1969-05-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in French and in English-Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and in French of the usual budgetary papers and I ask consent of the house to have the papers printed as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings and also included as an appendix to Hansard of Tuesday, June 3 when I intend to present the budget.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT RESPECTING FAIR COMPETITION Mr. Fernand-E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an Act to amend the National Transportation Act (Fair competition of railway companies).
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is meant to protect the private trucking industry against the intrusion of railways in road transportation.
It does not seem fair to me that railway companies that directly or indirectly receive subsidies out of public funds should use the amounts thus granted to compete with an 29180-5761
industry which does not have the same advantages and which must pay its own way.
Moreover, in the public interest, it is necessary to have two separate means of transportation which can really compete, as is the case in other countries.


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


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. When the federal-provincial conference convenes on June 11 next, will the Prime Minister give consideration to discussing with the premiers the possibility of setting up another federal-provincial conference no later than the early part of the summer to discuss and work out with the three levels of government in all parts of the country an effective co-operative program which can be started in the relatively near future aimed at ridding our waters of the pollution which is encroaching upon them at such an alarming rate at the present time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The question of pollution will inevitably come up when we discuss the division of powers between the two levels of government, and of course the latter is on the agenda. We do not expect it to be dealt with at the forthcoming meeting in June in any detail but we do expect at that time to receive reports on this matter from committees of officials and we will then know what next steps are called for in terms of future meetings, whether they be held in July, August or later.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In preparing for this conference would the Prime Minister consider making available to industry the same incentives as were found to be very useful in time of war in making it possible for industry to enter

May 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry into the war production program, specifically, low interest loans, fast write-offs and other financial incentives, to make it possible for industry to undertake the relatively heavy expenditures which are necessary in order to rid their waste of bacteria before it is dumped into the environment?
Mr. Speaker, I asked a supplementary question but the Prime Minister did not answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a supplementary question I should like to address to the Minister of Fisheries. About ten days ago-


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a supplementary question and the Prime Minister was rising to answer it. This has nothing to do with fisheries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might have some order during the question period. The hon. member did ask a supplementary question but there was no reply and the hon. member for Kootenay West suggested he had a supplementary question to ask. I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.


George Harris Hees: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was half way up to answer my question. I am sure he wants to answer it. Would you be good enough to let him answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


George Harris Hees: So that is the great Liberal dialogue: One way; no answers.


Randolph Harding: This question to the minister has to do with the subject of pollution. About ten days ago the hon. gentleman promised to make a statement to the house on motions regarding the situation at Placentia Bay in Newfoundland and the problems arising from it. May I ask the minister when he expects to be in a position to make a full report to the house?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Hees@: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was about to reply to the supplementary question we have just heard.
[Mr. Hees.)


George Harris Hees: My question, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly co-operate with the Chair? I will give him an opportunity to ask a further supplementary question later. I am not sure whether the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry completed his reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West, but I will allow the hon. member-


George Harris Hees: May I address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister? I will repeat it. I know he wants to answer. When he considers the approach of the federal government to this question of pollution will he give consideration to adopting policies similar to those which proved very successful in the last war in inducing industry to enter into the war production program, namely loans at low interest rates and fast write-offs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a supplementary question. It is a submission which the hon. member has now made known to the government.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowxchan-The Islands):: May I address this question to the Minister of Finance? In view of the serious implications which could arise from a takeover of the Royal Securities Corporation by Merrill, Lynch and Associates, does the minister intend to take any steps to prevent this take-over or, if matters have gone beyond the point of no return, does he intend to take any steps to prevent further takeovers of Canadian financial institutions by foreign companies?


Edgar John Benson: This subject is, of course, one of considerable interest to the federal government even though power to deal with it lies mainly with the provinces, since the corporation in question is a provincial one and since the principal activities of the institutions involved come under provincial jurisdiction.
I met last Thursday, at their request, with the heads of the two firms to hear about their plans, but did not give them any assurances or warnings. The implications of this takeover are I understand under consideration by stock exchanges and by the provincial authorities. The officers of the Bank of Canada and of my department are considering those aspects relating to the money market
May 27, 1969



arrangements and the sale of government securities. 1 plan to make a statement on the matter at a later date after learning more about the views and actions of the stock exchanges and provincial authorities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether Royal Securities Corporation Limited will continue to enjoy access to the rediscount facilities of the Bank of Canada if it is owned by a foreign corporation?


