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious reservations about the question. The first part is the type of question which should be placed on the order paper. In the second part of the question the hon. member is inviting the minister to interpret the law. In view of the circumstances I do not think the question should be allowed.


William Warren Allmand: Could I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker? Can the minister advise if the federal government will be contributing to the Quebec welfare program under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Not specifically under the Canada Assistance Plan, but by allowances there will be a contribution.
May 26, 1969



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. Is bilingualism a requirement for employment in the public service in the national capital area at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems the question asked by the hon. member is a very general one. I think it is the type of question which should normally be placed on the order paper. At the same time I also suggest to the hon. member this is the very substance of the debate which is presently before this house. Perhaps that is when the question might be asked.


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, with all due respect and deference to Your Honour. Your Honour is probably not aware of what is transpiring at the moment with regard to applicants attempting to secure positions in the public service. While the official languages bill is being debated there are people trying to get employment in the public service and are being rejected because they are not bilingual. That is the reason I pose the question and why it is urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is the urgency the hon. member suggests, he knows what his recourse is under the rules. I would be very pleased to make sure that question is given precedence for discussion during the adjournment debate.


Robert Muir: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a straightforward question: Is bilingualism required?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is straightforward and I hope my ruling is also straightforward.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. It relates to answers given by the Prime Minister on Friday regarding the A.B.M. system. Could the Prime Minister say whether the decision, to which he referred on March 19, that the A.B.M. system constituted escalation, will be made in the near future?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe on Friday I said we were considering this as part of our review of defence and foreign policy, but that this was not the most urgent question for us to decide. We were trying to establish the orientations in Canada's defence policy before deciding how other countries should run theirs.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continued difficulties in obtaining passports will the minister advise if any instructions have been issued for emergency issuance of temporary passports without going through the usual processing procedures? If such instructions have been issued, can the minister advise the house when they were issued? If they have not been issued, will they be issued?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think hon. members know we are issuing temporary passports where all the requirements for the issuance of permanent passports cannot be met immediately. These passports can then be made permanent when the balance of the information is provided.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the minister and the government agree to the opening of offices authorized to issue passports either on a regional or provincial basis? Also, will the minister consider inviting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to show the passport office how to set up a filing system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for LaSalle.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but may I be allowed to remind you that I am the member for Mercier.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

May 26, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the incidents that have occurred at the Canadian Vickers, could the minister tell us if the manpower centre has succeeded so far in finding employment for some Canadian Vickers' workers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the placement services of the Department of Manpower have been at the disposal of the workers for some time now. I would like to advise my hon. friend that Marine Industries, Sorel, have today employed 125 of these persons. I understand an additional 250 men will be employed on Monday next.


Robert Muir: In the light of the strong statements made by the Minister of Labour regarding the closing down of Canadian Vickers shipyard in Montreal and consequent unemployment of more than 1,000, can the Minister of Manpower state whether the government has evolved a program either to keep the yards open or provide alternative employment, aside from what he mentioned regarding private industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been apparent the shipbuilding activity of Vickers is to be terminated. Since then it has been our objective to provide alternative employment where it could be found. I understand there are still some opportunities in the industrial division and the ship repair division at Vickers for employees displaced from the shipbuilding activity. This further demand for labour at Sorel will help the situation a great deal and will possibly absorb all the displaced workers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if Canadian Vickers Limited has refused to co-operate with his department in the reallocation of the men employed in their shipyards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, for a number of months the Department of Manpower has been interested in getting a manpower adjustment program in operation at the Vickers plant which would involve the co-operation of the employer and the unions, to plan ahead for the displacement and to set up programs that would look after the workers. We received very little, if any, co-operation from the employer in the early stages, and in the latter stages we have received very little, if any, co-operation from the unions.


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question relating to an equally difficult situation on the west coast with respect to the fishing industry and the closing of a number of canneries announced earlier this year. Can the minister announce what he has done about that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been working towards the establishment of a manpower adjustment agreement. We have a research program in being that we hope will provide answers to some of the problems that will arise as a result of displacement of persons in these canneries. From our point of view the situation is well in hand.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the government house leader. In so doing I would like to welcome the minister back to the house and hope he has drawn the proper inference from the progress that has been made during his absence.
My question has to do with the statement made by the Minister of Transport on Friday in which he said legislation has now been drafted regarding transportation policies for the Atlantic provinces. Will the government house leader assure the house that the legislation will not be brought forward until the Standing Committee on Transport has a chance to make its recommendations in that regard, and furthermore until the fifth report of that standing committee, which is now government order No. 68, is brought forward for debate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. As he will have noted the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was also absent from the house during the same period. I am going to confer with him to see if our continued absence from the house will promote business and if that is the case I am sure both of us will volunteer to continue our absence. With regard to the hon. member's other representations I will take them into account and discuss them with the Minister of Transport.
May 26. 1969


NOISE ABATEMENT
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having in mind the fact that noise is becoming a national problem in our country-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder.


Barry Mather: I was saying that having in mind the fact that noise is becoming a national problem in our country, and that the United States government last week took some steps to combat a similar problem in that country, would the minister ask his departmental officials to look into this in Canadian terms, in the hope that they will make some recommendations about this national problem?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could help solve the problem by placing his question in writing.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Dartmouth-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the fact that the Minister of National Defence has now had conversations for a full 24 hour period in Europe with the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Laird, and others, could either of these hon. gentlemen enlighten the house as to the nature of these discussions?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have no cause to depart from the timetable the minister put to the house before leaving. He is consulting with the various allies of Canada within NATO and on Monday, when he is back in the house, I am sure some of the members opposite will be present to hear him make his report.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell the house whether his department is considering an economic expansion program for the underprivileged areas of northern Ontario?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is of a very general character. However, if it is urgent, I should be happy to get a notice from the hon. member to the effect that the wishes to discuss the question at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Serre:: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]


HIGHWAY SAFETY
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR ACTION TO REDUCE DEATH TOLI______AUTOMOBILE STANDARDS
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very high death toll on the highways over the weekend would the Prime Minister advise the house when we might expect the minister responsible to take some action on this very serious problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I would think the question is of a general nature. I know it refers to an urgent situation, but as asked I would not think it would be in order.


Percy Verner Noble: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister which minister is responsible for this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will tell the hon. member gladly. It is the provincial ministers of highways.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question, supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe, to the Prime Minister. In view of conflicting statements emanating from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Transport regarding legislation for automobile safety standards, could the Prime Minister tell the house what minister is responsible for this legislation and when it will be brought forward?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is a question of manufacturing it might also come under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It really depends on what aspect of the question you want to debate. I understood the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe was asking what minister is responsible for policing the highways, and this is a matter that comes under provincial jurisdiction.


Percy Verner Noble: I did not ask who is policing the highways. I asked what minister of this cabinet is responsible for this legislation.

May 26, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am relieved that the hon.	INDUSTRY
member is not suggesting that we should LONG harbour, nfld.-federal assistance police the highways.	to electric reduction company


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would he ask the Minister of Transport to give consideration to answering me on this very serious question, as he undertook to do about two weeks ago, and say what action the federal traffic and safety people are taking to reduce the number of traffic accidents?




Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate Your Honour's ruling out my supplementary, but may I ask Your Honour's indulgence to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer the first part of my question about the opening of regional or provincial passport offices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have
already announced that we do intend to open regional passport offices at the beginning of 1970. It is quite impossible to open them before about that time because of the lack of machines and trained personnel.


WHEAT-DELIVERY TO ELEVATOR WITHOUT PERMIT BOOK
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent advertisement in the Saskatoon paper asking for 1 million bushels of No. 2 Northern grain at 70 cents a bushel delivered to the nearest elevator, would the minister say what elevator company is accepting this grain and whether any investigation is being made into this situation of delivering grain without permit books?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would send me a copy of this advertisement. If any organization wants to advertise that they are willing to receive grain at any place and anyone else wants to sell it to them, then so long as provincial borders are not crossed there is no offence in selling the grain.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Was there any involvement of any kind by any federal department, or any federal government agency, in the establishment of the Electric Reduction Company plant at Long Harbour in the province of Newfoundland? I am thinking specifically of any financial assistance, either direct or indirect, that might have been given the project through dealings with the provincial government.
Hen. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the circumstances in which the C.B.C. may no longer be in a position to purchase facilities at Moose Jaw or Regina for the establishment of a C.B.C. television outlet in the province of Saskatchewan, can the minister inform the house whether the C.B.C. is prepared to proceed with an application for an outlet based in the city of Saskatoon?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should place his question on the order paper.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I understand that museums come under his jurisdiction. Will National Museums officials be permitted to spend this summer, as they have previous summers, digging around in old Indian grave sites, thus upsetting the sensitivities of Indian people in the villages close to the grave sites?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the question is one of urgency but perhaps the minister might reply.


Frank Howard: The question was one of urgency, Mr. Speaker, but the minister was not paying attention.
May 26, 1969



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen (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.
LTranslation]
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on the official languages bill was adjourned last Friday, I was saying that we are facing a grave danger, namely that bilingual districts are to be set up where services will be provided to the public in both languages.
Mr. Speaker, we agree. The public will be served by mere clerks, good French Canadians who, to be hired, will have to take a bilingual test and attend language courses.
As for English Canadians, they will continue to control the management and the administration of the billions of dollars allotted to the various departments and Crown corporations.
In fact, the bill will only increase the number of bilingual employees but will change nothing in the high management.
Equal partners in a new Confederation, yes, but not one-way. The "After me, you come first" attitude must cease or we will have to bring it to an end one way or another. It is for us to choose.
The bilingualism which the government has undertaken to apply appears like a defence of Canadian individuality and unity, within, against separatism in Quebec, without, against a too strong Americanization. This concept of bilingualism results from the mere juxtaposition of the two linguistic groups, along with a certain tolerance in the great public instead of a true understanding.
It is important to go further, to show more fairness, to allow each and every one to participate at all levels.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I was driving at in concluding my remarks.
No doubt you know that I have asked nearly 80 questions-in three separate groups- since the beginning of September, in connection with bilingualism in the public service. I
Official Languages
wanted to know whether there was a place for French Canadians in the Canadian public service or whether they were nothing but water carriers.
It is clear from the government's replies that they are just good enough to carry water, close doors and bring coffee. They give information to the public, occupy lower positions and get starvation wages.
However, higher management in all departments and Crown corporations is controlled only, and I emphasize the word "controlled", by English-speaking people. Unfortunately, the official languages bill does nothing to correct that situation.
Government members may argue that we must wait, that we must be patient, that changes are in the offing, that language courses are being offered. Yet I must say that language courses are in full swing since 1966.
But let us consider what has happened in the federal public service since 1966. I shall give you figures pertaining to the Bank of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Mining, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
As far as those Crown corporations or government agencies are concerned, the following can be noted:
The number of French-Canadian officials with those agencies has gone, from 6.9 to 5.6 per cent.
According to the figures from 1966 to 1968 we are not progressing but going backwards as far as our representation within the public service is concerned.
On the other hand, during the same period, the percentage of Enlgish-speaking civil servants employed by the same corporations increased from 88.6 per cent to 91 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that within those very crown corporations, people whose mother tongue is neither English nor French outnumber those whose mother tongue is French. And for the posts concerned, a salary of $17,000 or more is paid.
I would like to know how the government proceeds in that field. Does it intend to assign the lower posts to all French Canadians and to give English Canadians the administrative and managerial positions? Could the government tell us whether it acts fairly with regard to promotion, reclassification and appointment to positions in the civil service for which a salary of $17,000 or more is paid?

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
I can quote figures to support this and I can give those figures to any hon. member. The government itself supplied those figures and they have appeared in Hansard. Unfortunately, no mention is made of that in the newspapers. I ask the Canadian Press and the Press Gallery reporters, not to speak about me, but to read in Hansard the answers supplied by the government since September. If they are conscientious, they will have to tell the truth to the public, namely that all French Canadians are considered fit for is to carry water or to give information to the public.
As for management, in all crown corporations and in all government departments, it is under the control of English-speaking people only.
As far as Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for example, is concerned let me quote some figures.
The proportion of French-speaking directors receiving $17,000 or more annually has not varied from 1966 to 1968; it has remained nil. In the same period and in the same crown corporation, I repeat in the same crown corporation, from 1966 to 1968, the number of English-speaking employees receiving $17,000 or more per year increased from 36 to 117.
There is a limit to being deluded with promises by prime ministers who tell us: Long live confederation, long live bilingualism. Keep quiet, you French Canadians, Quebecers, you will eventually get your place.
If we have to wait another 100 years to enjoy the rights granted to us by confederation, in 1867, I for one would prefer to get out of it. I am not prepared to wait another 100 years to know if we can have our place within confederation and the public service. If Canadians really want a bilingual, bicultural country, if we are really honest with ourselves, the ratios of 0 to 0 and of 36 to 117 will have to disappear, and not in five years hence, but right now, for our French Canadians brains will come less and less to Ottawa, and will rather develop their own state, because they will have no other choice.
I am willing to live in Canada, because I am no separatist, and I do not believe in separatism, and I say so sincerely, honestly, until proof to the contrary. But I do not believe either in the present confederation, or in this government who deludes us with bilin-gualism-biculturalism trifles, the application of which will change absolutely nothing, will contribute to increase the control by higher English-speaking officials, and will continue

to restrict the role of French Canadians to lesser positions in the public service, answering the public.
I think the population is unaware of the true situation. The people believes that this official languages bill will change the situation. I for one, think that it is all eye-wash, and that nothing in this bill guarantees that French Canadians will have their share of higher positions in the federal public service.
I could give you more figures for the Department of Finance, the National Research Council, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the Treasury Board, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Comptroller of the Treasury.
Among the senior officials earning $17,000 or over in the above-mentioned departments, the mother tongue of 40 only is French. On the other hand, the number of senior officials whose mother tongue is English reaches 518; this is a percentage of 6.6 per cent for French Canadians against 85.4 per cent for Englishspeaking Canadians.
The truly interesting point is to note the number of senior officials earning $17,000 and over and whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. The proportion is 8 per cent and the number, 49. Therefore, more citizens whose mother tongue is neither English nor French than French-speaking citizens are hired.
In 1965, Crown agencies and departments were administering more than 10 billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, that is big management. That is where the money of Canadian taxpayers goes. In my opinion, French Canadians are truly part of confederation, they are considered as very good taxpayers, and, consequently, they should have their share in the administration of those billions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, we are subjected to much discrimination. We are ready to live through the tremendous adventure of confederation. We are ready to continue, for better or for worse. We do not want to take anything away from others, but we want our share. We do not want to create injustice for others but we want to be put on the same footing.
We do not want to be deluded into the belief that we are being treated in the same manner as English-speaking Canadians, we want to be first class Canadians at all levels of the public service, or else that body will continue to be what it is now: An ivory tower accessible only to English-speaking Canadians.
May 26. 1969

Mr. Speaker, many highly competent French Canadians-and I could name dozens of them-have complained to me about the injustices, the discrimination they were submitted to.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
When these very competent graduates from French-Canadian universities apply for a position in any department, and are turned down because they do not speak English, I say that is pure and deliberate discrimination on the part of certain narrow-minded English-speaking people in the public service who want to have control over the positions, when unilingual English-speaking applicants with the same qualifications get the positions.
Mr. Speaker, if our rules concerning the recruiting of civil servants are to be based on the degree of competence, I agree. But the language spoken should not be ground for discrimination because it would be the glaring proof that Confederation is not possible for French Canadians since they would be excluded from all senior administrative positions.
We are French-Canadian members in the federal parliament. I have been here since June 25, and I have the honour of representing my fellow-citizens from Lotbiniere. I do all my work in French, everything is done in French. Mr. Speaker, your mother tongue is French. Many hon. members have French as their mother tongue. There are many French Canadians in the public service, and thanks to the work the Ralliement Creditiste has done since 1962, we are respected in the federal parliament. The French fact is also recognized within the government.
However, Mr. Speaker, having French-Canadian ministers is not everything. In addition, the administration of the government, the leadership of the government-because we know that parliament is one thing and that the government is another-must be open to French Canadians.
We read and hear speeches from some separatists in the province of Quebec. I do not share their opinions; however, basically, I admire those people who stand up and say that the French-Canadian people should enjoy equal status. However, I fail to agree when they say that nothing can be altered in Ottawa and that separation has to come.
Mr. Speaker, I would like this government to prove that Confederation is viable and that the French-Canadian people can really have the positions they deserve in the public ser-
Official Languages
vice. I wish this government would, without depriving others, make it possible for us French Canadians to be treated as equals. Let us recognize both official languages, but let us also recognize the individuals who speak those two official languages; otherwise, Confederation will be meaningless.
Not only must we recognize both official languages-something that should have been done over a hundred years ago-but also the human beings who speak those languages. If those who speak one of these two languages are thrown out of the public service, 1 say that this bill is a lot of nonsense as well as the public service and Confederation.
It is up to us to prove to the whole world and to the Canadian people that Confederation is worthwhile, that it is possible within it to be respected and to respect others as well, to be considered on an equal footing without depriving one another, by recognizing, not only the official languages, but also-and that is even more important-those who speak them.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate because regardless of the effect this bill will have on the nation as a whole it will place a burden on western Canada in addition to those already affecting the economic and social life of that part of the country. The bill represents an intrusion by this government into an area specifically reserved under the constitution, that is, the usage of the English and French languages.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in his opening statement the other day said:
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. 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. Seen in this light, the present bill represents the culmination of an extensive evolution.
The only way one can bring about an evolution of the constitution is by properly amending it; otherwise a written constitution is meaningless. Section 91 (1), an amendment to the constitution brought in under the St. Laurent government, restricts the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada as regards the use of English or French. It is obvious that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying to amend the constitution without the necessary consultation with the

a manner that will not impose a burden on our other groups. Throughout the years a tremendous fund of good will has been built up that is allowing this to happen. To impose at this time a bill of such a divisive nature into this climate of good will could very well destroy the purpose for which this bill is intended.
For that reason I oppose this bill unless it is first referred to the Supreme Court or is brought in as a proper amendment to our constitution.