Edgar John Benson: This, of course, is one of the matters being considered by the bank and by officials of my department.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister feel that it would be only fair to all concerned if the company that is planning the take-over knew what its relationship would be to the Bank of Canada and the financial structure of Canada generally?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion. Such a question is not in order.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Does he intend to make an investigation and take the necessary measures to prohibit the use of Post Office Box 1691, of the Montreal District 101, which is used presently to give rapid and courteous service to all homosexuals asking that documentation be sent to them at home?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question should be put on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will Jews now in Iraq, the United Arab Republic and Syria be considered as refugees if they apply for immigration visas?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the persons to whom my hon. friend refers do not come within the ordinary definition of a refugee. They cannot be considered as such because they are still in their country of residence. Normally the accepted international definition of a refugee is a person who has left his country of origin and who is unwilling to return because of fear of persecution.
I would tell my hon. friend that we have had discussions with respect to the possibility of assisting the persons he has in mind. My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have been collaborating in our discussions with the Canadian Jewish Congress.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is any consideration being given to setting out regulations on the subject of refugees, so that instead of dealing with each case as it arises there is a code to which reference might be made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be desirable. We have expressed our intention of adhering to the international convention on the protocol, and perhaps when the act is revised there ought to be a clear cut clarification of our over-all policy toward refugees. It is true that from time to time special arrangements have been made that I think, on balance, were of great advantage to the persons affected, and there may be some advantages in flexibility.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the house whether United States deserters and draft dodgers are considered refugees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question is in order. If the minister thinks it ought to be answered, so be it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I apologize for the roughness of my voice, but the nature of the question demands that I ask it in any event.
Why is it that the Canadian Dairy Commission is not replying to inquiries made by the cream producers, who after waiting several

May 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry months for acknowledgement are finally resorting to writing registered letters, in some cases two registered letters, to which no reply has been received?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must take objection to the hon. member's raspish question, because I think it is argumentative. Perhaps the hon. member might rephrase it. He is putting it in an argumentative way and perhaps he might put it directly.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister why the commission is not replying to these inquiries from producers, some of whom are making re-applications? Is there any reason for this?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that there was undue time delay in making replies. However I shall look into this at once.


An hon. Member:: Please do.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will he undertake to review the present policy of the dairy commission as that policy applies to cream producers in Saskatchewan and other parts of western Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the policy was under review before announcements were made for the 1969-70 dairy year. If however the hon. member is asking us to set up regional policies within the framework of the national policy to cover our differences, then I think we should have to consider very carefully the implications that might flow from that kind of policy.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the extreme hardship the present policy is working on the small dairy producer on the prairies in particular, and in other areas as well?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the dairy policy applied to the prairie regions is not different from the policy applied to other regions of Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the people of some of these areas are importing butter not only from other parts of Canada but also from outside Canada, and since our producers are at the same time being eliminated, will not the minister review present policy with a view to arriving at some regional policy which may help in this situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have considered representations made on a number of occasions by those seeking the setting up of regional policies, or different regional policies. But when one considers the ramifications and implications inherent in such policy, in my view it becomes apparent that such a policy is undesirable.



WHEAT-DELIVERY UNDER U.S.S.R. AGREEMENT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fear and frustration among western farmers who have large quantities of wheat on their farms unsold, and in view of reports that the U.S.S.R. does not intend to complete the taking of the balance of the wheat it has undertaken to take, is the minister now in a position to advise the house on this matter? A few days ago he was asked about it and said he would look into it. Can he now let the farmers know whether the millions and millions of bushels still to be taken by the U.S.S.R. will not be accepted by them?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, to be absolutely frank, I do not think I can answer that question by either yes or no. The information I have now does not permit me to conclude either that they will not or that they will take the wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister is in that state of uncertainty, does he still consider himself optimistically inclined in this regard?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question about the 135 million bushels of wheat which the Soviet Union is still committed to take under the three year agreement. That sale could mean some $270 million to Canadian wheat producers. Are negotiations going on with respect to this balance of wheat to be delivered to the Soviet Union, and when does the minister expect to have some definitive reply from the government of the Soviet Union?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that negotiations are going on, but I have no indication of the time at which I can expect an answer.
May 27, 1969


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since this government seems incapable of marketing wheat, will he consider turning this function over to the Conservative caucus?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act. In view of the urgent and desperately serious pollution problem at Hamilton Bay, a national harbour, as reported by the Ontario Water Resources Commission, will the minister take steps to enforce pollution control over this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether the hon. member might agree that the question is the type which might be considered at the time of adjournment.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will also have to come back at ten o'clock for his supplementary.



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF MINAS BASIN TIDES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
Easl): My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister indicate when the house can anticipate the governments' receiving the feasibility study of Minas Basin tidal power and whether this report might be made public in whole or in part before we adjourn for the summer recess?
Hon. J. J. Green (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have no immediate information as to when the report will be ready, but I will undertake to make that available to the hon. member as soon as possible.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the fact several hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry members yesterday asked questions dealing with the important issue of highway and motor vehicle safety in various aspects, will the minister undertake to make an early statement as to what the federal department is doing with regard to this important matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Such a statement is now being prepared and I will be glad to deliver it just as quickly as possible.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am violating the rules in asking this question, but in any case, I shall try to comply with them.
Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture told me, if I am not mistaken, that the new policy was designed to hold down somewhat the dairy production, in order to reduce surpluses. Now, I would very much like him to explain why the purpose of the Canadian Dairy Commission is defined in the 1969-70 Estimates in this way:
This program's objective is to encourage a strong dairy production of high quality and, in this way, to increase the income of the dairy producers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: And I explain myself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wants to know if his question may be allowed, he should ask his question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here is my question: How can we reconcile the minister's answer and the dairy policy of the government with the purpose of the Canadian Dairy Commission?


An hon. Member:: Contradiction.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member has stated an argument, and in this sense his question or his argument may not be allowed.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: My question is for the Postmaster General. Has the minister considered appeals

May 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry from various commands of the Royal Canadian Legion for reclassification of postal rates on publications so that they can maintain mailing to war veterans? If so, can the minister disclose his decision?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: We have handled all requests from the Legion in the same manner as requests from other associations. There is a very modest increase in the annual fee, sometimes 30 cents, sometimes 40 cents; and as was mentioned yesterday, 27 cents a year would recover all the increased postal charges.



TELEVISION


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the city of Hamilton through CHCH-TV has shown its interest in the cultural life of this country by reviving the Don Messer show for the benefit of millions of Canadians, which interest also goes a long way to dispel the lunch pail image of that great city, will the Prime Minister use his good offices to persuade his colleagues that a firm commitment should be given to the City of Hamilton in terms of a grant, which incidentally has been promised, in order that the Hamilton Theatre Auditorium can be completed and this cultural interest be continued?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's submission ought to appear on the order paper.


Mr. Roberi McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There cannot be a supplementary because the question is due to appear on the order paper.



PHASING OUT OF FEED GRAIN SUBSIDIES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On May 16 I asked a question, which because of the minister's absence was taken as notice, concerning the phasing out of various feed grain subsidies. Has the minister had time yet to consider my question and can he say when the house might expect a reply?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The other day the minister indicated that he would be prepared to make a statement on motions concerning the problem of air traffic controllers. I am wondering how soon he might be able to make this statement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the meeting with the air traffic controllers, which I suggested was an appropriate prelude to this statement, is to be on June 4, and I would expect to make a statement within a few days after that meeting.



PENTICTON, B.C.-REQUEST FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of another major collision recently at Penticton airport, British Columbia, I would like to ask the minister what action is being taken to establish an air traffic controller at this airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the accident is being investigated at the moment, and part of that investigation is to determine an appropriate level of air traffic control in that area.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Villeneuve.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: For
Temiscamingue, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Did the government undertake negotiations with the provincial authorities of Quebec or did he receive suggestions from Premier Bertrand, concerning Canadian Vickers in Montreal, and are the two governments in a position to reach an agreement to assist laid-off employees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have received any communication from Premier Bertrand in connection with that.
May 27, 1969


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question, but may I direct it to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the advertisement that reads "Canadian Vickers Builds Confidence" is allowed income tax deductibility, so that the Canadian people have to pay for this misleading advertising?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.