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-120 I want first to protest against the false and misleading reporting of this stage of the legislative process by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was stated on the C.B.C. news program, "The World At Eight", on Friday morning that this measure could perhaps receive approval in principle by second reading later that day, and I understand that this statement was repeated again this morning. I also noticed that this morning's issue of the Globe and Mail, I believe under Mr. Seale's by-line, also repeated this misinformation. After almost five months of operation under the new rules, surely the persons reporting the proceedings of this house should know that second reading merely allows the referral of legislation to a committee and nothing else. However, in view of the fact that most members of the newspaper editors' fraternity in Canada appear to consider this debate to be almost totally unnewsworthy, perhaps one should be thankful that at least the people's broadcasting system deigns to mention it more or less in passing if only in an inaccurate way.
I should first like to deal with some of the most glaring trouble spots in the bill. The first of these is clause 13 (1) which says that a bilingual district may vary in size between a census district and a school district. The important thing to note here is that census districts are established by the Governor in Council and therefore can be quite variable in themselves. It seems to me that this bill has been presented to the public on the basis that bilingual districts will roughly correspond to the boundaries of federal electoral divisions even though it has been represented that British Columbia will have no bilingual districts and there would only be a few in the prairie provinces and Atlantic Canada excluding, of course, New Brunswick.
Official Languages
One could also ask what is the necessity of the establishment of bilingual districts at all in view of the proposed amendments to clause 9. The difficulty here, of course, is in the words "significant demand" because this is another area that is totally subjective so far as the administration of this bill is concerned. It is in the area of administration that the real troubles will arise because, as has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), the bill is in large part a purely administrative one and, apart from the clauses dealing with the administration of justice, does not give the federal government any new powers.
Many Canadians are already objecting to and are fearful of the emphasis being placed on bilingualism in the public service. One has only to refer to the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) for confirmation of this. It is my feeling that this bill will merely increase the emphasis rather than modify it or put it on a more rational and functional basis. I say this because I believe in bilingualism in the public service of Canada on a functional basis, but not in a totally bilingualized civil service. After all, what is the aim? I have always thought the aim to be that service should be provided in both languages. This does not mean that everyone must know both languages. It means that in any particular office or facility there should be one or more persons to serve the minority public in that area. However, everything about this bill seems to deny this reasonable policy, and on the contrary, implies an open-endedness that will force the provision of a bilingual service where it may not be desired or required. In this connection may I point to the fact that once established there is plenty of room for the expansion of bilingual districts but no provision for their abolition if, through the mobility of population, these same districts should no longer qualify for establishment as districts.
There is no provision for the desires of the residents to be heard. An advisory board is contemplated, but of what possible good is such a body if its members do not go out amongst the people actually affected by the board's opinion? Surely the board should reflect the opinions of the citizens concerned, or is this board to be just another haven for tired, worn-out Grits, another last chance for participatory democracy?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The opinion of the editor of the Ottawa Citizen notwithstanding-and here I refer to

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
his editorial of May 22-the provisions of the bill concerning the administration of justice are particularly offensive to any understanding of our constitution, which of course places the responsibility for the administration of justice on the provinces. In its original draft, which is all we have before us officially, the provisions contained in clause 11 are flagrantly unconstitutional. How can this parliament impose a duty on any provincial court? To attempt to do so is to fly directly in the face of the doctrine of the division of powers and the supremacy of	parliament-doctrines
which are basic to our constitution. I suggest that the proposed amendment to 11(4) does not in any way get around this objection because it does not remove the duty mentioned in subclause 1 from any of the criminal courts of the common law provinces-that duty being to receive or take evidence in either of the official languages, depending upon the request of the accused. Surely the only effective way of curing this fault would be to make subclause 4 apply to subclause 1 in full.
No matter what the government says about clause 11, Mr. Speaker, and in particular about the way in which the subclauses are interrelated, there is no doubt in my mind that subclause 4 does not have any effect on subclause 1 by the interposition of subclause 3, because it is merely permissive in nature. In my opinion this is of particular importance in view of the coyness of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in suggesting that it would place him at a disadvantage if he were called upon to defend this bill before the Supreme Court of Canada if he were to reveal his constitutional authority now.
The House of Commons is the highest court in the land, whether the Minister of Justice knows it or not, and I believe the minister is in contempt of this court by refusing to behave in an adult and mature manner in this regard. One would almost think he fancies himself as a Perry Mason type of person, saving all his legal expertise to the last possible moment. Speaking of expertise, one thing which is evident about this bill is that no drafting expertise went into it at all.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to the social implications of the bill. We have heard references made to melting pots and mosaics. Personally, I do not accept the melting pot theory as exemplified by the United States experience, as I believe the great significance of Canada is the tolerance displayed by the whole for its many parts. Of course, I speak as a member of that group of

Canadians whose background is neither British nor French. It may be, therefore, that I do not feel any guilt for any of the alleged sins of my forebears because, quite frankly, I do not feel guilty about any injustices which either the French or British allege may have been perpetrated on them by the other group in the past. Perhaps it is because they lack this guilt feeling that the people of western and most of Atlantic Canada cannot be said to be exactly in love with this bill. In these parts of the country it is looked upon as a central Canadian solution to a central Canadian problem. The only objection is that it has national implications and national repercussions totally outside the ambit of the Dominion civil service.
If one wants to look, plenty of evidence can be found that the Dominion government continues to believe it has the constitutional right to abuse its spending power, as it did with medicare, to impose its ideas on language and culture on the individual provinces. It would be interesting to know what economic or money lever was applied to the new premier of Alberta, Mr. Harry Strom, popularly referred to as a nice guy, to quieten that province's official if not actual doubts about this measure-doubts which were so ably set out by the hon. E. C. Manning in his letter to the Prime Minister of October 29, 1968.
Apart from constitutional or social questions I believe this bill raises questions important to Canada's economic future. While it is glib to say one cannot put a price tag on bilingualism because, according to its proponents, they have a monopoly on ideas for nation saving, I submit that there certainly is a price tag involved.
I referred earlier to the melting pot theory. In my view this bill will go a long way toward the imposition of the melting pot theory in this nation but with two pots instead of just one. This is twice as bad as having one. The bill before us will merely serve to weaken both the French and English languages in this country. I have had English speaking proponents of the bill tell me that it is a good bill because it will help to break down the relative immobility of the French speaking population of Quebec and get them out into the English speaking ocean of 220 million North Americans where they will be swallowed up and assimilated.
A further aspect of this bill which has not been considered, apart from the tremendous cost, is the inefficiency which it will cause.
May 26, 1969

This will make Canada, as a nation, less competitive in the world marketplace. I would like to refer here to what G. A. Blackburn, the man responsible for the federal service language training program, had to say as reported in the Montreal Star for April 16, 1969. I am reading from the report.
Becoming bilingual through classroom teaching is impossible, says the man responsible for the language training program in the federal civil service.
A second language, G. A. Blackburn said here yesterday, can only be attained by one who is prepared to work on a full-time basis in a second linguistic and cultural milieu for a long period- a year or more.
The need for the second language is particularly doubtful in the technological and scientific fields. I would seriously ask why these areas of the public service are not specifically exempt from the operation of this bill because surely it must be apparent to everyone that the average Canadian has absolutely no contact with these areas of the government. I believe it is also true that the French language has now become quite inadequate in these areas. It certainly cannot be argued that it is necessary to impose compulsory bilingualism on scientific and technological personnel in order to carry out the stated aims of this bill or to preserve and strengthen the cultural fact of the French language in this country.
I would like to make reference to the question of representation abroad. It should be apparent to everyone that for the next decade at least, if present policies are continued, more and more of the public service will be made up of persons whose first language is French. This will be one of the facts of life, because it is impossible for the rest of Canada, bearing in mind the facilities we have and the fiscal resources available to us, to produce anywhere near enough bilingual persons whose first language is English. I would again like to refer here to the comments of Mr. Blackburn as reported in the Montreal Star:
He admitted, however, that in his opinion the truly bicultural person is virtually non-existent. Even the bilingual person was "at an enormous disadvantage if he has to do intellectual creative work in a second language."
Stressing the differences between bilingualism and biculturalism Mr. Blackburn pointed out that England and the United States may speak the same language but they form two distinct cultural groups.
"They have most words in common, but the words do not necessarily mean the same thing."
Since language reflected the background and the experience of the people, communication between two individuals was effective only when they were of the same culture or when each of them had a
Official Languages
thorough understanding of the cultural background and experience of the other. "Failure to take this concept into consideration produces many translations which do not convey the intended message," Mr. Blackburn said.
He suggested that Canadian companies serving a clientele made up of both French and English "need a team representative of both cultures" with each member of the team "free to do his creative work in his own first working language."
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the question has to be asked: should not some attempt be made to define "bilingual" in order to relieve against this problem, because most of our representation abroad is of necessity conducted in the English language? Is it not poor practice to have policies at home which require our representatives abroad to work primarily in their second language? Will this policy give us our most effective representation where, as a nation which must trade to live, our interest is so vital? In other words, Mr. Speaker, will this policy help sell our timber, pulp and paper, fish, wheat and oil, or will it be a hindrance?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I believe the thoughts of one J. W. Kitchie of Victoria, British Columbia, are appropriate here, as he expressed them in a letter to the editor published in the Albertan of May 20, 1969. He says:
As the government has brought the new official languages bill before the House of Commons, and as there seems to be every indication that some appointments in the civil service, the armed forces and other federal agencies, will depend on a bilingual qualification it is essential that the term "bilingual" is clearly defined. The above definitions-
These are some definitions of bilingualism set out at the beginning of the letter to which I did not refer.
-are from two recent editions of French dictionaries, published in Quebec and in Paris. Three contemporary English dictionaries mention or infer equal facility, or fluency in both languages.
Complete fluency in both official languages will not be easy to find in this country; we must accept a degree of difficulty with idioms, the construction of sentences and some grammatical errors in that language which is not our native tongue. The Canadian of French parents often retains an accent to a greater or lesser degree which indicates his upbringing and background. Similarly, most English Canadians who have been taught French do not develop a true accent. Limited vocabularies and different grammatical constructions compound the problems. If one uses French with an English accent, some grammatical errors, a limited vocabulary and a lack of familiarity with French idioms, speaking only as well as some of the French federal cabinet ministers stumble through their television interviews in English, is one bilingual?

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
True bilingualism would be most difficult to achieve in this country, but practical bilingualism must be defined in the official languages bill to be equally fair to those seeking appointments where bilingualism is considered essential, whether their native language is French or English. Proficiency must be based on a standard, clearly defined ability to communicate regardless of the mother tongue of the individual.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the problem is forbearance and sympathy to someone who is seeking assistance, advice or direction in that official language which is not his mother tongue.
The Minister of Justice has stated that it would be tragic for Canada if this bill were referred to the Supreme Court for a test of its constitutionality. All I can say is that it is almost criminal for the minister to be promoting this bill and legislation such as the omnibus Criminal Code bill at a time when large areas of this country are suffering from what is in fact an economic depression due to the non-existence of an effective or aggressive grain marketing policy and abysmally poor administration of the grain movement machinery, while other areas are suffering from abnormally high unemployment compounded by the problems of runaway inflation and an inadequate housing program. I say it is almost criminal for him to be diverting our attention from these problems when he has so little faith in the legality of what he is promoting. After all, what would be so tragic about the Supreme Court of Canada declaring that this bill is perfectly within the powers of the government of Canada? I am sure we would all feel a lot more comfortable if that statement were made.
Even if the bill were clearly constitutional, since it deals with language it should be in our constitution, in the same way as religion. If there is the support for this policy in the country that the Prime Minister believes there is, and if he has the mandate he alleges, why is he avoiding its implementation through entrenchment in the constitution? He has already passed up the February, 1969, constitutional conference, and he could have used the one that is going to be held within the month for this purpose. Why is he ignoring that method in favour of using his parliamentary majority to force his ideas on the country?
In my view the people of Canada did not give the Prime Minister a mandate for this legislation at all. This legislation is really based on the two-nations concept which the Prime Minister never tires of saying was rejected by the people of this country last June.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am not usually hesitant about entering a debate in the House of Commons, particularly on a controversial matter, but in this case I am. My reason is a fairly simple political one, namely, that I probably represent more French Canadians outside of the province of Quebec than anywhere else outside that province. The other day the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) spoke on this measure, and I have been prompted to rise today because my interpretation of what has happened in that area over the years is considerably different from his. I had the opportunity of living in Timmins for many years. There are many people living in Timmins today who worked with me in the mines, having arrived in Canada from countries whose tongues were strange to that area. Many of these people now speak English with a broken accent. Many new Canadians came to the area from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Ukraine, Hungary and many other countries, and they learned to speak our language very quickly because they had the obligation and the opportunity to do so.
The population of Timmins was a very heterogeneous one. People spoke their native tongue when they assembled, and I found Timmins a pretty good place to live because there was absolutely no discrimination on the part of anybody. It is interesting to note that the left wing and the right wing of each organization had its own hall and newspaper, but in the main the population of Timmins was fairly heterogeneous. Very little was said about language or religion, and very few were ever asked what was their ethnic origin.
I remember a survey carried out in a class that one of my children attended. According to that survey the largest ethnic group in the school, which I might point out was in the Italian section of the town, was Ukrainian, followed by English, Italian and French. Each of the following groups consisted of less than three pupils because there were only three Ukrainian children in the class. The teacher came from Africa and there were students from China, Japan and many European countries. I do not think the children found much of a problem in that area.
I worked for many years with these ethnic groups in Timmins and I found that their problems were identical with mine. They wanted more money. They wanted the boss to treat them better. They wanted a pension plan. These were the same things I and everybody else wanted. So in fact language
May 26, 1969

was not really the problem. If the hon. member for Timmins found things to be different, then I suggest that he made them different; it was not that they were different. I suggest that if you really want to find a problem you can always find one; otherwise there is no problem.
* (3:40 p.m.)
I am opposed to the attitude taken by a number of people in the province of Quebec, an attitude that is now spreading to Ontario and which I think will cause a great deal of grief to those sponsoring it. I refer to the establishment of unilingual French institutions in both Quebec and Ontario. If you go to a school in my area where French only is spoken, you have great difficulty in furthering your education. There are three institutions only to which you can go if you wish to take academic courses. But they are growing very rapidly and have too many students. Problems are developing in northern Ontario particularly because Laurentian University will not be enlarged quickly enough to admit all students seeking entry. I notice that the University of Ottawa has discussed this matter also. I read an article in the Globe and Mail saying that the university is not interested in becoming a unilingual institution but is happy to remain bilingual.
It is said that French speaking Canadians wish to remain unilingual in order to preserve their language and culture. Maybe that is correct; maybe it is not. English speaking people certainly do not have this attitude. I could, if I so wanted, include the letters U.E.L.-United Empire Loyalist-after my name. Seven or eight members here are United Empire Loyalists. It is therefore safe to say that English speaking Canadians are not of purely English descent in the sense in which our French speaking Canadians can trace an almost purely French descent. Our French speaking Canadians do not wish to belong to France but are conscious of their French heritage.
I was particularly impressed by the speeches of two hon. members, one of them being the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). Over the years I have disagreed with his political views but I have always given him credit for representing the people of Quebec as I know them. He speaks for them, represents their aspirations, and when he says his constituents want to remain within the Canadian nation we should listen to him. If they are to be Canadians they cannot belong to another nation. That is the sense of 29180-573*
Official Languages
his remarks, although the translation I heard may have been of doubtful quality. He has said in English that the people of his area are interested in the development of Canada as a nation. That means that there is not much separatism in his constituency.
When the Minister of Justice was presenting a number of amendments to this bill the other day the hon. member asked him if he was as well informed about the attitude of English speaking Canadians as he was about the attitude of French speaking Canadians, and the minister said he was not. At least, that is how I understood his answer. It is difficult for us to know really what French speaking Canadians are saying, and an election in Quebec will not make us wiser. Although two or three new parties will contest future elections in that province, we will not know how the people really think on this issue because each party represents a different point of view. The people there Eire divided on some issues, and this is part of the problem.
In some ways the present government is dangerous. The Prime Minister, who is an academic, puts Quebec first. That has been his attitude for many years, I believe, and that has been the attitude of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and, no doubt, of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). Everyone is entitled to his position and I am condemning no one for taking sides on this very emotional and contentious question. But it is dangerous for these persons to take such a stand because no one is really clear about some of the things Quebec desires.
In my constituency there are some French speaking communities whose members are interested in exactly those things that interest all English speaking Canadians. French speaking farmers want exactly what English speaking farmers want. Last night I attended a meeting with French speaking and English speaking farmers. Both linguistic groups were concerned about a provincial Department of Highways program which was taking land from their farms. They all had exactly the same problems and faced them in exactly the same way.
I am afraid of the discrimination this legislation may promote in this country. The Prime Minister said that even elevator operators would need to be bilingual. Perhaps elevator operators need to know how to say "good morning" or "good afternoon" in both languages, but that is about as far as it goes.

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
If an operator is surly he need say nothing. Printed instructions and directions could be nailed to the sides of elevators, and no one would have to ask the operator for directions. In any event, it may not be a good idea to talk too much in elevators. People talking in the elevators may be slowing the service in the parliament buildings. I make these comments because some employees in Ottawa are worried about recent government actions.
In my constituency there are several communities in which French is spoken predominantly, although most of the people can speak and understand English. These people do not live in a ghetto. I mention these communities because I am pleased to see that the minister has recognized in the amendments he introduced how necessary it is to prevent the establishment of French speaking ghettos. In any event, establishing linguistic ghettos in this country would run counter to the spirit of the recommendations of the B and B report. When I visited Lac St. Jean recently and had a chance to refresh and enjoy myself I found no difficulty in communicating with the inhabitants. Therefore, why should ghettos be set up? It is unreasonable to expect older people to learn a second language. I have a neighbour who is French speaking and is proud to be French. She said to me at once, "You know, I was lucky to be born French." When I asked her why, she said, "Because I was forced to learn French. If I had not been forced I never would have learned it." Strange to say, her little son is doing poorly at school in French, finding it difficult to master.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Minister of Justice mentioned another criterion which struck me as being very odd. I would like to see it pursued when the bill reaches the committee stage. The minister named a number of Canadian universities and gave the number of graduates who had made applications for employment by the Civil service. The figures indicate there is employment in the civil service for university graduates. The minister should have mentioned how many of these positions carried a restriction of bilingualism. I would like Canada to be a bilingual nation but it is stupid to suggest that by tomorrow this country will be bilingual.
The government should change its attitude toward the constitution. The manpower service got more deeply involved in federal aid to education under program 5. When the present Minister of Regional Economic

Expansion joined the cabinet the program was scrapped. The education now provided by the provinces in this field is not nearly as satisfactory. The federal government should decide what education is required for the jobs available.
If the provinces are interested in establishing bilingual education, the federal government should make money available for this project. The government could start realistically providing opportunities for bilingual jobs in the civil service in 15 years' time when these students are qualified to do these jobs, but most persons trained in Ontario in the last 15 years are not capable of being bilingual. They may do as well as some of our deputy ministers who were trained at a cost of $45,000 but they will still follow the normal procedure of translating from one language to the other.
The Secretary of State says that federal education is unconstitutional and cannot be done. If the provinces were approached by the federal government with an offer to pay for bilingual education, I believe it would be accepted. When it is economically feasible, children of ethnic backgrounds should have an opportunity of learning more than two languages. When the government makes certain jobs available to bilingual people only, this is discrimination. If the federal government does not enter into some arrangement with the provinces to provide bilingual education, it will be discriminating against 85 to 90 per cent of our population.
The Minister of Justice stated he was in favour of the federal government providing financial assistance for bilingual education, but more than that is required. There must be an interest on the part of the Canadian people. Not all Canadians will be able to learn a second language. Some may even object to it. Most of us have prejudices of one kind or another. A child six years of age will have less prejudice than at 25 years of age. This is why it is important that bilingual education must begin in kindergarten. I suggest that four classes a day could be taught in one language and four in the other.
I strongly oppose the idea of hanging on to the province of Quebec as just a sop. When I say this I am speaking of the province and not of the people of that province. I am not in favour of the government making concessions merely to save its own skin. I have enough faith in the people of Quebec to know they will make up their own minds when the time comes. I suggest their decision will be based
May 26, 1969

on economic reasons. Those who want to separate Quebec from Canada suggest taking away the family allowance and other advantages. It is not necessary to discriminate against the rest of the country because of the province of Quebec. I do not know their attitude toward bilingualism, but I imagine they think the matter is being handled in a ridiculous manner. French speaking Canadians do not believe that bilingualism will really be put in effect. They feel it is not true bilingualism and are therefore not interested. English speaking Canadians will not be interested if their jobs are going to be in jeopardy.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) made some very good pronouncements respecting labour in the last few months. I am sure the minister agrees that a man is being violently discriminated against if jobs that might be available to him are not red-circled. His ability to develop six hands or four legs will be curtailed. Until a creature with four legs is available that job should be red-circled or everyone who does not have four legs will be discriminated against. This also applies to linguistic ability which cannot be developed overnight. If this legislation does not provide red-circle protection for jobs that require particular training, there will be discrimination that will apply to 75 per cent of the civil servants.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I believe that the federal government can make Canada a bilingual country. The only difference between us and the Americans is the Johnny Canuck atmosphere that we have maintained through the Don Messer show, the maple syrup jamborees, the Quebec Carnival. These are the kind of things that make us different from the Americans. Most of us feel proud of the image presented by the plaid shirts and the steel-capped boots of the lumberjacks. We have gained considerably from it.
I would be very surprised if any member of parliament disagreed with the theory that we should start bilingual education in kindergarten for future generations. I am sure that many members of parliament, and there are many who share some of my prejudices and have others of their own, would support this legislation if they were not certain it was going to move Hull into Ottawa and displace many of the English speaking people now working in Ottawa. This is the fear of many people. For some reason not many of my English speaking friends are bilingual. The only people who are truly bilingual are the
Official Languages
French speaking who have learned English. Thus we are faced with a major problem regarding employment in the federal civil service. I do not know that any of the senior English speaking officials are bilingual.
I am surprised at the attitude of some Liberal members with regard to some of the things that were accomplished in the past. It was not much to put bilingualism on cheques, but some laughed at the former prime minister because his regime accomplished that. I only wish they would stop to think of how things were when I first came to parliament. That is not long ago but even then, when a French Canadian stood up and spoke French in the house nobody listened, and it was four or five days later before his speech in French was printed in Hansard. Until the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced the simultaneous translation system a French person did not speak in this house in French because by the time his speech was translated the debate was over.
Credit should be given for that action. It was an advance in communication. The reason I pay attention to my Social Credit friends who do not speak English is that now I can understand what they are saying. These have been worth-while steps. But no one should be of the opinion that we have to take all the steps at one time or we are not doing anything. Credit should be given where credit is due, and I am pleased to say that my experience shows there has been great tolerance shown in Canada to people of various ethnic backgrounds who came to this country. The only part of my ancestry that did not have any problem in coming to Canada contributed the small percentage of Indian blood that I have in me, but even those Indians of an earlier era would have felt out of place anywhere else except in the small territory they knew.
There are emotional reasons why some people can support this bin wholeheartedly and others cannot. If its only purpose is to create division, to give advantage to a particular group, we should not support that position. I also suggest that any government that hides behind the constitution and does not have the guts to stimulate bilingual education with federal support, direction and encouragement is being dishonest in sponsoring and passing this limited type of legislation. This legislation will make it very difficult for all adults today who speak only one language, and for all children going to school today in areas where bilingual educational facilities are not

May 28, 1969
Official Languages
available. Many of the people who have not supported this bill wholeheartedly have taken that stand because of their prejudice, but many of them have indicated that their children are going to schools where they will gain the advantage of becoming bilingual.
When my children were available for summer work they did not work in Ontario. They worked in Quebec. I have one son who worked in Quebec for four summers. When he went there to work on a job with 40 or 50 men, only the cook and the foreman could understand him in English. Surprisingly, after he worked there four summers everybody could understand him in English but he could not understand them very well in French. They had all learned English but he had not been able to learn French. So I sent another son to work in Quebec, and as he had learned his French in school he spent most of his time correcting their grammar. But at least we have made the effort. I am sure many people are willing to make the effort on behalf of their children and grandchildren.
However, these same people are disillusioned by a government that introduced this type of legislation out of bias and prejudice without simultaneously introducing legislation giving bilingual opportunities to all Canadians. I hope that before long the Minister of Justice will have his way in cabinet. I am sure the Minister of Labour and a number of his other English speaking colleagues will support that position and provide an opportunity whereby the provinces can take advantage of federal assistance to establish a bilingual educational system for all their people. I strongly urge the government to explore the possibilities of supplying the kind of financial assistance that will allow the provinces to make bilingual education an accomplished fact in all of Canada.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: 

approach based, I am sure, on honest instincts. As I said, there is a high degree of emotionalism, some of which is healthy, much of which is based on friendship-friendship with individuals-and some based on a love of this country as it is, as it has been, and what we hope it to be.
I have lived in Quebec, where I brought my bride from England. I have fought side by side with French speaking citizens of this country during the war. My brigade was a half French speaking union of Le Regiment de la Chaudiere and the North Shore New Brunswick Regiment. I have joined in the political activity of this country, as well as in business and private life, with our French speaking compatriots. I have done these things with men with names such as Metivier of St. Damien de Bellechasse, Lainesse of St. Hyacinthe, Tessier of Toronto, Letoumeau of Montreal, Beaudoin of Valcourt, Leclaire of Granby, and Huel of Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan. Like the hon. member for Timiskaming, my children have worked on the roads and in the factories of Quebec. They too have very close friendships and certainly we are all proud of these friendships.
Today I serve with men like Pilon, Laniel, Clermont and Dr. Isabelle, and under men like Pepin, Marchand, Pelletier and Trudeau. I serve also with men across the chamber such as Caouette and Latulippe. Perhaps I do not agree with them all the time. But I respect them and the quiet dedication of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), with whom we all mourned in his recent tragic loss. To be unemotional in such circumstances would be less than human, but anything that lessens such associations I oppose with all my vigour and anything that brings us closer together I cherish and revere, and I will fight continuously for these things in this house.
While this bill represents a milestone it also represents opportunities not suggested in the bill itself. It represents an opportunity for mutual enrichment, for dignity and for a distinctive Canadianism. I was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscamingue. We think of ourselves as a nation and are respected as a people throughout the world. We have this great magnetic force in that great nation to the South whose people are our great friends, allies and business partners. Yet there is something special about being a Canadian. We have rejected the melting pot tradition they have adopted, and maybe this is a natural evolution in view of
Official Languages
the fact that our great immigration took place after theirs.
In my own area of Toronto, which is a great centre of massive immigration to this country, there is no thought of calling people names based on their origin, as happened in pre-war times. We used to comment on their accents, but today we take pride in their existence here. We enjoy the opportunities which exist for mutual enrichment and we enjoy their traditions, their restaurants, their churches and their parties. This is a shrinking world because of modem transportation where by people of this country can be in another country or another continent or environment in a matter of hours.
We must always remember the advantages that may accrue to us as a result of bilingualism. This may not be true of many of us, but many of our children will become bilingual and many will become trilingual as a result of the language of their parents. This will not only make us a favored people as world citizens but more favoured in this country. It will be of assistance to our economy in the world, and our children welcome this bill.
The people I have spoken to across this country from east to west have certain reservations for themselves in this regard but no reservations for their children. I have yet to meet a teenager-a schoolboy or schoolgirl- who does not welcome this as an opportunity. These are the ones we are really working and talking for today.
In the short time I have been here I have found that progress comes slowly. It is important, however, that we continue to make progress in view of the opportunities that we have. We think of the opportunities for travel our children have as a result of the supersonic and jumbo jets now coming. Our children will spend their weekends or vacations in various areas of the world. We must remember the advantages our children will have in speaking another language when visiting other parts of the world. This will be of tremendous advantage to them.
I must say in passing that if the future unity of this country was dependent on my ability to speak the French language we would be in deep trouble. I will be taking a total immersion course beginning next week and I fear I may drown, but I hope that following it I will be more conversant with this language. At least we are trying. Many members of this house are making an effort, and this is very important.

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
These great things will not happen as a result of the passing of this bill, but by surpassing this bill. The conscious decision that we should accept this as a fact of Canadian life and as one of the advantages and enrichments of life in this country sets the stage for future development. This is not going to happen immediately, as I said. It might not happen in our lifetime. We may not see bilingualism during our time, but hopefully we will see progress to the point that in another generation 20 per cent of the non-French speaking population will be bilingual. Perhaps in still another generation there will be a 50 per cent improvement over the situation as it is now. This conscientious decision we make now sets the stage for the future.
This decision will require patience and tolerance not only on the part of the English speaking but also on the part of the French speaking people. We often think we are the ones being asked to show tolerance, but I believe there is another side to that coin. If we show determination and sensitivity we will enjoy progress. There are those within the province of Quebec and outside that province who want to see change overnight. I do not think any reasonable person in any part of the country expects that to happen.
This whole change could be endangered by carelessness and intemperance within and outside the House of Commons, statements on this side of the house as well as on the other side, by backbenchers as well as frontbenchers. There is sometimes a brittleness involved in our approach to this matter which we should avoid at all costs.
We must make the right choice and adopt the right attitude not only for ourselves but primarily for the new generation. We must think in the future without reaching into the past. Talk of 100 years of oppression is no more constructive than talking of 100 years of introversion. It is mutual respect, mutual interest and mutual opportunity such as is being shown at this time which should motivate us. We are dealing now with the basic rules of the game. The rules of the game combined with wise government and the implementation of this type of thought can weld us into a vital and unique nation. We must develop a nation that utilizes the very best within us and utilizes all of us to the maximum of our potential. We must develop a nation where by mutual affection, respect and enrichment, with sensitivity and determination, we can set an example for our future generations and an example for other nations to emulate.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Sneaker, I tell you frankly that I had not expected to participate today in the debate. I have been absent for two or three days because of a little trouble with my throat, and I intended today to listen to the eloquence of other members while preparing myself for the opportunity to make whatever contribution I can to the assurance that Canada's unity shall be preserved and maintained.
I intend to deal with this bill with compassion and tolerance and, above all, with a recognition that only in unity can we preserve this nation and assure that its destiny will be attained. I shall make some very serious criticisms of the bill. There is one portion of it that has not been dealt with which requires to be thoroughly examined, namely, that concerning the appointment of a commissioner, a course of action which on the basis of an examination of the clauses of the bill before the house will constitute an abrogation of parliament beyond anything that has taken place in any generation in our country excepting during the days of war. I shall come to that in due course.
I am sorry that on an occasion when we have a bill before the house that is described as one that will preserve confederation, the house is honoured to have present only four members of the cabinet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There are only 14 members on that side.


John George Diefenbaker: To me this does not indicate that degree of responsibility which the house and the country have the right to expect from the government. I would be unjust if I did not immediately pay a tribute to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) for the manner in which he presented the amendments to the bill, which up to that moment was the most unusual bill in all history. It was a bill full of clauses, with none of us knowing which ones were going to die during the period of the sittings of the committee.
On the other hand, I must say that the attitude of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) deserves particular reference and will receive it. He travelled through western Canada. He has spoken abroad. He has been a travelling member of this cabinet to a degree that even among all the other travelling, peripatetic members has achieved for him a preferred position. He went to western Canada. The speeches that he made were not designed to be beneficial to Canadian unity.
May 26, 1969



They were abrasive, provocative; they were filled with all the arguments that one has heard through the years from those who have opposed everything about English Canada. His idea of responsibility as Secretary of State was set out in a speech delivered in Montreal on October 28 when he said:
I personally hope to make the Department of the Secretary of State the department whose mission it is to protect French speaking minorities which are, moreover, the most numerous and the most underprivileged at the present time.
I cannot accept that. I think one of the major reasons for difficulty in the province of Quebec has been the failure of this nation to assure a reasonable degree of economic benefit and welfare. Now, when these people say, "Give us action", we have the Prime Minister flying a kite that baby bonuses are going to be reduced, removed or in part obliterated. I do not understand the philosophy of this government.
The other day the minister denied a quotation made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). He said he had never seen it; it was not in his record and it was not in his speech. I have the speech here. Charles Lynch in his column in the press pointed out that what the member quoted the minister as having said was right, entirely and completely.


Gérard Pelletier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Secretary of State has risen on a question of privilege.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that part of the responsibility for the right hon. member being misled and Mr. Lynch being misled-


John George Diefenbaker: That is no question of privilege.


Gérard Pelletier: -rests with a translator. I never spoke the words actually, and the translation is wrong. I can establish that at any time.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not put out the
translation, Mr. Speaker; it was put out by the Secretary of State. Isn't this something! He is now caught deceiving parliament and says it was in the translation that the mistake took place. Let us read what he actually said.


An hon. Member:: Read it in French.
Official Languages


John George Diefenbaker: With all the evasiveness and all the backtracking, surely from the heights of Olympian wisdom he does not think parliament will be fooled by such an explanation. The minister put out the speech; he put out the translation. I would like to hear a better explanation than that, because I have the document here. It is headed "Notes for a speech given by the honourable Gerard Pelletier before l'Association Canadienne Frangaise du Manitoba, December 7". Yet the other day in the House of Commons the Secretary of State denied this in words that cannot be misunderstood when he said:
On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. The text of this speech exists. I can hand it over to the hon. member and he will not find the words he has just quoted.
Then he said:
I do not know from what he is quoting. These were not improvised remarks.
He wants us to believe that the translation put out by his own department, dealing with metaphysical things, was wrong. I suggest that with the staff he has at his command, and with his knowledge of English, the explanation he has just given will receive the attention it deserves. In the same speech he also said:
We intend to restore full citizenship rights to the two linguistic majorities.
What are the lost citizenship rights that are going to be restored? Restoration implies existence, usage and alteration. I would like to hear him clear that up when he speaks. He said again on another occasion, "We will restore full citizenship rights". He also produced that old chestnut that he used during the days of war-I will not quote him any more unless he wishes to challenge me-when he spoke about the siege mentality of French Canada as a result of the attitude of the rest of Canada. I never saw that siege mentality. French Canadians have served during both the first and second world war with distinction and greatness. What does siege mentality mean? Was that designed to be tolerant and objective?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
He has been known to be the sworn enemy of anything in our country that is in the British tradition. That has been his attitude throughout. Do you know what he calls it? He has one of these intellectual words for it. He calls it "euthanasia". He says there are things
9062

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
we should not have around that are like certain structures that have outlived their usefulness. So the best solution is euthanasia. That is the explanation for his attitude to our British traditions. That is the explanation of the attitude which he has toward those who believe in the monarchy which gave to French Canada under the British Crown, and before it was in any way the Crown of Canada, equality of religion. When it was denied in the United Kingdom it was given by the Crown in Canada in 1775, and those people who but 20 years before had found themselves under a different monarch saved Canada for the British Crown in 1776. We see all the time this whittling away and cutting away at British traditions while we hear such phrases as "let us be tolerant, let us be reasonable".
I have here another statement which he will say was translated incorrectly. This is really a phrase which caps them all from a department from which translations have become untranslatable. It is a Museums of Canada press release entitled "Aboriginal Art". It reads:
A magnificent exhibition of Canadian aboriginal art will go on display at the Mus6e de l'Homme in Paris on March 25-
Canada will be represented by an official party headed by Secretary of State Gerard Pelletier who will open the exhibition. The party will include both Canadian and French cabinet ministers.
Was that wrongly translated? The silence gives the answer.
I wish the presentation had been made by the Minister of Justice. As I said a moment ago, he knows parliament. He does not look down from the heights of ivory towers on ordinary human beings. He meets parliament as parliament should be met. The Minister of Justice presented his case and the house listened. I am not in agreement with several of the arguments he made, but he treated parliament as though it was parliament, not as though it was a place in which to be taught of the new Canada.
We are dealing with this matter at a time when there are economic problems facing Canada the like of which we have not faced. Yet our time is taken up by the government of Canada with homosexuality, abortions, and now with this bill, a large portion of which has already been carried into effect long before it was ever brought before the House of Commons.
The same thing is happening all over Canada. There is the most callous disregard of western Canada by this government. They

laughed at western Canada when the Prime Minister said: "What do you expect me to do, sell wheat?" The wheat piles up. The position of farmers today has never been worse since the darkest days of the drought and lowest world prices. The government tells us, "Just give us time. We are thinking about it. We are waiting for a report from someone." They do not know what the western farmer wants. This is how serious the situation is. This is what was written in the latest issue of the Western Producer:
We charge the Trudeau government with callous neglect of the problems of the farming industry, particularly in the prairie region. Action should have been taken weeks ago, at least on such policies as might have provided farmers with a few clues as to how to carry on and what to grow. There was enough evidence to justify such action, long before the agricultural committee toured the west, but the opportunity has been missed.
There are, of course, possible moves that will be of some help to some farmers. But unless something is done quickly the ruination of thousands of farmers is a certainty.
While the farmers are in this situation the government produces a bill that, so far as the bilingual portions of it are concerned, had been put into effect all along the line before it ever received consideration from parliament. Think of the old soldiers, commissionaires, who were thrown out. Think of those who, having served for years in the civil service, stand in deep fear.
A budget has been promised for the beginning of June. The resolutions based on the last budget have not been put before the house and the government has been unlawfully exacting taxation for all these months. What manner of people are they? Are these our masters? There are two or three of them who understand parliament, and two of them are in the front row now. Some of the others do not. I will not restrict it to those two, but they happen to be in the front seats, and there are only three others so it would not take very long to gather who they are by elimination.
Surely the government must bear the yoke of responsibility for its failure to act. It is taxing illegally month after month and now it is getting ready for another budget. We are getting them so often now it is difficult to say which is which, particularly when those which have been introduced have not yet been passed. My point is that this bill was not needed and that the government has played fast and loose with the introduction of measures that have not received any support from parliament.
May 26, 1963

I will not attempt to cover any of the ground that has been covered. One of the benefits of being in bed is that you have time to read everything and you know all the arguments that have been advanced. I do not intend to repeat them except for the apologia of the Minister of Justice on whether or not this bill as a whole is unconstitutional. He said: "It is constitutional, the Prime Minister says it is." On the other side there is that former Liberal minister, Mr. Thorson, an apostle of Liberalism through the years who occupied the second highest position in the judiciary of Canada and who says it is unconstitutional. What does the minister say to that? He says: "It is not. Pierre says it isn't. Why should we go to the courts? Why should the matter be submitted to the courts? Language is a matter of politics, not law." But the right to language is a matter of law under the constitution, and the reason they have gone about it in this way to bring in a bill which is not what the B and B Commission recommended-that institution has had $8 million worth of sittings and came out with the recommendation that there should be a constitutional amendment-is that they could not get such an amendment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do not know who the person was-and I would not think of looking around, even to one who does not pay attention to what is being said-but I have come to the conclusion that whoever produced certain portions of this bill must have had a wide knowledge of Machiavelli.
I intend to deal for a few moments with the major portion of this bill, the clauses dealing with the commissioner, that is to say, clauses 19 to 34. Somebody asked me: What is the principle of this bill? Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is the coercion and intimidation which can be practiced by this man who will occupy the position of commissioner-I was about to say commissar. But no commissar was ever given greater powers than this commissioner is to receive.
He is to be "the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, hereafter called 'the Commissioner'." That was the recommendation of the B and B Commission. He was to be an ombudsman with the conscience of Canada in his possession. Well, if they had appointed a man like that I could not have any objection. But let us see what his powers are to be. It will be interesting to see who will be recommended, because there has been a search on. It would not be hard to find a
29180-574J
Official Languages
person here who has a dictatorial bent, to assume the post provided the salary is as promised. Let us examine the way in which the appointment will be made and how it is to come about.
The bill says that the appointment shall be made by parliament. And that is the end of everything. When parliament appoints him, the belief will be held among the people that, after all, his position will be like that of the Auditor General who, incidentally, does not enjoy a very high reputation in Liberal circles as a result of some of the findings he has made. This man will have powers the like of which have never been given to anyone before. Parliament is to appoint him, provided he does the job the Secretary of State wants him to do. Then the Secretary of State, or the government on the recommendation of an order in council, may remove him during the period in which parliament is not sitting and appoint someone else for a period of six months.
In the event of the death or resignation of the Commissioner while Parliament is not sitting or if he is unable or neglects to perform the duties of his office, the Governor in Council... may appoint a temporary commissioner-
Is this man going to enjoy independence, Mr. Speaker? Can you imagine the Secretary of State, with that beneficient attitude he has shown, saying to this man: "We do not agree with what you are doing but we are going to keep you on"? There is a right to replace him at any time between sessions.
What will his powers be? This is tremendously interesting, too. He may appoint such officers as he deems proper and fitting, provided he has the consent of the Treasury Board. He can appoint temporary staff without the approval of anyone. He will be allpowerful and completely independent, except that if he does not act in the way the government wishes, out he goes.
I must quote to you, Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister had to say regarding this man and the way in which he is to carry out his duties. The right hon. gentleman said: "He has to look after not only the law but the spirit and the intent." Well, when you begin to get into these spiritual fields, that is far beyond the law. This official will become the grand inquisitor of the realm. At his own discretion-and I shall refer in a few moments to the clauses themselves so that those who have not looked at them may begin to see something of what this powers are-he may launch into the widest of investigations. He may investigate any government department

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
or agency of the government, the R.C.M.P., the army-or the Canadian Armed Forces; I do not know whether it will be necessary to be completely bilingual in order to serve in the Canadian army once this bill has been accepted. He has sole discretion. How many of you appreciate that parliament itself can be investigated by him? At this sole discretion he may investigate the administration of parliament itself. That is in the bill. He is authorized to enter any person's office, or the offices of any department or Crown corporation or agency under the authority of parliament or under the administrative authority of the Speaker.
One would think these powers were wide enough, since he can do virtually anything. But the bill says, in addition, that the commissioner may carry out such other assignments and engage in such other activities as may be authorized by the Governor in Council beyond the powers and duties specified in the bill. What is the idea of this? What dictator could ask for more than these powers which are being sought from the parliament of the people? At his sole discretion the commissioner may regulate the procedure to be followed in carrying out investigations. He may disclose in his reports only such matters as he alone decides shall be disclosed. Sir, such powers have never at any time been asked for previously. Those opposite have not had the effrontery to do so. I can understand now why it was not the Minister of Justice who introduced this bill.
There are other clauses here to which I should like to refer. There is the clause which gives the power to investigate parliament. Let us get ready to make a salaam to this almighty voice we are setting up in this legislation. Remember, you are all asked to vote for this; you are all to get down and say yes to this legislation in the interest of Canadian unity. It does not matter what we give away; we must support this bill because if we do not the Secretary of State will say we are bigots.
Let me go on. It says this:
The Commissioner shall investigate any complaint made to him to the effect that in a particular instance or case the status of an official language was not or is not being recognized or the spirit and intent of this act was not or is not being complied with-
If, in the course of investigating any complaint it appears to the Commissioner that having regard to all the circumstances of the case any further investigation is unnecessary he may in his discretion refuse to investigate the matter further.