WHEAT-FUTURE SALES-ALLEGED I.G.A. PREFERENCE

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Friday in answering a question put by the hon. member for Crowfoot the minister referred to the "bag of tricks" in the I.G.A. that was helping to make it inoperative so far as Canadian wheat sales are concerned. My question is based on the recent public statement that Canada and the United States did not read the fine print before signing the International Grains Agreement. Will the minister and his officials approach their counterparts in the United States with a view to renegotiating this important agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have information on this subject. It is a bit long but it says that "destination" pricing clause for European wheats was also part of the previous international wheat agreement. The information goes on to say that in the present international agreement it is clearer than it was in the previous one. The information further goes on to say that this is part of the over-all discussion that is taking place now among exporters in order to strengthen the I.G.A.



WHEAT-FIVE BUSHEL QUOTA

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the low quotas for wheat at many points on the prairies can the minister indicate what uniform quota may be expected by the end of July, which is the end of the current crop year?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board said this morning he can only equalize quotas at the five bushels per acre level.



SHIPPING


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding a study relating to the possibility of establishing a Canadian flag merchant fleet, and the minister said he would look into it and have a reply on a later occasion. Can he now advise the house what the situation is?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have not had the opportunity to get the detailed answer for the hon. member, but I will do so as soon as I can.



WATER RESOURCES


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As pollution of the Ottawa River in the Hull-Ottawa area is obviously much worse than it was a year ago, and as both Ottawa and Hull come under the jurisdiction of the National Capital Commission, will the government see to it that industries in these two cities are forced to stop dumping their industrial waste into this important river, and by such an example start off, I hope, a national campaign in all municipalities across the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: to make it possible for us to have fresh water in this country once again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a submission which is very much the same type as the one that was made by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. My suggestion to that hon. member was that the matter might be discussed at the time of adjournment. If the hon. member wants to pursue the matter it should be done at the time of adjournment.


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not know anything that is more

May 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry important at the moment than the elimination of water pollution and the right to ask a question about it, which I think is the right of all members of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize that to the hon. member this is a very important matter, but the hon. member must also recognize that many important questions are asked on the order paper, and I suggest to him that this is one of them.



AGRICULTURE


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he consider taking away the administrative responsibilities for cream production from the Minister of Agriculture and transferring them to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion so that cream producers might receive a grant or other assistance for doing the very thing that they are told by the Minister of Agriculture that they should not do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the still unspoiled Minister of Transport. As a result of his recent visit to Prince Edward Island is he in a position to give assurance that there will be some acceleration in the long-grounded program to upgrade and extend the facilities of the Charlottetown airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the matters I discussed with the premier and other officials of Prince Edward Island yesterday, and we reached some very satisfactory conclusions.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has he received an invitation from that authority on music and world travel, Mr. John Lennon, and if so does he plan to participate in his peaceful lie-in?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Hees.l



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications.
Mr. Raymond Laliberte, president of the Quebec Teachers Corporation, recently wrote to the Minister of Communications to inform him that the periodical L'Enseignement would likely disappear because of increased postal rates. Would the minister consider granting a special status or a special rate to that publication, which is most important for Quebec teachers?


Eric William Kierans: No. Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was about to suggest that I do not think it is in order to ask questions about every Canadian publication. Such questions should normally be put on the order paper.



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of this morning's report that the Toronto-Dominion Bank had profits in the first quarter of this year some 25 per cent to 26 per cent higher than in the same period last year, will the minister give consideration to referring the entire matter of interest rates to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study and recommendation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course I will give consideration to any suggestion made by my hon. friend. I would suggest, however, that next week we will have a budget debate and that would be a perfectly opportune moment to express opinions in this regard, as undoubtedly hon. members will.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the debate next week will be on the budget, whatever that may contain, may I ask the minister whether it is his intention to take such action as may bring the interest rates in Canada down, either by re-imposition of a ceiling or by some other control over the climbing interest rate.
May 27, 1969