Here is one; when we read of Mr. Justice Stewart's judgment the day before yesterday, in which he dealt with the legislature of Ontario, we find it is child's play compared with this. The next provision is:
e (4:50 p.m.)
Where the Commissioner decides to refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint, he shall inform the complainant of his decision and may, if he thinks fit, give his reasons therefor.
This man is being put upon a pedestal. He may be removed by joint resolution of parliament, yes; but which of the members supporting the government of Canada would ever vote for his removal, no matter what he did? He becomes the "Charlie McCarthy" for the minister, who will be the head of this particular phase of our development. We know that the minister is the Secretary of State because the government wants somebody who understands everything but parliament.
That provision includes the words "if he thinks fit". People used to complain about the Star Chamber, but we will have no cause to complain at all if we vote in favour of this legislation.
The next provision is:
Every investigation by the Commissioner undei this act shall be conducted in private.
How many members have read the powers that we will be handing away, however estimable the objective and generally acceptable? Then, clause 28 (2) provides:
It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing and no person is entitled as of right to be heard by the Commissioner-[DOT]
And hon. members are going to vote for this! How many of them have read the major portion of this bill? The provisions to which I have just referred indicate that, however thick the gloss that has been put on the bill, its principle is that of coercion. Let me read on. After the Commissioner has made his mind up, it is provided:
-he shall, before completing the investigation, take every reasonable measure to give to that individual, department or institution a full and ample opportunity to answer any adverse allegation or criticism-
So first the Commissioner finds a person or a department guilty and then he says: "I want to be fair; I should like to hear your side of the story." I ask hon. members whether they are going to grant him such powers.
Then in order to make it possible for him to expand beyond all limits, though I cannot
May 26, 1969

think of any additional powers that he would ask for, it is provided:
Subject to this act, the Commissioner may regulate the procedure to be followed by him in carrying out any investigation under this act.
Clause 30 provides:
The Commissioner has ... power (a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath-
The Commissioner is not satisfied with that because he is then given power-
-to receive and accept such evidence and other information whether by oath or by affidavit or otherwise as in his discretion he sees fit-
What manner of men are these who produced this document? The Commisioner may receive evidence under oath or not under oath. Even when he has evidence under oath he is able to take into consideration outside information which he may get and use that information in coming to a determination. Mr. Justice Spence of the Supreme Court of Canada must have been taken as the example for the exercise of the powers of the Commissioner.
Not satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker, clause 31 provides:
This section applies where, after carrying out any investigation under this act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that an act or omission that was the subject of the investigation is or was or appears to be or have been
(a)	contrary to the provisions of this act;-
That I can understand.
(b)	contrary to the spirit and intent of this act but in accordance with the provisions of any other act of the Parliament of Canada-
This would mean that even though a department of government were acting pursuant to an act passed by this parliament and in effect, the Commissioner could repudiate and condemn action taken. Hon. members are being asked to vote for this provision. This kind of thing cannot be justified. I do not care on which side of the house an hon. members sits: those regulations deny the fundamental rights of an individual and can only lead to witch-hunts across this country of such magnitude that McCarthy would appear almost a novice by comparison-and he certainly is an unlamented memory.
Clause 33 (2) provides:
The Commissioner may disclose in any report made by him under this section such matters as in his opinion ought to be disclosed in order to establish the grounds for his conclusions and recommendations-
Official Languages
In other words, the Commissioner does not include in his report anything with which he does not agree; that power is his. I can just visualize this cabinet when it met. The Minister of Justice had gone through western Canada and had spoken with the various Attorneys General. I do not know how they do it, but the press always seem to know what is going on, and they reported that there was an awful fight in cabinet. Finally, the Secretary of State agreed to some amendments. The amendments that the Minister of Justice placed before this house were as nothing. They were minor and unimportant and may only serve to convince some of the provinces that invasion of their rights so far as courts are concerned is ended.
The next provision I wish to refer to is clause 34 (3) which reads:
The Commissioner may, instead of making a separate report to Parliament. .. include such report in his annual statement to Parliament. .. unless, in his opinion, the nature of the reuort is such that it ought to be brought to the attention of Parlia-men without delay.
Finally, clause 35 provides:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he deems necessary to effect compliance with this act in the conduct of the affairs of the Government of Canada and departments and agencies of the Government of Canada.
This bill places in the hands of a commissioner who will be the puppet of the government the power to do all these things. If the commissioner does not do these things to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, then as long as parliament is not sitting somebody else may be substituted. Somebody might ask: Do you think they would really do that? Well,
I have just read what the Prime Minister said at his press conference, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of October 17. The Prime Minister was asked what would happen if an English speaking civil servant said he was unwilling to learn French. As reported in the press the Prime Minister said:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We d say fine .. . We'll keep you running elevators where there are no French Canadians.
It is said that the Prime Minister made this comment frivolously. Under the laws of evidence, and we follow the British common law, ejaculations are always taken as evidence, even when they are hearsay, as indicative of the thinking of the person making them.
Some one asked what would happen if the commissioner does not act properly. Well, the

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
Prime Minister said his commissioner should go about things "discreetly". How could anyone be discreet with powers like these? Any of the saints with these powers could not help abusing them. The press report goes on to say that if discretion fails to produce results the government will have to move in to correct the state of affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Papineau.


Mr. Ouellel:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all young Canadians who are fed up with that kind of speech that have been served to them for several years, I object to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) carrying on such a despicable speech.


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


André Ouellet: He used his time giving us a vaudeville show, but the show is over.


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is the commissioner.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, since there is objection I will not go ahead. Not for all the world would I think of shocking the finer sensibilities of the hon. gentleman. Does he object?


André Ouellet: I object.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, though I disagree with much of the right hon. gentleman's speech I think, considering his experience in this house and his former position as Prime Minister of this country, that the house might grant him unanimous consent to finish his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)


André Ouellet: I have already registered my objection and I wish to repeat it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. They cannot take it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks may I remind the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he was Prime Minister, introduced into this chamber facilities for simultaneous translation so that hon. members of both linguistic groups could understand each other and so that the country could better know what is being said here. That action brought about a greater degree of unity here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is important to know the background of certain things because I think all hon. members on both sides of the house wish to see a greater degree of unity in this country. We all want our peoples to live together and work together as Canadian citizens. Certainly there is great need for us to communicate with each other in this country in order that we may better understand and appreciate each other's attitudes and feelings.
A little story may illustrate the point I am trying to make. A close friend of mine has a son going to university and during the summer months the young man worked with a construction crew, shoulder to shoulder with those who labour in trades so necessary for the construction industry of our country. He was under a foreman who did not speak English very well. The foreman said to the lad: "It really does not matter. In this job there is only one word that counts-shovel." According to the story the foreman said, "When you say 'shovel' I will give you the shovel, but when I say 'shovel', you use it". I think that story illustrates how our peoples must communicate with each other and understand one another. In my opinion all hon. members, regardless of where they sit, wish to see a greater degree of unity in this country and want our peoples to communicate better with each other.
May 26, 1969



I do not think that Bill C-120 will unite this country. I believe it will divide us further and therefore I find it very difficult to support. I have French speaking and English speaking friends as well as friends in most other ethnic groups across Canada. I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and consider myself a loyal Canadian. I wish to see the country united and strong, and I wish all Canadians to understand the necessity for our unity and strength.
I agree that the Prime Minister has some claim to a mandate in introducing this bill. He did not talk very much about general policy in the election campaign, but he did talk about language policy. He also tried to condemn the Conservative party for a two-nation theory, saying that theory would divide the country. Yet I do not believe he has a mandate to flout or override the law of this land as expressed in our constitution, the British North America Act. I am not a legal authority but I know that some of our best legal brains, as well as provincial premiers, have questioned the legality of this bill. It troubles me to see the Prime Minister adopt inflexible attitudes based on the constitution when it comes to questions of housing. He was willing to see the deputy Prime Minister resign from the cabinet as he invoked constitutional arguments on questions of housing. However, when he comes to this bill he ignores the constitution he has previously upheld so firmly and tries to convince us that it does not really matter, that we need not consider whether this bill is legal, and that we need only be concerned with making passage of this bill politically possible so that we can have two official languages in this country.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I do not understand this attitude. It troubles me. I believe there is a very special and unique place in Canada for the French and English languages in the historical sense, but to establish French and English as the two official languages must be done through constitutional reform. Having done that, if necessary certain legislation could be introduced to verify it so far as the laws of the country are concerned in interpreting the constitutional aspect. I believe that would be in the best interests of this country. I say, with respect, to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that we are being forced at this time, for whatever reasons or motives the government may have,
Official Languages
to deal with a bill that raises serious questions so far as the constitutional legality is concerned.
I say again I am not against English and French being the official languages of this country. I wish it were possible for every Canadian citizen to speak both French and English. I do not happen to belong to either one of those two language groups, speaking the language of my father which I learned as a boy. In my foreign experience I have had the opportunity to learn and use several other languages to the extent that I am fluent in understanding and using them.
In some parts of the country there is no opportunity to receive an education in French and English at the time when it is most effective, in childhood. Some Canadians do not have the opportunity of becoming fluently bilingual. This is true for both French and English speaking Canadians. To enforce this legally through legislation will divide us, not just in western Canada but also in Quebec. Many of my colleagues in this house who are from Quebec speak in favour of this bill, but many of my friends and acquaintances in Quebec have no real enthusiasm. I have not seen nor heard anything to indicate that the present government of Quebec intends to force this bill with all its implications even though it specifically relates to the federal government.
There are reactions in other parts of Canada as well, not only from those who are English speaking but also from those who are French speaking. There is very little support for this bill in French speaking communities outside the province of Quebec. In fact the contrary is true. Many such people are fearful that the enforcement of this bill in a linguistic way will take away from them the opportunities they already have at the present time. People who live in strictly English speaking areas of the country as well as those who live in strictly French speaking parts of the country feel this bill is not desirable because it will give a basis for a legal interpretation where at the present time there is a great reservoir of voluntary good will.
The English and French languages should be taught in such a way that when students finish high school and go on to university they will be fluent in both languages. My own family live in this city. My children attend school in this part of the country in order to become fluent in both languages. In western Canada there is a great dearth of French speaking teachers. Some people say there is

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
more antagonism to the use of French in Alberta than in any other province. This is not the case at all. There was a French language teacher training college in Edmonton before there was a similar institution in any other part of Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec. Because the province of Alberta could not recruit sufficient French teachers from Quebec or teachers fluent in the French language from other parts of Canada, they began to train their own teachers of French. Alberta has even sent recruiting teams to France in an effort to recruit French teachers who would adequately and properly teach the French language in the schools of Alberta.
Our beloved Governor General grew up in and is a native of my city of Red Deer. He has told me that when he went to high school there was no opportunity to learn the French language. A short generation later when I went to school, French was being taught beginning with grade nine. My own children went to the same school and started learning French in grades four and five. This is progress-willing and substantial progress!
We have come a long way. Instantaneous translation in this house was a tremendous step forward to the effective use of languages in parliament. This is a constitutional right because it is outlined in the British North America Act. This is the kind of progress we will continue to make as long as we retain and develop the growing good will in this country at the present time in understanding the language, cultural and other needs of individuals in their various situations and backgrounds.
I feel this bill will divide rather than unite us. While I may agree with the principle stated by the Prime Minister and others as being the objective of this bill, I do not think we will move toward that objective nearly as effectively as we are now proceeding. It would be more effective to establish a constitutional change in a proper context respecting the use of languages.
In Great Britain students with a secondary school and university education have learned a second language. In fact, most people in Great Britain speak two or three languages, French, German, Scandinavian or whatever their desire may be. This is also true in France where most young people learn to speak English, Spanish, Italian or German. It is certainly true in the Scandinavian countries and in Germany, Holland, Belgium and even Russia. These people are doing this willingly.

We in this country have been backward in our outlook toward a second language, and this must and will change.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The foremost second language in this country must be French. There must be encouragement, incentive and motivation so that we may continue to grow and develop until we reach a position of being truly a bilingual people. I know it is not possible for everybody to learn a second language. One cannot gain mastery of a second language without using it, and there are parts of Quebec, western Canada and other regions where there is no opportunity to use a second language. Thus not everybody can become fluently bilingual.
There are some who say that civil rights must be applied to this bill because the real intention is to apply civil rights as they pertain to language by having a law such as this. If this is so then civil rights must be extended also to other languages such as Ukrainian, Polish, German and Spanish. We must have the civil right to use the language of our choice, but I do not think we can enforce the kind of civil rights that might be interpreted as being contained in this bill.
I am concerned about the provisions in the bill with respect to the definition of language districts. There is some detail in it which says that these districts shall coincide with municipal, provincial, federal or electoral districts, but there is no specific statement on the limit of a language area, or as to the authority who would be ultimately responsible for defining it.
There is another aspect of the bill which concerns me, relating to the Armed Forces and the R.C.M.P., an aspect that is brought out very clearly in some of the proposed amendments. Defence forces and the national police come directly under the federal government. Does this bill mean that in the future I or my children must be bilingual before we have the right to fight for this country? Does it mean that only those who are bilingual can be members of the R.C.M.P.? I do not see that the bill states anything to the contrary, even in the proposed amendment that is supposed to clarify the situation.
Since this is the interpretation given to the bill in layman's language I can understand that there are genuine fears throughout the country. These fears exist in and toward the civil service as well. People in the provinces
May 26, 1969

of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and elsewhere just do not have opportunities to become fluently bilingual even though they take French for seven years in elementary and high school, simply because usage is so important to bilingual fluency. I have no doubt that a very serious impediment will be placed upon those people in the civil service who are unilingual, and upon people who do not have sufficient fluency in a second language to be eligible for posts in the Armed Forces and other federal civil service branches.
I wish the Prime Minister had shown the same concern in taking steps to establish a national capital area to include the immediate area around Hull and Ottawa, an area which could be clearly specified as bilingual so that English and French speaking people coming to it would feel equally at home. If this were done it would go a long way toward achieving the degree of desirable bilingualism that we want to see in Canada, without interfering with provincial authority or bringing undue pressure on unilingual parts of the country.
In such a case I do not think French or English unilinguists could have any objection. It would also be a real incentive for the civil service, the Armed Forces, the R.C.M.P., crown agencies and all other aspects of federal administration. There are other ways in which we could move to encourage greater use of a second official language and its establishment as something practical, ways of encouraging rather than forcing people into a certain position. That is why I am convinced that this bill, instead of being one, as has been said, intended to unify and establish civil rights, is one that will defeat those very things which we all mutually agree are desirable in Canada.
The Prime Minister has warned against racial distrust and has said it would split the nation forever. I do not think the vast majority of the Canadian people really believe that this bill will remove that distrust and strengthen the understanding and communication we need. Despite our differences of opinion I believe that behind the thinking, motivation and objectives of all of us there is a desire to see Canada grow in unity. From my own world experience I often say to myself, if we cannot find the key to unity in Canada what hope have we in the world of having peace and understanding?
I am afraid that what is happening is that we are dividing and balkanizing ourselves, and instead of being the hope and example to
Official Languages
the world we are falling far short of that objective. I appeal to all hon. members on both sides of the house to look at this bill objectively, to look at it from the standpoint of how it will affect unity in this country, and to understand that there are two sides to the question. If they can see the thing as I see it and as many others see it, some who have spoken and some who have not, then I believe there will be agreement that this is not the strengthening factor that others think it might be.
Confederation in Canada is a marriage. It is a marriage of peoples. The type of marriage that is based on legal interpretation of rights and duties will inevitably end in bickering and ultimately wind up in the divorce court. If we can persuade our fellow Canadians that for the sake of our homeland tolerance and good humour, forgiveness and understanding are the practical and essential needs of any longlasting association, then we will find an answer to the problems we face.
I think this is the answer to the question of language rights. It is only on this basis that we will reach that degree of unity which is necessary to make this country strong in the future, as she has been in the past, with a role to play that the world needs as an example. Again, Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I cannot see this coming about so far as language is concerned through Bill C-120.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in some of the comments that have been made respecting this bill this afternoon because it seems that every member who participates in the debates, whether he is for or against the provisions of the bill, prefaces his remarks by saying that we all have to do something to strengthen the unity of the nation. However, what follows seems to be somewhat contradictory with respect to what in fact are the positive actions that will lead to a greater degree of unity.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) again displayed his mastery of the role of opposition, and I respect him for that. I think we have to recognize that what he tried to do, very unsuccessfully in my opinion but there was some reaction and response to his argument, was state the extreme. He tried to put the most extreme interpretation on the powers granted the language commissioner. Of course, the right hon. gentleman knows very well that if

May 26. 1969
Official Languages
you were to give the most extreme interpretation to any of the powers granted to those people charged with the responsibility of administering the laws of this land you could arrive at some of the almost ridiculous conclusions which he tried to advance in this house. Of course, part of the job of the opposition is to point out that such powers can be abused if an extreme interpretation is placed on these words.
I hope this bill will be sent to the committee soon so that the committee will be able to examine in greater detail, with the ministers who are piloting this legislation through the House of Commons, some of those things that will be needed to give effect to the principle that is involved.
I may say I accept the broad principle involved in this bill because, as I see it, the principle is that there be equal status for the two languages where there is reasonable need for it. I suggest that, unfortunately, the debate in the House of Commons on this bill has concentrated on these other interpretations, and as a result, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the objectives of this measure. The most common misunderstanding is that the government of Canada is trying to force all Canadians to be bilingual. Perhaps even that is a little extreme. What the government is doing, in my opinion, is much more simple than that.
The aim of this legislation is to ensure that the English and French languages will have equal status throughout the federal government where conditions make that a reasonable requirement. What is even more important is that Canadians speaking either language will be treated in the same manner in their dealings with the federal government, wherever it is possible to do so.
What this means in practical terms as far as I understand it is that, firstly, in all parts of the country where there is a significant number of Canadians of both languages, the federal government will undertake to serve these people in both languages. I suppose the best example is in the national capital region, the Ottawa-Hull area, where people will be able to write or deal with a government office in either the French or the English language. In other words, they will have the opportunity to obtain service in the language of their choice.
If there are areas in Canada in which a significant part of the population wish to speak either one of the official languages,

then the government will try to provide services in that language. In Alberta, for example, there is only one area which has more than 10 per cent who are French speaking. As I understand the bill, this is the only area of that province which this provision would affect immediately. However, there may be a desire to have the services of the federal government extended somewhat beyond that in the future. I suggest that all Canadians in all areas should be able to deal with the government in either language. However, practically speaking, that is not possible. So, I suggest, that in the proposed legislation the government is trying to balance practicality with idealism.
The government has also undertaken to ensure that persons may be tried in federal criminal courts in either of the official languages. This is essential in my view if Canadians are to be guaranteed justice, again taking into consideration what is practical and feasible. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) announced some amendments he is prepared to make to the bill in that respect when it gets to the committee.
At the same time the legislation provides, and this has been overlooked too often I think, that merit will continue to be the basis for recruitment and promotion within the civil service rather than only proficiency in both languages. There are positions, of course, and all members of this house know this, where it is essential to be able to work in both languages. Bilingual proficiency in those cases will be considered when these jobs are filled.
I was rather surprised to hear one or two members who spoke this afternoon indicate that there was some kind of discrimination involved in requiring at least a reasonable level of proficiency in both languages on the part of those people who only have capability in one language. If the position requires the use of both languages, surely this should be a requisite for employment or, indeed, a promotion to that position. I do not think this should be regarded as discrimination. If there is a requirement for someone who can type, surely there is no discrimination in not hiring someone who cannot type. If the federal Government has a requirement for someone who can operate a particular piece of machinery, surely there is no discrimination in not hiring someone who does not have proficiency in this field. When a position requires proficiency in English, French or both, then it is not discrimination in any way to require that
May 26, 1969

the person applying for that position be proficient in those areas. An individual should have that proficiency before being considered for the position.
There are many who are opposed to this legislation, as has been indicated during this debate and indeed in the debate going on outside this institution. I suppose that is to be expected. On the other hand, I would hope that this opposition would be based on an accurate rather than a distorted picture of what this legislation is trying to do. I would also hope that any opposition would be based on a reasonable position rather than on an extreme emotional interpretation. That is all we are asking, and I think it is important to understand what is in the bill before it goes to the committee.
It has been said a number of times that Canada is a bilingual nation historically and traditionally. The legislation now before the house is an attempt to make that history and constitution a living reality in Canadian life. In conclusion, I do not think I could do better than to quote a paragraph from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who I think did an excellent job of summing up his attitude toward this bill. He said as reported at page 8794 of Hansard for Friday, May 16:
I urge the government in the name of this country to make a serious effort to explain to the people of Canada what this bill means, what it does not mean, and to give the assurances to this country which are necessary for the administration and implementation of this measure. After all, we are trying to create unity, not disunity.
I think that is as good a statement of the position as one can find. Surely, this should be understood by those people who disagree with what is, in fact, the objective of the provisions of this bill. It is so important, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, that the people of Canada understand what is involved. It behooves all of us on both sides of this house to explain the objective accurately to the people, without distorting it in any way. o (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill, I realize that contained in it is one of the most important principles which the people of this country must face up to and resolve if our country is to survive. The deputy leader of our party, speaking on second reading of the bill some days ago, put the position of our
Official Languages
party very clearly as one of support for the bill. I shall support this bill.
However, I want especially to take this opportunity to speak to it because, like so many other members from western Canada, I represent a constituency which has in it very few French speaking people. I represent a constituency in which the majority of the people are neither of French nor English extraction. More than 25 per cent of the people I represent are of Ukrainian origin, more than 10 per cent are of Polish origin and more than 10 per cent are of Jewish origin.
These people, as well as many Anglo-Saxons in my constituency and other parts of Canada, are dubious about this bill; they are worried and concerned about it. They feel very much as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) feels about the bill. They feel, very much like the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), who spoke a short time ago, feels about the bill.
Despite that fact, I am prepared to vote for the bill. I want to explain today, as I have on every occasion when I have had the opportunity to speak to my constituents about this matter, why I feel that this kind of bill must be supported by the people of Canada. I do not think I can put my position in any better way than I did more than two years ago in response to a letter which I received from a man who was at that time one of my constituents.
I want, for a few moments, to read an exchange of correspondence which took place in March of 1967. I shall put on the record the letter 1 received from my constituent because it expresses the fears of many people in Canada. I shall also put on the record my reply because, as I have said, I do not think I can state my position any better today than I did more than two years ago. My constituent wrote me as follows:
Dear Mr. Orlikow:
I have talked to so many about how French is being driven down our throats these days. Everywhere you look or read it's in French and English, never just English anymore.
In the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation office here in Winnipeg I asked the girl at the desk for some information forms and she asked: "Can you speak French?" I said no, and didn't intend to learn. She said that was all they had available at this time. I said: "What is this country coming to?" She said: "You don't know the half of it. I am going to lose my job because I can't speak French."
I have a friend who works for Air Canada who is losing his job just because he can't speak French. We have so many different nationalities in Canada, why shove French down our throats?

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
I don't imagine anything can be done as all parties are strictly after the votes and will do the same thing but some day they may have to change if the people get mad enough about it. What can you do to bring Canada back to one language, like the Americans have?
I replied to that letter as follows:
Dear Sir:
The problem you raise in your letter is one of the most fundamental problems which this country will have to solve in the next few years if it is to survive.
I think that as a member of parliament whose ethnic origin is neither English nor French and who, therefore, understands the emotions which led you to express the views which you did, I am in a good position to explain what is happening in Canada and why, in regard to Quebec, I think we all have to realize that the French Canadians are in an entirely different position from those of us who are neither of English nor French origin.
When this country was formed in 1867, the BNA Act spelled out the rights of the French speaking people to use their language.
The French Canadians make up almost one-third of the population of Canada. They make up almost 80 per cent of the population of Quebec, and they make up about 45 per cent of the population of New Brunswick. There are very substantial numbers of French speaking Canadians in eastern and northern Ontario.
This being the case, it seems to me that we have to face the fact that whether some of us think that it would be better if everyone spoke one language or not, is really a theoretical matter because the fact is we cannot dictate such a policy to the five or six million French Canadians.
It seems to me, therefore, if we wish Canada to survive we must accept the fact the French Canadians, where they live in appreciable numbers, have a right to be dealt with by the government of Canada in the French language, just as English Canadians have a right to be dealt with in the English language.
This does not mean that every federal civil servant working in Winnipeg must be able to speak French, just as it does not mean that a federal civil servant working in a French community in rural Quebec must be able to speak English as well as French.
But it does mean that where there are an appreciable number of people who speak either English or French, they have a right to be served by government offices in their own language.
Now I would like to take up the specific cases in your letter. It may of course have been true that the CMHC office in Winnipeg was out of some form which you required in English, and that you were offered a form in French. I cannot however believe that a person working in the CMHC office in Winnipeg could have been serious when she told you that she was going to lose her job because she cannot speak French. There is no such government policy and there will be no such government policy.
If the girl is worried about losing her job and if she contacts me, I can assure you that within one day of receiving her letter she will have a statement in writing from the responsible minister

that as long as she works in Winnipeg she can keep her job without knowing French. I can assure you that the same is true of your friend who works for Air Canada who you say is losing his job because he cannot speak French.
I gather from the whole tenor of your letter, you feel the French are taking over the government of Canada. Recently the government was asked for information about the top servants-how many are French speaking and how many are English speaking.
The reply covered all federal civil servants earning $17,000 a year or more. The answer, I think, disproves completely the suggestion that this country is being taken over by French Canadians.
Of just over 1,100 civil servants making $17,000 or more, 975 list their mother tongue as English and only 136 list their mother tongue as French. In other words French Canadians occupy just 10 per cent of the top civil service jobs in Canada while they make up about 30 per cent of the population of Canada.
These are the facts as they are, rather than the misconceptions which so many of us have picked up on this emotionally charged question. It may be that you will not be too happy with my reply, but I think that we have to ignore immediate political advantage and face the realities of the. situation as they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: Nothing has happened in the last two and a half years to make me change my point of view. If this bill goes part of the way towards implementing the principle which I enunciated at that time, I am prepared to vote for it whether or not I think that in the short run my support of this bill may hurt me politically.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I was very pleased by a series of articles which appeared recently in the Toronto Telegram under the title "Canada 70". The articles constituted a survey done in considerable depth about how the people of Canada feel about this and related questions. I was pleased because, having just said that I would vote for this bill whether or not it hurt me politically, I am, after all, like every other member of this house, a practical politician who would like to be re-elected. So, if I get evidence to indicate that the people in my area tend to agree with me, it makes me happy.
I would like to summarize very briefly for the house, and particularly for those members of western Canada who seem to be worried that if they vote for this bill they may be going against the desires of the people they represent, some of the conclusions to which
May 26, 1969

this series of articles came. The following is from an article which appeared on May 6:
In talks with more than 100 people, Telegram interviewers found goodwill towards the aims of French Canada-
The citizens of Saskatchewan revealed a desire to hold this nation together, although they wanted it to be a nation with a better understanding of the western problems. The article contained the following statement:
But Saskatchewanians were overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of joining the United States, with 96 per cent voicing disdain.
Farther on it reads as follows:
A notable revelation in this province with its heavily ethnic population was the fact that 53 per cent are prepared to regard the French-speaking as special-
A healthy 75 per cent opted for bilingual education in the schools.
This is an indication of how the people of Saskatchewan feel.
In another article we are given some of the thinking in British Columbia. The article deals with educators in British Columbia. It reads in part as follows:
And 18 of 20 leading, interesting or controversial West coast educationists and student leaders agreed that it was very important to them that Canada survive as a nation-
And three quarters of them thought French Canadians rate a special place in Confederation, a considerably higher ratio than that found in the overall West coast population.
In an article in which they deal with Manitoba, the Telegram says:
And it was in Manitoba that the highest percentage of people consider that French Canadians have a special place in Confederation.
The figure was 62 per cent compared with 53 per cent in Saskatchewan and 48 per cent in Alberta.
As I said a few moments ago, these articles made me happy because they made me realize that the position I have taken is one which is shared by a majority of the people in western Canada.
Having said that I am going to support the bill, I want to deal with what I consider to be some of the negative aspects of the government's position. We have heard repeatedly that this bill is just one more indication of the overwhelming support which this government gives to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism. It may be that in this bill the government is doing that. However, I want to suggest that this government and the Prime
Official Languages
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cannot, without jettisoning a good deal of the basic convictions of the Prime Minister, endorse all the recommendations of the commission.
I want to refer the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to the second volume of the commission's report, the volume which deals with education. I want to read just a couple of the recommendations which the Secretary of State may find on pages 301 and 302 of the report. They read as follows:
We recommend a federal grant to official minority-language students to enable them to study in their own language at a Canadian university outside their province, when courses are not available in their own language within the province.
We recommend for these out-of-province students that a federal grant, equivalent to the normal provincial grant to the university, be paid to the host university or to the provincial government concerned.
We recommend that, pending the resolution of the constitutional problems involved, agreements be concluded between the federal government and the provinces concerned in order that these provinces receive the help required to meet the special needs of their French-language universities.
Most important is recommendation 26 which can be found on page 302 of the second volume of the report of the commission. It reads as follows:
We recommend that the federal government accept in principle the responsibility for the additional costs involved in providing education in the official minority language.
Members of this house from various parties may or may not agree with that recommendation. I want to suggest, however, that if this government were to accept the recommendation, this would be completely contrary to the Prime Minister's stated policy. I understand, although I did not hear him, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) indicated in his speech the other day that he is prepared to accept that kind of suggestion. I want to say that everything the Prime Minister has said and written before he came to parliament on the question of the constitution, and of the relationship between the federal government and the provinces, indicates clearly that he was absolutely opposed to the federal government contributing to education in any shape or form.
Let me quote from an article which the Prime Minister wrote before he came here, entitled "Federal Grants to Universities".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but it is six o'clock.
May 26, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) -Public Service-superannuated federal employees-request for increased pensions; the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)- Post Office-lower postal rates for Montreal magazine; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Post Office Department- effect of rate changes on non-profit publications.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I concluded the section of my speech which I made before six o'clock I was pointing out that the second report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism had recommended that the federal government assist financially in the promotion of education for minority groups, that is, for French people living outside Quebec and for English people living in Quebec.
I submit that the position of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about which he spoke and wrote extensively both before and after coming into parliament is that he has always opposed the participation of the federal government in spheres of activity which are reserved to the provinces under the constitution. A book which was brought out a year or

so ago under the title "Federalism and French Canadians" contained articles written by the Prime Minister. In an article entitled "Federal Grants to Universities" the Prime Minister quotes with approval the position taken by Mr. F. A. Angers who said, and I quote:
In genera], the Canadian state is not the central government, but the central and the provincial governments taken together ... in matters of education the Canadian state is the provincial state, and none other.
Later in the same article, the Prime Minister said:
Consequently, if there is federal legislation to grant taxation money for provincial purposes, this legislation is illegal for the excellent reason that the federal government cannot by law have money in its coffers which it then claims should be used for provincial purposes.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if education is the responsibility of the provinces alone I find it hard to understand how the federal government can follow the recommendation of the B and B Commission and help finance the education of members of minority groups in the provinces. Having said this, I want to add that in my opinion the government should do so. If it did, then I submit the government could also assist the various ethnic groups in Canada by providing financial aid toward the maintenance and preservation of their cultures, their languages and their schools which they have developed on a voluntary basis.
If the federal government were to do this it would be following a line which the Prime Minister himself explored before he reached that office on the occasion of his visit to my own city of Winnipeg. In the Winnipeg Free Press, which, as I am sure hon. members are aware, is one of the most partisan Liberal partisan papers in the country, a report appeared on March 11, 1968, of an address to a meeting made by the Prime Minister in the course of that visit to Winnipeg. The title of the article was: "Trudeau Sees Four Official Languages if French Given Recognition". The report states:
Justice Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said last night Canada may one day have a third and even a fourth official language in addition to English and French.
Trudeau, 46-


Gerald William Baldwin: Forty-seven.


David Orlikow: I am only reading the article. I cannot vouch for the veracity of every word.
-who becomes Prime Minister said official status should be granted any language spoken by a sufficient number of people.
May 26, 1969

The justice minister was addressing about 600 Liberals including representatives of Winnipeg's Ukrainian and other large ethnic minorities.
Trudeau rejected the common notion that French deserves official recognition in Canada because the French were one of the "two founding groups" which built the country-
The only justification for having French as official language was that French Canadians made up one third of the population, he added.
I would even be prepared to say that if in the immediate future or the far future a third important group speaking a third language wanted to use their language to communicate with the state, this third language will have to be recognized.
He said a fourth official language was also conceivable although "you can't go on forever." But Switzerland, he pointed out, functioned with four languages.
I suggest that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) have a look a the recommendations made by Professor Rudnyckyj. I do not agree with everything that Professor Rudnyckyj proposes, but bearing in mind that in the Province of Manitoba from which I come more than 10 per cent of the population is Ukrainian, and further substantial parts of the population are of Polish or German extraction, to mention just a few of our minorities, I submit to the Secretary of State that it is just as reasonable for the federal government to provide financial assistance to help these groups and similar groups in other provinces to preserve the best of their culture, of their language and of their ethnic press which lately the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) has gone a long way to destroying. The Secretary of State might well consider giving these organizations financial assistance of the kind already given to the association in Manitoba which is concerning itself with the retention and promotion of the French language in the province of Manitoba.
Earlier in my speech I said I supported the principle of bilingualism and biculturalism, and that in these circumstances I would vote for the bill. I said, and am happy to say again, that in my opinion the majority of the people of Manitoba and western Canada generally will support the principle of this measure. They do so because they realize that this is part of the price of being Canadian; that it is part of the price of having a country extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. However, they know that Quebeckers and the French people of Canada are not the only ones with problems. They know the people of the western provinces have problems, as do the people of both urban and rural Manitoba. They support this bill, I submit, expecting that just as they are prepared to co-operate
Official Languages
and support it as part of the price of being Canadian, so will the federal government give some consideration to their problems and needs.
e (8:10 p.m.)
To date I submit the government has not done so. If any member on the government side doubts that, I suggest he read the lead article that appeared in the Toronto Daily Star last Saturday, May 24, written by Peter Regenstreif, in which he analyses the result of a survey that he and his associates conducted for that newspaper. The headline of the article reads: "Trudeau is 'only fair' as P.M., voter survey indicates". I should just like to put on record a couple of paragraphs from this article:
After one year in office, Pierre Trudeau gets an "only fair" or "poor" rating from most of the Canadian electorate for the job he has been doing as Prime Minister, according to a national survey.
The public is disappointed with his handling of basic issues such as high taxes, the cost of living, housing and poverty.
Later, the article says:
Only 6 per cent gave Trudeau an "excellent" rating for the job he is doing as Prime Minister; 29 per cent gave him a "pretty good" rating, 34 per cent "only fair" and 23 per cent "poor" with 8 per cent not sure.
In every region, more people rated him as "only fair" and "poor" than graded him "excellent" and "pretty good." He is weakest on the prairies, strongest in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces-
Trudeau received very low grades for the job he is doing "keeping taxes in line" with 65 per cent giving him a "poor" rating. Another 65 per cent feel he is doing a poor job "controlling the cost of living".
His performance in "getting more housing and less expensive housing" and in "closing the gap between rich and poor" is ranked as poor by 54 per cent in each case. And 41 per cent says he is doing a "poor" job "alleviating poverty."
I think the result of that survey goes a long way to demonstrate precisely the point I am making. We are approaching the end of this session of parliament. There is no provision in the rules or statutes which decrees we must finish this session on June 27, yet we are told that this will happen. But what will we have accomplished at this session of parliament? We will have passed the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code, a bill that we in this party supported almost unanimously. I presume we will also have passed this official languages bill that we are now discussing, and which we in this party will support. But having said that, 1 have said just about everything that could be said.

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
I do not want to misrepresent the tacts or let anybody miscontrue my feelings, because these are two important pieces of legislation, measures that were long overdue for passage. But as far as the ordinary citizen of Canada is concerned, regardless of province, whether he is English, French or a member of what we call the third force, these are not bread and butter issues. Since the government was elected last year it has refused to deal with basic issues, such as the increasing cost of living and the galloping inflation with which we are faced.
What is the Prime Minister's solution to inflation? He has gone back to Herbert Hoover, perhaps even before Hoover. His answer to inflation is to cut government expenditure. Apparently it does not matter how important those government programs are; they are going to be cut. At the same time we permit builders to build fancy office buildings, oil companies to build a filling station on a corner where there are already three other filling stations, and every grocery chain to build another supermarket, even though in Ottawa there is but five minutes' walk from one to another. We permit these people to do exactly what they please while we try to beat inflation by cutting down government expenditure.
The Secretary of State once worked for a trade union and used to know, if he does not know any more, how ordinary people live and work. The kind of issue I suggest the government ought to be dealing with relates to the fact, hundreds of thousands of people are living in dilapidated housing, in housing that is a disgrace.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have been listening to the hon. member fairly carefully and I have great misgivings whether his remarks at this time are really relevant to the motion before the house. I would invite him to return to the bill we are dealing with at this time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you rose to tell me that you thought I might be out of order rather than that my time had expired. I suggest I am dealing with this bill in precisely the same way as any number of speakers have dealt with it. For example, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was castigating the government this afternoon for dealing with this bill instead of with the problem of the wheat farmers of western Canada. I suggest that if you want to put this type of check on members

you should start at the beginning of the debate rather than with me.
I have already indicated that I and the members of this party are going to support the bill. I am not saying as some members have said that we ought to have dealt with other legislation before passing this bill. But what X am saying-and in view of the fact that I am going to vote for the bill I think I have the right and responsibility to say this to the members of the government and to the Secretary of State who is piloting the bill through the house-that I hope we do not end this session of parliament when we have simply passed this bill. I hope that we will go on to deal with some of the "gut" and bread and butter issues that are facing the people of Canada.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to outline very briefly what I think are some of these issues. I have made reference to the inflationary spiral. As far as housing is concerned, I am not as acquainted with the maritime cities as I am with those in the rest of Canada, and this I regret, but I do not think there is a city in Canada that has a larger number of slum dwellings and dilapidated houses than Montreal. Before parliament adjourns for the summer I hope the government will bring forward legislation to ease the problems of those living in houses that are a national disgrace. We should help those millions of people who are paying substantially more than they can afford out of their income for rental accommodation or living in houses they were forced to buy which are much too expensive for them to carry.
And what about the unemployment situation, Mr. Speaker? I have not looked at the figures for the last two days, but I believe that almost six per cent of our working force is unemployed. What will the government do about the workers of the Vickers shipbuilding company at Montreal who have been thrown out of work and have no prospect of employment in the near future? How is the government to help them?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
appreciate the point the hon. member made when I intervened earlier. I have allowed him considerable leeway, wishing to interpret the rules as generously as possible. But I submit he is now going so far beyond the scope of the bill that even with the most generous interpretation of the rules I am capable of exercising I think he has gone too
May 26, 1969

far astray. I must now ask him to return to the specific subject covered by the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: The unemployment figures are bad, no matter in which language you read them.


David Orlikow: My hon. friend says that the unemployment figures are bad in either language. Or perhaps he said that they are bad in all our languages. Certainly, if that is the case I agree with him. Of course, unemployment is worst for those speaking the original languages of Canada, the Indians and Eskimos.
May I conclude by saying that this bill is part of the legislative proposals which we recognize are necessary to build a united Canada in which persons of any race, creed or colour can be proud to live. We support the government in this objective, and will vote for the bill. We would support any government seeking to foster these aims. Since this bill is a step in the right direction, we will support it. Nevertheless I plead with the government to heed those problems I raised which Your Honour ruled out of order, because their solution is most important for the people of our nation. I hope the government gives thought to those problems affecting Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I hope it will implement most of its promises designed to unite Canada, so that all our people may be part of one Canada, a Canada in which they are proud to live in equality and freedom.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish it were possible to confine ourselves closely to the text of the bill. In itself, as my colleague, the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), said the other night, it is not a controversial or revolutionary measure. But naturally we must deal with the spirit of the laws, as the philosopher might have said, and with the important values in our society which underline and surround the introduction of this particular piece of legislation. It struck me-and perhaps this is an over-simplification but I think not-that this particular legislation reflects an extension of something which we have had in our political society for over a century. In their wisdom the Fathers of Confederation created a bilingual parliament. It would be strange indeed if the central institution of the federal apparatus should remain uniquely bilingual. It would be strange indeed if the bureaucracy upon which that parliament rests-or it might
Official Languages
be vice versa-did not also reflect the bilingual structure which was very fully and properly, I think, written into the structure of the parliament of Canada. Therefore, this legislation strikes me as an emanation of that which we have had for a long time.
Some may say that it might be cheaper and easier for all of us if we were a unilingual country. That argument would have to be taken up with our political ancestors who have been in their graves for about a century. Perhaps the fact that there has been a long period of inequality as between the two languages has made it seem that our present day advances are coming along a bit too rapidly. For too long in this parliament the languages were not equal; neither were they used equally. My colleague from the N.D.P. this afternoon referred to long delays in obtaining French documents.
I noticed the other day, when the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) with his usual courtesy asked an hon. member on the government side about the introduction of simultaneous translations in this house, the hon. member from the Liberal party replied "Peanuts". This is the kind of unhelpful observation we can do without.
As some colleague from the N.D.P. said the other day, until 1959 hon. members had the right to speak in French here, but they had no functional right to have their remarks heard in French. I, therefore, say that this most important translation facility was certainly not "peanuts".
I also recall that for a good many years after I first came here-and that was not a hundred years ago, only eleven-Beauchesne, a most difficult work, was available in English only, although having been written by a man who was obviously not a Scot nor an Anglo-Saxon. That work was printed in four editions before being translated into French, a most shocking situation.
God knows, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is difficult enough to understand when he is read in one's native tongue. How difficult must it be for those who speak other languages. There now seems to be an excessive rate of movement towards bilingualism of the institutions of the federal government. In part perhaps it appears that way because the rate of progress in the past was slow and uneven. Also, concerns and anxieties have been developing in Canada because of ill-advised statements which have been made. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson)
9Q78

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
spoke of our responsibility in trying to present the case as to what this bill means and what it does not mean, and quite rightly he pointed to the fine example of the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. I say without rancour but with deep conviction that statements of the Prime Minister of this country about unilingual civil servants having to be relegated to positions as elevator operators did more injury to the cause of bilingualism among thoughtful Canadians than almost anything else could have done and undid much good activity on the part of the B and B commission and others. That kind of viewpoint does no good and may do a great deal of harm. There are times when I am worried about the stance of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and about certain of his utterances. As Duke Frederick said to Orlando, there are times when I would that this bill had been the son of some man else, since it seems now to have become the child of the Secretary of State.
This is a most important, highly emotional and, therefore, sensitive matter and I think the remarks and conduct of the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) this afternoon were not helpful. Many are concerned about incidents taking place at St. Leonard. It is easy to focus one's attention only upon that which is happening or not happening there and to overlook the long record of the government and people of Quebec in providing fine educational institutions for minorities in that province. But in this sensitive area I think it behooves us all to be as careful and moderate as possible. I agree with my colleague for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) that there is not much that is new in this legislation and that much of the impact or import of it will be in administrative fields.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It has been said fully and well by people more qualified in the law than I that this legislation requires clarification. I feel it requires amendments and repair. Some of these have been forecast by the excellent addresses delivered earlier in this debate. The right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. D:efenbaker), the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) and the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) touched upon important areas where improvements must be made.
It is clear the consultations with the premiers and attorneys general have produced a better bill. It is my belief that a careful study in a special committee will make further
[Mr. Macquarrie.)
improvements. For that reason and with that belief I will vote for this measure to send it along to a committee for further study.
One of the amendments which I find rather interesting is the reaffirmation of the merit system. When I first heard of this I was surprised that such a value needed to be reaffirmed. The statements about the elevator operators and the firing of the gallant old veterans of the Corps of Commissionnaire are contributors to the anxiety among some of our public servants. We must never in our laudable, worthy and indeed essential moves to bilingualize the federal government institution overprize linguistic ability at the expense of general merit. This would be a very,, very serious mistake.
I admire those with linguistic attainments. I envy some of my colleagues in the house who are fluent in both languages, but a flair for languages must not become the summum bonum of administrative competence in this country. This would be a grievous error. There was a time when it was the wish that philosophers should be kings. This was never attainable. It would not be wise now to suggest that the linguists should become the governors. Every person should be encouraged and assisted to strive toward perfection in both languages. This perfection will rarely be attained by those of us who, in the words of the Anglican prayer book, are of riper years.
Perhaps there are times when we must ask if elaborate, lengthy and strenuous language courses are the best utilization of the time of busy and important civil servants, or any civil servant. The emphasis should be on making a vigorous and effective effort to bilingualize, not the civil servant, but the service-the departments of federal government. We must ail be on the alert to protect the rights of minorities. The same urgency extends to majorities. I would not support this measure at any stage if I thought it inhibited or diminished the rights of the vast majority of Canadians who are and likely will remain unilingual. I do not think it does so inhibit or restrict. I would resist vigorously any pressures on the individual who seeks to do his best for his country in its public service who is not and does not choose to become bilingual.
Possibly some of the current techniques toward institutional bilingualism are being misunderstood and might not be the most suitable for the attainment of our bilingual goals. Perhaps the drives to make individual public servants bilingual might sometimes be
May 26, 1969

replaced by other techniques. Possibly more translation and less immersion would be more practical, although I know that no translation can approach the original.
In the electric age of instant Telex communications, computers, data processors of great rapidity of transmission, we may be backward and out of touch with the modern world of communications when we cling to some of our bilingualizing techniques. Here I am trespassing on the terminology of my friend, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). The major problem is that of communication, the functional right, if I may use such a conglomerate, of citizens of Canada of both languages to deal in their language with the government of this country. This in essence is what this measure is all about.
There is another area of misunderstanding. Nothing in this bill should cause anyone from a linguistic group other than French or English to feel discriminated against, left out, scorned or diminished in any way. If this were the case, I would oppose this bill with every fibre of my being. The fact that two languages are the languages of the apparatus of the government does not indicate any value judgment as to the superiority of those languages. It is not a matter of superiority, but of historic development and practical recognition that not all the languages dear to us can be official vehicles of communication in governmental institutions.
I belong to a group of people whose ancestors did not speak English or French when they were brought to these shores long ago loath, unwilling and in some cases brutally, by their English "neighbours". If some of the descendants of Montcalm had hard views about General James Wolfe, some of us who are descended from the Highlands have much stronger thoughts about Colonel James Wolfe when he ravished the land of our forefathers and lugged some of our people over to the North American continent in chains. They were forbidden to dress or speak as Scotsmen.
I noted an interesting item in the Ottawa Citizen today with reference to this matter. I did not think the title was too good, "Jews Support Language Bill". The article states in part as follows:
Canada's 270,000 citizens of Jewish faith support the official languages bill, Prime Minister Trudeau was told in a brief this morning by a delegation of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
The Congress supports the bill because it is based on a concept of equal partnership between the two languages and cultures of the founding groups. It in no way diminishes the status of
Official Languages
those whose origins are neither French nor Anglo-Saxon, the delegation's spokesman ... told Mr. Trudeau.
This I think is essentially the case, as it should be. I repeat there are many possibilities for a misunderstanding. This is a sensitive issue. I quite agree with my leader that the Prime Minister could and should have done a much better job of advising Canadians what this bill means and does not mean. An expert at dialogue, he should have used his expertise more fully. The bill has many flaws. It is far from perfect, but its objectives are those which I cannot in conscience oppose, nor do I intend to.
There are dangers in Canada today. There is no immutable law which says this country shall and must endure as a federation. We cannot and we dare not be complacent that all will somehow be well, that hard choices do not have to be taken and painful decisions made. It was an act of faith which created the Dominion of Canada. It must be as a continuing act of faith that all of us from different regions, different parties, different ancestral cultures will preserve it.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The other morning I was on the streets of Hamilton-I must be careful of the phraseology I use-having spoken at the meeting of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and was up early to catch a limousine to Malton airport. As I left my hotel at about 6.30 in the morning I looked down the street. I had a few minutes in hand, and saw the great statue of the great father of our country, John A. Macdonald, which the city of Hamilton, very wisely I think, has at its centre. And I thought of what John A. Macdonald had meant to this country. Having been in the company of my colleague from Hamilton West the night before my head was clear and my memory good.
I thought of Macdonald and of his greatness, of all his political cunning, and of the devices whereby he achieved and retained power. He was not a great philosopher, and heaven knows not a saint, but on one thing he had a record which I think was impeccable. He never, never adopted an attitude other than that of moderate understanding as between the groups which composed this country. As one of the greatest historians of

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
this land, Dr. A. R. M. Lower, a prominent Liberal and an old tutor of mine, wrote:
His stand with respect to the race question was consistent throughout his life whatever the cost to himself... he refused to raise the race cry at a time when he was in low political water.
Then I thought of that famous letter of Macdonald's. Its language is quaint and the expressions are those we would not use today, but the message is clear and still sound. Sir John A. wrote to a friend in Montreal:
The trouble is that you British Canadians can never forget that you were once supreme, that John Baptiste was once your hewer of wood and drawer of water. You struggle for ascendency. If a Lower Canadian Britisher desires to conquer you must stoop to conquer. He must make friends with the French without sacrificing the principles of his race or lineage. He must respect their nationality. Treat them as a nation: and they will act as a free people generally do-generously. Treat them as a faction and they will become factious.
Professor Lower summed up this letter when he said:
-wise words, the beginning and end of our Canadian puzzle but by few indeed taken to heart.
So, Mr. Speaker, I was thinking of John A. Macdonald because I have the honour to represent the constituency which contains the cradle of confederation. It was the meeting place of men of various parts of the then about to become country of Canada, men with deep differences, men of different backgrounds and different languages, but men who in a great act of faith made worthy and noble compromises to build a nation which has endured in the face of many threats. Often it has seemingly been on the edge of dissolution, but has endured for over a century, has prospered, and has developed a notable degree of greatness which should make all of us very proud.
It would be in the tradition of the founders of our country, the founders of all our parties, if we, in an act of faith, were to make an effort to harmonize, improve and strengthen the relationships between those who speak French and those who speak English so that we can the better make this confederation work, and so that we can avoid giving one scintilla of assistance to those who would destroy it. There are in this land, Mr. Speaker, too many, alas, who would do that.
I am going to vote for this bill's passage to committee not because it is a perfect bill, but I am going to vote for it despite all its imperfections because although as a vehicle it is imperfect I think that the goal is not only a good goal but it is a proposition to which we

must aspire if we, as believers in the continuing confederation which we call Canada, would serve our best purposes here as we apply ourselves to this important area of linguistic communication.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to most of the members who have taken part in this debate on Bill C-120, which is a bill respecting the status of the official languages of Canada. I state emphatically and very wholeheartedly that the use of both the English and French languages should be openly encouraged as fully as humanly possible in so far as our constitution calls for that from time to time. When it is felt by Canadians, both French speaking and English speaking, that our constitution has become outdated then it is the duty of those responsible-I refer to the govermnent of the day

to take the proper initiative in conjunction with the provincial governments to make an orderly change in the constitution in the prescribed manner.
I find it quite amazing that so many of the members on the government side of the house have seen fit to make strong suggestions that anyone who may oppose this legislation in any way whatsoever is either bigoted, prejudiced, or unwilling to accept a change. The reason I find this so amazing is that, from conversations outside the house, it appears quite evident to me that these members are in many cases quite concerned about the divisive effect this legislation may eventually have on our great country.
I certainly do not intend to take issue with all of those who attempted to unleash their wrath on members of the official opposition who voiced justified concern as to what this legislation might do. However, I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) that he might find it useful and educational to read his speech for a second time because I am sure he will learn, before he has been here too much longer, that speeches such as that have a habit of coming home to haunt.
He endeavoured to have his fun with the Tories, whom he attempted to brand as being violently opposed to change. Well, Mr. Speaker, if he finds it difficult to accept the fact that Tories have always been in the forefront when beneficial changes were called for, it may take a Tory candidate in the next election to prove the point. I would also like to remind him of two of the many great changes brought about by Conservative governments,
May 26, 1969

one of which changes is closely related to the legislation we are now discussing. I refer to the simultaneous translation system in this very house. This has been mentioned before on many occasions. However, those on the government benches have been saying that this was something which had to be done anyway. The fact remains that they and their predecessors in Liberal governments conveniently sidestepped this issue throughout all the years they were in office.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The other step was, for a large segment of our native people, the most significant one which has ever been taken. I refer to the time when the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker gave our native people the right to vote in federal elections, a right which had been denied them throughout confederation. Had this move not been made, governments, politicians and the general public of Canada would still be unmindful of the deplorable situation faced by these first Canadians.
Let us now take a look at this legislation. The purpose of Bill C-120 is to write into the statutes of Canada the recommendations which the Bilingual and Bicultural Commission prepared as amendments to the British North America Act; to make permanent the B and B commission in a slightly different form, by appointing a commissioner with a staff of permanent and temporary employees; to set up federal bilingual districts. One of the primary purposes of the bill is to give equality to the French and English languages in all federal government departments, agencies and institutions in Canada and abroad and, with provincial consent, to do the same in the field of education and provincial courts.
This all sounds like a very reasonable format which all Canadians should whole heartedly support. I suggest that members read Eill C-120 and the B.N.A. Act, then decide which one they are most likely to support. In my opinion, you cannot support both the B.N.A. Act and Bill C-120 unless Bill C-120 survives a proper test by our courts.
Section 133 of the Briitsh North America Act, which has been quoted before and which I should like to quote again, reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada
Official Languages
established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
Bill C-120 goes far beyond this when it states in clause 2:
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.
Another section of the British North America Act explicitly prohibits the federal government from acting in certain spheres. Section 91(1) forbids the government from tampering with language questions. This situation was brought about by means of an amendment to Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act engineered in 1949 at the request of the St. Laurent government. 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 amendments from time to time of the constitution of Canada except as regards... the use of the English or the French language.
This amendment indicates very clearly to me that Bill C-120 contravenes the constitution of our country, and I say this in all sincerity without any thought whatsoever of prejudice. I happen to represent a constituency where there are many thousands of persons whose native tongue is neither French nor English, and among these there are many of our original citizens who have never had the opportunity to learn either of these languages. In some areas of northern Manitoba the native people speak Saulteaux, Cree and Chippewan. Now, it looks as though they must face the requirement of learning either English or French, or perhaps both, if they wish to become full citizens of our country.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) made what I felt was a very strong plea that the constitutionality of this legislation should not be tested in the courts. I thought this rather strange, as I am at a loss to know where else this important matter could be settled. Some members have expressed the view that there is nothing seriously wrong with tampering with the constitution. If one person tampers with it and is allowed to get away with that, the door is then wide open to any government having a majority of members in this house to circumvent the Constitution. No country

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
can remain strong, united and healthy in a situation such as that.
To be able to speak two or more languages is certainly a wonderful goal for anyone to achieve, and no one can deny this. However, the debate on this legislation has opened up a variety of points and arguments, some of which are extremely worthy of our attention. I am particularly curious as to why the government feels justified in asking Canadians to provide the millions of dollars the implementation of this measure is going to cost when we find so many of our Indians and Metis people living in such deplorable poverty. It is quite possible that the cost of this particular program in its initial year alone would go a long way toward providing sufficient housing for at least those of our native people in greatest need, and particularly those who should have some comfort in their declining years. If this program were not being demanded by the government at this time, the cost of it for five years would possibly provide all the required housing for our native people in Canada.
c (9:00 p.m.)
It is my hope that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development will make a strong plea to the government to provide sufficient funds with which to do this job now. But I will believe that when I see it. Yet we are now being asked to provide a like sum for an official languages program which is not, in my opinion, necessary at this time. If anyone doubts this, he need only look back to the creation of the ill-fated department of industry, the empire building now going on in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the empire building going on in the offices of some ministers. It is not difficult to calculate how many $10,000 homes for our native people could have been built with the $46 million which the Arts Centre cost; and this project was originally supposed to be built for some $9 million to $14 million. Therefore, let us not say that this legislation will not cost the taxpayers of our country a great deal of money.
Some amendments have been introduced, one of which allows the requirements of this bill to be provided by the government of Canada, beyond the boundaries of bilingual districts which the legislation will set up, provided there is sufficient demand for these requirements; but there is nothing in the legislation which states what constitutes sufficient demand.

Speaking of the proposed federal bilingual districts, some government members have attempted in their speeches to list by provinces just how few of these districts there actually will be. I have had a starred question on the order paper for some time in respect of this very matter. My question asks for the figures which were provided to the government under the 1961 decennial census indicating how many districts in Canada have 10 per cent or more people who speak English. I asked where these districts were and the census division in which they occurred. I also asked for the same information with regard to the census districts in Canada in which 10 per cent of the people had French as their native tongue. This question has not yet been answered. Therefore, when hon. members say that there will be no districts in British Columbia, one or so in Alberta and maybe four in Manitoba, I wonder just where they get this information, in view of the fact that the government has so far been unable to answer my starred question although it should have been answered some time ago.
I realize that anyone who raises an issue vis-a-vis Quebec and the rest of Canada runs the risk of being branded a bigot, and automatically anti-Quebec in the opinion of some people. However, people like our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tend to perpetuate this situation by their contradictory actions. It therefore becomes necessary for many of us to run the risk of such charges, merely to keep the record straight.
As reported at pa^e 8907 of Hansard, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) used these words when quoting the Prime Minister:
-Canada had to survive as one national state. Within this state there is no room for special status, and there is no room for a degree of autonomy granted to any province that is not available to any other province.
Last week we listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) announce the agreement between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec to establish a national park on Forillon Peninsula, in the Gaspe area. I am sure we were all pleased to hear that the province of Quebec had joined the other nine provinces in our national parks program. However, it was more than a little disturbing to learn that, unlike the other nine provinces which must turn the required land over to the federal government free of encumbrances
May 26, 19G9



in perpetuity, this agreement placed the land at the disposal of the federal government for a period of 99 years and gave the province of Quebec the right to regain possession at the end of 60 years on repayment of expenditures incurred by the federal government. If the Prime Minister says this is not special status, then I would like him to explain it to the other nine provinces which have entered into agreements to turn over land in perpetuity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say very seriously it is my firm conviction that this legislation contravenes our constitution. I therefore oppose it on those most reasonable and, I believe, solid grounds, and will be obliged to do so until the legislation is tested in the courts of our country.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity now to comment on this bill which is extremely important. I am very glad to take part in this debate on the official languages bill which concerns all the hon. members and all the Canadian people.
As a representative of the province of Quebec, I will have the pleasure to put forward some arguments which have to be advanced in this house. In my opinion, it is not only a matter of principle which we are discussing at this time, but also the recognition of the French language on a national basis, the recognition of the English language having been secured already now for a number of years.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention that before coming to this house, I worked within various nationalistic or political groups.
I have always been very happy to discuss the French-Canadian nation and to promote its development, not only in Quebec but all across Canada.
All the hon. members will understand that we have been and still are somewhat concerned about the recognition of the French language which, in short, is the recognition as we said earlier of the two founding groups, the French-speaking and the English-speaking groups
Since I encountered some difficulties in my work to promote that language and the Canadian nation, I made an attempt to get elected to this house so that I might represent here the French element. I thought it was the best way, without for all that thrusting myself on anybody, that it was here in this
Official Languages
house that we should discuss very calmly the problems that exist in this country as a whole.
I am given today the opportunity to deal with this bill and to say very objectively that if we were granted bilingual cheques and simultaneous translation after 90 years, I would not like people to believe they were mere gifts nor think that French Canadians would be satisfied with bilingual cheques or simultaneous translation.
This debate has something to do with justice and those who represent the majority merely want to put justice into practice or appeal to it. That justice, we obviously have been hoping for it for a long time for it does not exist for the province of Quebec only but for all minorities.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We should, I believe, deal in an objective way with French-Canadian minorities in other provinces that have been waiting a long time for such recognition. I believe that as a member of parliament, even if it were only to stand up for minorities, I must take part in this debate in a constructive and objective way. Certain members find it somewhat difficult to recognize that principle, but I do not believe any one can refuse to recognize it for it merely means the recognition of the two founding groups.
I am in a good position to deal with difficulties and to tell you that in Quebec we know what difficulties are. Thanks to some progress made in the last ten years, we have more faith than ever in this common life, in the greatness of our country and in this involvement in federal politics.
It is difficult to have some members accept this bill which would seem to displease some minorities. But I think we must all admit this principle of the recognition of those two founding groups. I think we are right to ask for it because, in my opinion, that is in harmony with the history of our country and also because that is how we have managed so far to build a country which is nonetheless an object of envy for some in the world.
As for the various ethnic groups which make up Canada, it is understood that we do not wish to oppress the minorities which compose them. Far from it. We must first recognize the French fact and the English fact.
Our political leaders have perhaps lacked courage when it was a question of making the various ethnic groups accept and understand, when they came to settle in Canada, that they

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
should naturally-and I say naturally-integrate themselves into one of the two cultures. This does not mean that these groups must forget their language or their customs, but, to my mind, Canada will be strong and great if the two founding groups are recognized.
All those who came to Canada will be able to make their contribution, the effects of which will be most valuable while deserving our gratitude and appreciation.
We should recognize the principle that Canada was built by two founding peoples while acknowledging this diversity of cultures. As for those who would have us believe that we could become a multilingual country, considering the proportion of new Canadians here, let me answer that such a policy would simply help build a tower of Babel. It would be coward to encourage the dreams of the various ethnic groups in this respect and allow them to preserve their illusions.
It is therefore my duty, since we have to work in the most objective and fairest possible way, to request all members to accept once and for all this bill which will extend to the whole country the recognition of the French language and will allow the minorities, whether French or English, to express themselves and to participate in the business of the country in their mother tongue.
To those who speak of priorities and wonder if it would not be advisable to try to delay this debate by suggesting that adopting other bills might be more urgent, I shall answer that every law brought before parliament is indeed, important and the need for its adoption always pressing. But I certainly could not accept the opinion of those who would merely play politics and delay this debate by requiring the government to recognize other priorities or to introduce other legislations.
The best and most efficient way of working in the best interest of the country and trying to achieve, as soon as possible, this unity which we have so far never attained is to pass the bill and to proceed as soon as possible to the consideration of other bills likely to be also very useful to all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to dwell very long on the bill, for it looks advisable to me that it should be passed. I do not think it is necessary to say that I support the bill for the pleasure of supporting the government. Let no one think that I want to please the government but, as a member of the opposition, I submit that we also have the responsibility of taking part in the adoption of valuable

parliamentary legislation and it is my duty to participate in the administration of the government. The opposition has a part to play in forcing the government into acting more quickly, whenever the legislation is valuable and advisable. I sincerely think that, in the interests of all Canadians and particularly French Canadians, it is urgent, advisable and desirable to pass the bill.
On the other hand, if unfortunately this debate were to drag on, I would have to ask myself this question: what is there for me to do here as a French-speaking member of parliament? I am convinced that the majority of hon. members recognize the significance of this bill for the future of this country, for the sake of the kind of justice which we are recommending and for which we are working. In view of those circumstances, I think that we will be sufficiently objective and straightforward to get this bill accepted as soon as possible throughout Canada.
As I said, it is agreed that the intention of this bill is not to impose the French language to those who do not want to learn it. However, I believe it is designed so that those willing to do so will be able to learn and practice it as soon as possible.
Personally, I did not hesitate on my arrival in this house to speak a second language, with which I am not very familiar. The results may not be the most satisfactory so far, but at least I do my best to be able, in the near future, to talk with my English-speaking friends in their own language, so as to be better understood and to prove that in Canada the two founding nations can get along and seek the same objectives.
When we recognize these differences, whether we admit it or not, I think that we will then be in a better position to understand one another and, consequently, to accept one another more easily and to work together, while retaining our different mentalities, speaking a different language perhaps, in order to reach that ideal which is to build a strong, well-structured Canada, with strong provinces as well.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I did not want to miss this opportunity to take part in this debate, for my fellow-citizens in Quebec as well as the minorities in the other provinces have needs which must be met. Those people want greater opportunities. Indeed, as a result of a recent trip out west, I realized this. They should have, as soon as possible, a French television station
May 26, 1969

that would help them to maintain their language and feel increasingly at home throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I should like once again to say that I do not want to dwell unduly on this subject, but once and for all the importance must be recognized of the services this bill could render the Canadian nation. In addition, in view of the tenor of some of the speeches, an effort should be made not to reject the claims of the members from the province of Quebec whom I personally invite to foster or work for the passing of this bill. 1 felt that some members were rather surprised to know that, in the province of Quebec, there existed-1 shall not say unfortunately- perhaps too often circumstances or claims that worried them.
But it is time that we should recognize that Quebec is a province different from the others, whether we like it or not. It is unthinkable not to recognize that difference when we know that there are more than five million French Canadians in that province.
It is a fact that the Quebec mentality is different. The history of Quebec being different, its needs and its aspirations are different also.
But the goal of Quebecers, as that of all Canadians, is for the vast majority to live in a well-organized Canada and a well-organized province of Quebec, while hoping for a similar organization in the other provinces. Quebecers are perfectly justified in demanding the recognition of certain rights and I do not believe that the representatives of the province of Quebec deny that there are also differences with the other provinces.
It is urgent to recognize those differences in that province, taking into account its mentality. But once again the objective of Quebec is to build a strong and well-organized province for the good of Canada. I have always maintained that that strength and the development of the provinces will assure the greatness of Canada.
The bill under consideration is surely supported by a majority of hon. members. Let all those who are worried be reassured. The bill is as important as all those we have already adopted, because it recognizes a language that has been forgotten for too long.
The bill asks for the recognition of the history of Canada, this country built by two founding peoples which were joined by New Canadians who are perfectly welcome in Canada and who have contributed to the country's greatness.
Official Languages
In conclusion, I wish to say that I shall be very happy to vote for the bill, not with politics in mind, but from the conviction that I co-operate in the passing of a measure that all French Caandians have long been waiting for, and that the majority will accept in the best interest of Canada. It will ensure better understanding and will best prove that we really want a united country.
{English]


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate this evening because I wish to register some points of view on the bill before us and to place certain objections on record. In addition, I wish to express what I believe to be a legitimate concern on my part as to the contents of this measure.
I am concerned about the reasons for this legislation. I firmly believe that this bill is a retrograde step as far as the unity of Canada is concerned. I think it is divisive in its effect, and that it will divide ethnic groups across the country. There groups will no longer feel themselves to be part of the Canadian concept. In my view the bill is unnecessary because we already have the freedom and the right to use our languages on a national basis. I hold this bill to be politically motivated and nothing more than an election gimmick.
I am further concerned as to the legality of this measure. On this issue I wish to raise only two points to strengthen the arguments put forward by my hon. friend from Churchill (Mr. Simpson). On November 12 of last year the Hon. J. T. Thorson, an eminent lawyer in the City of Ottawa, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Trudeau) raising two points against the bill. He stated them as follows:
1.	The bill represents an attempt to amend the constitution of Canada as regards the use of the English and French languages so that it falls within one of the stated exceptions to the legislative jurisdiction of parliament under section 91 of the British North America Act; and
2.	Section 133 of the British North America Act limits the status and use of the French language in Canada so that any attempt, whether by parliament or by the legislatures, to extend the use of that language by legislation is repugnant to that provision and therefor ultra vires.
In his attempt to answer Thorson adequately the Prime Minister stated that Bill C-120 in no way purports to amend the constitution. He drew attention to the guaranteed rights of the French language under the statute, and I

May 26. 1969
Official Languages
agree with him in this respect. In his concluding paragraph, the Prime Minister, also an eminent lawyer, said:
The government, as you know, hopes to secure a substantial consensus on the desirability of a constitutional bill; one that will operate to extend the provisions of section 133 for the benefit of all Canadians.
I am not a lawyer myself but it seems to me that when you amend statute law so that it means something other than what it meant in its original form you are to all intents and purposes amending the statute, in this case, the constitution. Section 133 guarantees the use of the English and French languages in certain instances. To broaden by statute law the use of these languages, as outlined in Bill C-120, to me means amendment of the constitution.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) made reference to the setting up of these bilingual districts, whether under the 10 per cent or the 80 per cent criterion, but I do not think the government has licence or authority to bring forward this kind of legislation. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) argues, and eloquently, that this measure is not an infringement of the constitution. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that if he is that sure of his ground, other legal authorities are equally sure that the government does not have the right to amend the constitution in this regard, in other words, to introduce Bill C-120. Hence, the refusal of the government to allow the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the constitutionality of this bill before introducing it in this house is of some concern to me.
I think the motive behind this legislation is political. I think the Liberal party is thinking ahead to the next election. This languages bill, which amounts to nothing more than a carrot on a stick, will give some measure of support to Liberal candidates in the next election. At the risk of offending all of the other ethnic groups in Canada, Quebec's support for the Liberal party must be guaranteed. Heaven knows, there is not much hope for them in the west.
I want to put on the record this evening some of the views of ethnic leaders across the country. One of the more interesting documents that I have in my hand is entitled: "The inadequacies and injustices of the official languages bill", and contains remarks made by Russell Dzenick, L.L.B., a prominent Liberal in the city of Edmonton. He is also president

of the Ukranian Canadian Committee. These remarks were made at a panel discussion held during the Alberta provincial Liberal convention on April 25 and 26, 1969. He said:
The latest step in the government's program in dealing with the future of Canada is the official languages bill.
I propose to deal with the question of how the official languages bill and the B and B report affects the one third of Canadians with whose existence the government appears to be completely unconcerned-and which lack of concern has shown itself in all other facets of life so evident since the Pearson days and continued more boldly during the present Trudeau era.
The official languages bill has completely failed to consider the existence of Canadians of nonEnglish and non-French origin-the supreme example of the majority taking full and irresponsible advantage of its numbers to impose its will upon defenceless minorities by law rather than by usage and gradual development as is and should be the case in all democratic nations.
The bill, in accordance with the bilingual and bicultural report proposes to set up "federal bilingual districts" dealing only with the guarantee of the use of both French and English in areas where there are 10 per cent of each group residing; but completely fails to propose any constitutional safeguards for the preservation and continued development of languages and cultures of those Canadian citizens who are not descendants of the English or French races. For example: If in a given area the Ukrainians, the Germans, the Italians or other persons of any other extraction constitute 80 per cent of the population, then it would nevertheless be deemed to be a bilingual area of French and English notwithstanding the overwhelming majority of citizens. The bilingual districts would leave Canada open to racial and political gerrymandering with Canadians of other extractions becoming mere pawns of the English and French Canadians.
If bilingual districts are to be established on the 10 per cent formula, it should include other languages where population in such districts contains 10 per cent or more of people who are neither of French or English origin.
In principle-I believe in a variety in association, languages and cultures. These should be recognized, appreciated and encouraged. It is most important that we recognize the value of multiculturalism in Canada. This cannot be done by the forceful promotion of two languages to the exclusion of all others.
In lieu of the offensive language contained in section 2 of the proposed bill let us consider a substitute clause along the following lines: "English and French are the two major languages of Canada. Languages of Canadians who are descendants of other ethnolingual groups are also recognized as Canadian languages, fully equal in rights and privileges to English and French."
There are several very important moral and material benefits to be derived from the recognition of languages rooted in Canada, of various Canadian racial groups, who, together, have built up different areas of present day Canada.
May 26, 1969

Firstly, the question of human dignity is deeply involved. If, by decree or legislation, or by constitutional guarantee the languages-and thereby cultures of only two of Canada's ethnic groups are selected for survival-while Canadians speaking other languages are singled out for virtual immediate assimilation-then such legislation offends human dignity and contravenes fundamental human rights. Such legislation is morally indefensible.
Secondly; the very basis of our democratic system is implicated. If preservation of language is important and essential to the survival of the French and English, it is equally essential to the Ukrainians, Germans, Italians, Eskimos, Indians and all others for the very same reason. In democracy one cannot apply one set of standards and moral principles to one group of citizens and a different standard to another group of Canadians.
Thirdly, there is also an important aspect of real material benefit. Recognition of language rights of any community is reflected in definite material benefits, while a restrictive regulation, whether of direct or indirect character, means exclusion of the community from access to those benefits. Recognition of a language means growth and development of the community. It evokes a greater sense of pride. Exclusion or restriction of language rights of the community means the negation and a narrowing of horizons in a community.
Finally, means for language and cultural activities are derived from taxation in various forms from all people who make up this nation. In the distribution of these taxation revenues it is only just to consider its source and make a sincere attempt to provide the services for cultural development of all communities.
When Mr. Dzenick made this statement before a large group in Edmonton, he was speaking on behalf of over 500,000 people, according to the 1961 census, who were very much concerned with the effects of this bill.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I have another clipping from the Edmonton Journal of February 20, 1969. I hesitate to express any personal viewpoint in this chamber because others who have done so have been branded as bigots and narrow-minded politicians. I think I can serve my purpose best by putting on record the views of some responsible ethnic leaders across Canada. The headline of the article in my hand reads, "What the 'other ethnic groups' want". It reads:
Spokesmen for the "other ethnic groups" in the Edmonton Area say they don't want special privileges for themselves.
They say they want to be Canadians, not hyphenated Canadians, in the multi-coloured mosaic of this nation's life. But by the same token, they believe French-Canadians are not justified in claiming special privileges for themselves.
French-Canadian demands are seen as reasonable in Quebec, parts of Ontario and New Brunswick, 29180-5751
Official Languages
but the French-Canadians do not occupy a historically privileged position in Western Canada. On the contrary, their contributions to the life and development of the West are seen as much smaller than those of the larger other ethnic groups, the Germans, the Ukrainians and the Scandinavians.
This statement should in no way be interpreted as representing anti-French sentiment in the west. The newspaper report goes on to say:
There is no apparent anti-French feeling. The other ethnic groups say they just don't want to be "left out".
They fear that constitutional entrenchment of French language rights will result in "greater discrimination against minority groups that has existed until now," according to R. L,. Dzenick, president of the Edmonton branch of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee which comprises the vast majority of Ukrainians in Canada.
W. R. Zeidler, president of the German Canadian Association which speaks for most German-speaking groups in central Alberta, shares Mr. Dzenick's sentiment.
They fear the "second-class status" which still clings to many ethnic groups will be brought into sharper focus through the entrenchment of two' official languages into the constitution.
"In the past we have found many instances where it has been difficult to obtain employment because of background", says Mr. Dzenick.
"There were many instances of discrimination. Now, with a second official language being forced upon us, and it doesn't matter which language it is. the minority groups will again feel the greatest pinch when it comes to discrimination.
Rightly or wrongly, these people express a sincere viewpoint. May I put on the record a paragraph or two from a publication known as the Ukrainian Voice of Winnipeg, dated May 7, 1969. In their editorial they ask for a more equitable language bill and say:
In spite of the many assurances from high places that the French language will not be forced upon any Canadian citizen, it can hardly be denied that the creation of French-English bilingual districts, on a 10 per cent basis, will prove to be am Indirect form of compulsion insofar as the local positions are concerned.
This would be most unfair in districts which might have the minimum requirement of French population, but where some other ethnic group would be much larger numerically. If a situation of this sort were allowed to develop, we will be in fact creating a divisive society, a society in which some citizens would be more privileged than others. This would hardly be in keeping with the principles of a free society.
If the government is irrevocably wedded to the idea of bilingual districts, it should tread very carefully in instituting them. They should not necessarily follow the boundaries of federal or provincial electoral districts, but should be delineated in such a way as to encompass a majority of French-speaking citizens. Otherwise, to avoid the divisive effect, similar districts should be formed for other major language groups where

May 26, 1969
Official Languages
they constitute a sizeable proportion of the population. Still another solution that lends itself ideally to stituations in western Canada would be to officially recognize the languages of leading language groups as regional languages.
There is also another area which should be discussed here briefly. While the bilingualization of the civil service is understandable and desirable in order that the citizens of Canada may be. served in either official language, there is a danger in this process being pushed to the extreme. If the aim of bilingualization of the civil service is to enable the citizens, in their dealings with government, governmental institutions and crown corporations to communicate in either one of the two official languages, it is not necessary to require that each and every member of the civil service should be proficient in both languages. The knowledge of both languages should not be a prerequisite in every case for serving Canada at home or abroad. There should be no valid reason why the civil service should not accept a unilingual (French or English) applicant with exceptional talents, or those who have a knowledge of one official language and one or two other. Surely, a knowledge of some Slavic languages would be a decided advantage in trade and diplomatic missions to central and south eastern Europe, or the knowledge of Italian, Portuguese and Spanish in dealings with Latin countries.
If the language rights guaranteed 100 years ago need to be amended, Mr. Speaker, should we not in our amendment include English, French, and the languages of other ethnic groups across the country? Yet nothing like that has been done.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that not only have I expressed my own doubts about the bill but I have also expressed the reservations of responsible leaders of ethnic groups and associations in Canada. I have put those views on the record. In considering this legislation surely the government should have heeded the viewpoint expressed by various ethnic leaders and given expression to these viewpoints in the clauses of the bill, thus making this bill acceptable to all concerned. Of course, if the government is determined to push this bill through, and because of its majority we cannot stop it, one can only say that the people of Canada do not want to have this measure forced upon them. The bill is ill-conceived and has dangerous ramifications that could divide this country to the point of no return.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, before saying why I object to this bill may I say this. No one is opposing this bill because of any desire to suppress the French language, or any other language in Canada for that matter. The rights of any group to any

language or culture should not be curtailed. In the western half of Canada, as in some other areas, Mr. Speaker, we do not feel any responsibility for or involvement in the old squabbles between the French and English in Canada. The fact that we speak English does not make us English Canadians. Most of us have neither French nor English blood in our veins. Many of us have studied French in school; some of us even became fairly proficient in it. On leaving school we immediately forgot most of it since there was no further contact with the language. Our mother tongue being English, regardless of our racial origin, we used the language of our area and had no reason to make an effort to retain any proficiency in French. Now, we are faced with a bill that might not say much but has ominous implications for us. The federal government will not employ people who speak only English. What does this mean? It means that only people from central Canada, who have been exposed to both languages from childhood, will get the jobs. We who always thought we were Canadians, and many who were willing to fight for Canada, find we still have the privilege of paying the taxes which pay the salaries of the privileged Canadians who, because of their ability to speak French, are eligible for the Civil Service.
What about those who are only English speaking and are employed in the federal Civil Service, especially in Ottawa? Their chances of advancement are nil. This situation, unfair as it seems to us, is by this bill to be carried into the armed forces and possibly to the R.C.M.P. Then, of course, there is the 7 per cent wage bonus for the fortunate. Is it any wonder we are concerned? There appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, May 21, the headline, "Merit Reinstated for Promotion in Public Service". What an admission! What a hope! This bill in no way makes provision for the merit system to be applicable to civil servants. I doubt this statement will change anything for the better. It in no way guarantees any rights to English speaking Canadians.
The question of language rights on a national scale is just a small part of a much larger question. That question is whether it is reasonable to expect that mere legislation can halt, let alone reverse, the tide of natural social evolution. I believe this is what we are seeking to do in this legislation and in other measures in the same area which may be brought forward at a later date for enactment. The aim of this bill supposedly is to
May 26, 1969

provide justice for a minority, and that aim rests on the guarantees provided to the people of French Canada by the British North America Act. No one could question such an aim. It is highly laudable. However, I have a feeling that there is a great gap between the aim of this bill and the situation that will be created by application of its terms. It may well be that this bill will be self-defeating, will aggravate the very situation it seeks to soothe. It may create new issues, fresh points of friction and thus drive a new wedge between the races rather than draw them closer together.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking in this house on October 17 when the resolution was introduced, said among other things:
I believe that there will be widespread agreement among members and their constituents in all parts of Canada that this bill can be of great importance in promoting national unity.
I am not among those who agree that this bill will promote national unity. On the contrary, I believe it will be destructive. No member is more anxious than I, Mr. Speaker, to see national unity strengthened and to bring an end to the wasteful and distasteful feuding between the two principal language groups in Canada. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that legislation is the means by which this can best be brought about. I will go further and say I believe legislation is the very worst way to go about it. Unquestionably, more can be done to ensure language rights to both French and English speaking Canadians on a voluntary basis than by means of legal compulsion.
In learning a second language, the learner must want to learn and use it. If he or she is compelled by law to learn it simply to prove a point, that compulsion will only breed a stubborn determination never to use the language if it can be avoided and, at least, to master it no more than is absolutely necessary. Compulsion will spread a slow poison that will ruin relations and postpone real unity indefinitely. Race relations and linguistic rights. Cultural recognition and mutual appreciation depend upon the human mind and spirit, not on intricate legal machinery, coercion and paper guarantees.
This bill is a breeding ground for resentment and bitterness. The setting up of special areas, the formal conferring of special rights and the establishment of the elaborate policing apparatus necessary to make these
Official Languages
devices work, will only harden minor differences into inflexible opposition and open the door to endless wrangling.
The Prime Minister made another interesting comment in his speech of October 17. It is a remark that highlights the real facts of today's North American world. He said:
The most important example of this diversity is undoubtedly the existence of the two major language groups, both of which are strong enough in numbers and in material and in intellectual resources to resist the forces of assimilation.
This might be true perhaps if we were considering the French language and the French community in terms only of Canada. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we can no more limit the question to an area within an arbitrary line, such as our international boundary, than we can stop air from circulating. Whether we like it or not, both English and French Canadians are an integral part of a North American, not a national, society. The inescapable effect of this is that that society is an English language society. In the North American society, the French speaking group represent only 2 per cent.
We can retain political sovereignty. We can continue to develop as a distinctive nationality and nation. But we cannot escape the overwhelming force of social, cultural and economic evolution that does not stop at international boundaries but covers all the continent.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the sustained interest in the house on this question and the desirability of completing second reading stage and getting the bill to committee, I wonder if the house would be prepared to give unanimous consent to continue the sitting either until midnight or the debate shall be brought to an end, with the understanding there will be no vote taken later this evening? A vote would be taken following orders of the day tomorrow.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No unanimous consent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Crowfoot refuses unanimous consent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As a result of that side of the house not giving consent earlier today-
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to put the questions to be debated at this time.
9090	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



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 Tuesday, April 29, as recorded in Hansard at page 8102, I put the following question to the Prime Minister:
In view of the fact that within the past few days the International Nickel Company of Canada and Imperial Oil Limited have announced plans for increasing the pensions of their retired employees, will the Prime Minister, as head of the government, expedite the cabinet's consideration of the question of increasing the pensions of retired public servants?
I thought that was a direct question and I dared to hope the answer would be yes. However, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) reply was as follows:
We are proceeding according to plan, Mr. Speaker. [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I tried again with a supplementary, which was as follows:
In view of the fact the President of the Treasury Board indicated on January 8 to an organization representing these people that there would be a report within a few weeks, can the Prime Minister say when there will be a statement as to the progress that has been made?
Again, I thought I might get a straightforward reply, but the answer as printed in Hansard was as follows:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The plan is secret, Mr. Speaker.
I wondered at the time what those words meant. I think what the Prime Minister was really saying to me was, "Will you go jump in the lake." In other words, the government is getting tired of these repeated demands some of us are making for consideration of this terribly important question of what is happening to the value of the pensions of retired public servants, but I want to say to the Prime Minister and to the government that even if the member for Winnipeg North Centre were not raising this matter as often as he can, the issue would not go away.
It is here as a very real problem. Its extent is increasing. It applies not only to retired civil servants but to retired employees of the railways of this country, to retired pensioners in all walks of life, and it applies to the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
DEBATES	May 26, 1969
pensions that are paid under the Old Age Security Act. As prices go up the value of pensions goes down. As the standard of living rises and retired people are left with what they had, the gap between them and the rest of society grows that much wider. Something has to be done about this issue. It cannot be put off and off the way the government is doing.
In my question to the Prime Minister on April 29, as I have already noted, I referred to the fact that two rather large companies in this country have recently taken action with respect to their former employees, namely, International Nickel and Imperial Oil. Certain other companies have done likewise. Most of the provincial governments have taken action in this field. The government of the United Kingdom has recently, for the seventh time since the end of World War II, increased the pensions of its retired civil servants.
I was interested in the press release from International Nickel. I am grateful to that company for having sent me a copy of it, for this release indicates that the increase in pensions is not insignificant. The increase varies all the way from 4 per cent for those retired in 1964 to as high as 25 per cent for those retired prior to 1951.
In other words, the recognition is growing that this is a problem about which something has to be done. There is not a doubt in the world so far as I am concerned that the day will come when it will be accepted practice that pensions are escalated after they have been put in pay, and this will be done in proportion to the increases that take place in the wages and salaries of those who are still working. Why must this government wait and be the last employer to accept this principle? The time to do this is now.
The government should give a lead, not just to follow or even to fail to do that. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think my question to the Prime Minister on April 29 was a legitimate one and that it deserved a straightforward reply.
We have had this issue around for a long time. We have had a unanimous report of a special committee, presented to the house on May 8, 1967. We have had assurances and promises galore. All I asked the Prime Minister to do on April 29 was to give me his assurance that he would do his best to get his colleagues in the cabinet to expedite their consideration of this matter. I hope that whoever is answering for the Prime Minister tonight will give me that assurance, that an
May 26, 1969

effort will be made to get the cabinet moving on this issue instead of stalling the way it has done all this time. Some day something will have to be done. Some day it will be done. Most of us in the house for the late show period tonight believe the time for that action is now.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the substantive argument being put forward by the hon. member is entirely different to the question that appeared in Hansard. It was really for that reason, when I looked that question over, that I was hesitant in replying on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) because of the implication that in replying I am by-passing the normal procedures of ministerial responsibility. However, because there is no substantive content to the question that appears on page 8102 of Hansard and that was posed by the wily, not devious, member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I will say that cabinet consideration of this subject is, in the Prime Minister's own words, "proceeding according to plan." As the hon. member well knows, cabinet meetings are secret and until decisions are reached and announced not even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be made privy to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
you get extra pay for an answer like that.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN RATE ON &quot;MONTREAL&quot; MAGAZINE

Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I had also asked last May 8 a question which may be found at page 8471 of Hansard, and I quote:
Following the increase in its postal charges from $28,000 to $55,000, the magazine Montreal, will disappear-
I was asking the Minister of Communications if he intended to grant a reduction in postal rates to that magazine which made Canada known throughout the world.
When that magazine was started in May 1964 the mayor of Montreal said, and I quote:
I am delighted to introduce you to the first edition of this new monthly magazine which will be circulated throughout the world. At the same time, I want to extend to you warm greetings from Canada's metropolis.
Montreal '64, published by the City of Montreal, is designed essentially for strangers to Canada's biggest city. Its purpose is twofold: To underline our desire for international co-operation and to show the true personality of Montreal.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Through its location and the place it occupies in the financial and economic life of Canada, Montreal is the very symbol of Canada's spirit, its will and determination to be a pace-setter.
That was said in May 1964. Now, four years later, Montreal '68 disappears. In 1964, you had the beginning of an era of progress; in 1968, you have the disappearance of a publication which did a lot to enhance Canada's image in the whole world. I might add that it seems impossible to me now to save that magazine. In that respect, I should like to quote these words:
The bell has tolled. The prestigious magazine Montreal, published at first every month and afterwards every six or eight weeks by the city of Montreal for nearly five years, will no longer reach its 517,000 choice readers scattered in 148 countries in the world.
It is folding up.
Why?
In the past, the shipping costs for that luxury magazine were $6,000 per month. They were to reach $28,000 in November last and $55,000 as of April 1, 1969 ... however, the magazine has not been published since the major rate increase.
310,655 copies were sent to the United States-
The publication was sent to Great Britain, France, Canada, including Quebec, North America, Central America, somewhat all over the world.
The minister recently claimed that to save those papers having difficulties, they should merely be given grants, and he was referring to papers such as Le Devoir and L'Evangeline.
Here is a list of cultural publications, including Montreal magazine, and some newspapers that are bound to disappear namely: La Feuille d'Erable, of Plessisville, La Voix de VEst, of Granby, Le Progres de Thetford-Mines, La Tribune, of Thetford-Mines, Le Peuple, of Montmagny, La Terre de Chez-nous, Le Courrier de Montmagny, La Tribune de Levis, Vfctoile du Lac, La Voix du Sud, La Frontiere, L'Echo du Saint-Maurice, La Valee de la Chaudiere, L'Eclaireur, Le Progres de la Beauce, VEnseignement, Liberte et Patriote. Many English publications, the names of which I have not here, are also bound to disappear.
These magazines and newspapers will disappear because the minister said that the Post Office Department must pay its way. The government of a just society can build an Arts Centre costing $46 million, when the initial cost was to be $9 million, but for the
May 26, 1969
9092	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion popular culture that reaches in every Canadian home and the remotest areas of Canada, for people who are unable to visit this Arts Centre, and who will have no right to this culture, the Postmaster General has decided that the Post Office Department must pay its way.
So, he offers subsidies. The minister should take notice, because I think that in today's he Devoir, he got a proud answer from Claude Ryan, which I quote from text:
c (10:10 p.m.)
The idea of subsidies is contrary to all the standards which, in western countries, preside over the relations between the daily press and the political power.
And he added:
To offset such difficulties, the Postmaster General suggested special subsidies which could, on request, be paid by the Secretary of State.
Claude Ryan then said:
I'll have none of those hand-outs scattered right and left.
I agree with this journalist, who understands the problem which allows some newspapers to remain in existence, and causes others to disappear.
We have seen, for example, Time magazine and the Reader's Digest protected by the Postmaster General, but when it is time to save newspapers which inform the population of a constituency and of the farthest regions in Canada, the government refuses to listen to the opposition, who happens to be voicing the truth.
I repeat it once more, if we can spend $46 million to build the National Arts Centre, which was to cost $9 million, for the general culture of the people, for the general education of the Canadian population, let us allow the newspapers to survive and to that end let us grant them a special status for their distribution across Canada.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I must first set the record straight with regard to some facts stated by the hon. member. He said tonight that postal rates increased from $6,000 to $55,000.
But when he first spoke, he talked of an increase from $28,000 to $55,000, and he was much closer to the truth at that time.


Bernard Dumont: Would the minister permit a question?


Eric William Kierans: The correct figure in October was $27,000. That is exactly what we received, and as a result of the increase in rates, effective April 1, it became $55,000.
But, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the department has not received any request for a special rate for this magazine. Nobody contacted me personally or the department on that matter.
I can answer that question. The magazine Montreal 68 ceased publication in October; long before the introduction of the new postal rates. In fact, six months before April 1, the owners had decided to stop publishing the magazine.
In fact, since publication stopped in October, the decision must have been made in July or August, a long time before the bill was introduced in the house, for financial reasons, perhaps on account of a $500,000 deficit.
It is easy to blame the Minister of Communications for everything. I am not at all concerned, because I am convinced that the employees of my department are devoted and ready to serve the Canadian people as best as possible.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that at this stage he cannot rise on a point of order or ask a question.


Bernard Dumont: Even if I did not use all the
time allotted to me, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. [English]



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-EFFECT OF RATE CHANGES ON NON-PROFIT PUBLICATIONS

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, it is said that dialogue is the "in" thing, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and I are doing a good deal of dialoguing. Whether or not he likes the fact that it is done at this nocturnal hour I do not know, but I love the hushed expectance of the crowded house at 10.15 p.m. This is why I often take up with him matters of concern to the Canadian people.


Eric William Kierans: It is always the same thing.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hear the minister interjecting and taking some of my seven minutes by saying it is always the same
May 26, 1969
thing, but when publications in this country stop going out of business I will stop talking about the problem that he has created for those publications.
I do not want to bring these matters to the minister's attention more frequently than is necessary, and so on this evening, in my discussion of publications I will be dealing only with the weeklies. I think the Postmaster General a few weeks ago told the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that this was the category of publications least injured by his new rates. The Canadian Weekly Publisher of April, 1969, volume 52, issue No. 4, deals with the matter pretty strongly. They deal with it in a way which indicates that they know because they are suffering. The article is entitled "Post Office Costs Kill Weeklies". It reads:
Postal rate increase that went into effect April 1, already is blamed for the demise of several weekly newspapers, according to information received at the national office of the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association.
CWNA queried its members on the effects of the new rates and some of the replies are reprinted below-*
Manitoba Weekly Newspapers Association reports four papers have folded in Manitoba since January, three of which became defunct due to postal increase-
A small Alberta publisher complains that he has been forced to increase subscription rates-
A British Columbia publisher reports that his second newspaper had to be suspended due to the increased postal rate-
Another B.C. newspaper reports that due to increased postal rates "we have had to switch our circulation from mail to carrier delivery"-
There has been, of course, a consequent diminution of their service to the readers.
The same applies to Saskatchewan, western Ontario and other areas. In other words, what is happening now is what we forecast, namely, that publications would be forced to go out of business and that they would not be able to absorb the costs which are passed on to the subscribers. They have not been able to absorb the costs in the happy, casual way that the minister indicated would be possible when he brought in these very heavy rates some time ago.
This is part of the story all across the country. The dissemination of ideas through the printed word has been diminished and cut back, and the people of Canada are suffering in this regard. It is not anything that anyone can be proud of when, by a decision of the government, a newspaper has to go out of business. I noted the other day that a group
9093
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of publishers in Quebec gave serious consideration to suggesting that something special be done to keep publications in business.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are out of "time".


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My friend suggests we should join the Time magazine group, but I do not know how exclusive that organization is. I think perhaps it is not a case of open Sesame there.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is quite loose.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A humorist over there says it is quite loose. That is a good bit of punning for this hour of the night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: of us here are getting on the record.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I want to conclude-and I hope the minister will notice that I am not taking my full seven minutes

by reading something that is edged in black in the old fashioned way in the Canadian Weekly Publisher of April, 1969. It is entitled "Out of Respect". It reads:
The new postal rates for newspapers, and there is nothing second rate about them except the mail service itself, went into effect April 1.
The black border around this announcement is out of respect for a number of Canadian weekly newspapers that ceased publication or curtailed it considerably as a result of this measure. We are afraid more will follow.
It may be also fitting, that on the same day the Postmaster General, who master minded this measure, became the Minister of Communications.
Although that was edged in black, it did have a touch of humour, that he who, on the one hand, would become the great communicator, when it comes to the printed word, is the great excommunicator.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy these evening sessions with the hon. gentleman and others who remain in the house at this hour. He is predictable. Whether he has been spurred on by one of his colleagues or whether he does so on his own initiative he will bring up the subject of Time magazine, with the implication that it is receiving some favourable rate. This is a distortion. Time magazine is paying exactly the same rate as all magazines in its class pay.
I find it a little presumptuous on the part of the hon. member that he should twit this government when it was his own government which established the O'Leary Commission to

May 26, 1969
9094	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion investigate the whole subject of the printed word and related questions in this country. His own government appointed the O'Leary Royal Commission, but it did not a single thing about this situation.
The hon. member said four papers had folded in one class or another since January. To be fair, he might have compared this figure with the number which folded in the same period last year. Were there more or less? He cited the case of the poor weekly newspaper which was obliged to increase its subscription rates. I feel sorry it had to do this; I hope it did not lose any of its subscribers; I hope its readers found that the newspapers was worth paying the additional amount. One thing to which I do not subscribe, particularly in the area of weekly newspapers, is the view that the people of Canada, the general taxpayer who half the time does not know what he is paying for, should still continue, even after this increase, to pay for nearly 87 per cent-the actual figure is 86.8

per cent-of the cost of distributing these weekly newspapers. In other words, much as they are complaining they are still paying only a fraction over 13 per cent of the actual cost.
I am not proud to have been the cause of any weekly newspapers going out of business but I would be much less proud if I did nothing about the problems confronting the Post Office and let this country face a deficit this year of $130 million or a deficit in 197475 of $500 million. I would not be proud to be responsible for such a situation arising as a result of my negligence, or laziness, or desire to sit in the house late in the evening to answer such questions as have been posed tonight. I would be less than proud, because that $500 million deficit in 1974-75 would mean an increase in taxes or a decline in other government services.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Tuesday, May 27, 1969