Edgar John Benson: I very much doubt that the reimposition of a ceiling would have the effect of bringing down interest rates in Canada. That would simply make it more difficult for the ordinary person, such as my hon. friend and myself, to borrow. I have discussed the problem of interest rates which is a world wide problem and closely related to interest rates in the United States. The fact is that the way interest rates can be brought under control in the long run, I believe, is to control the rate of inflation in western countries.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance consider conferring with the Minister of Finance in Australia to find out how that government finds it possible to make mortgage money available at 5 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a submission and can assume it will be considered by the Minister of Finance.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Waller C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister say whether he received an invitation from the fishermen of Placentia Bay to attend an emergency meeting tomorrow at St. John's, and if so is it his intention to attend. These are the fishermen who are affected by the pollution.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the fishermen to the effect that I will be down there shortly. However, I shall not be able to be there tomorrow.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. On the assumption that some officials from the minister's department will be attending, would the minister indicate whether specific directions have been given these officials to help alleviate the unrest and answer the grievances of the fishermen in the area.


John (Jack) Davis: These officials have been told under what conditions the money will be made available to the fishermen, the progress we are making in respect of pollution in that area and also, hopefully, that there will be a
Inquiries of the Ministry reduction of the area closed so that the fishermen will be able to commence fishing in some parts of Placentia Bay.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Due to the fact that the emergency meeting will number some 700 or 800 persons, can the minister say whether his officials have been advised what amendments will be made to the present arrangement which is the cause of the unrest.


John (Jack) Davis: The present arrangement is to bring the income of the fishermen up to the normal level. I thought that would be enough to cool the fishermen off a bit.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the dissatisfaction and unrest expressed by fishermen of this area with regard to the treatment accorded them by the officials of the Department of Fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is reiterating the same question.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Is it the intention of the Post Office to discontinue the postal zoning system in Toronto?


Eric William Kierans: Not at all. We have introduced the zoning system in Toronto and some other cities. We are suspending it in other areas until such time as we have studied very carefully the recommendation of a task force concerning the introduction of a national coding system. If we do introduce such a national coding system it will incorporate the existing zones.



OPERATION OF OFFICES ON SATURDAYS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, is the Postmaster General giving consideration to keeping the main areas of post offices open on Saturdays?


Eric William Kierans: We are
giving some consideration to this. We are considering really either the increase or reduction of services presently being offered. We are examining both the upper and lower limits.

May 27. 1969
Official Languages NATIONAL PARKS



BONNE BAY. NFLD., LEASING ARRANGEMENT

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the hesitancy on the part of the province of Newfoundland to place the site of the Bonne Bay area of western Newfoundland at the disposal of the government for the establishment of a national park would the minister be prepared to enter into a lease agreement with the province similar to that entered into with Quebec for the creation of the Gaspe park.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the question should be placed on the order paper. The other day when we entered into a long series of questions about national parks across the country I indicated that perhaps it might be wise if these questions were placed on the order paper, unless there should be a specific urgency about the question. If I am wrong and there may be urgency in this case I would give priority to its being placed on the list of questions to be debated at the time of adjournment.


Jack Marshall: Ten o'clock.



BOUNDARIES FOR WOOD BUFFALO PARK

Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder whether he could state when he intends to resume negotiations with the province of Alberta concerning the establishment of new boundaries for Wood Buffalo park.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of my statement in respect of the previous question I would think this question might be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.
Mr. H. A. Moore (Welaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate ended at ten o'clock last evening I was attempting to point out the possible effect of this legislation on national unity. We cannot expect this legislation to somehow miraculously solve the problem of French-English relations within Canada. We in Canada are part of the life of the North American continent. We cannot stay the elemental force of North American social evolution.
Why should we spend public funds to preserve something that can never be more than a symbol? It would make just as much sense if we spent tax money to enshrine the historic rights of farmers by perpetuating the 100-acre farm. The brutal fact of economic life in North America today is that the 100-acre farm cannot survive as an economic unit. It might be argued that it is necessary as a social adjunct but in the world of today it would have to be entirely supported. That is my view of what is being done by means of this bill.
I recall the Prime Minister's recent flippant remark with regard to putting English speaking civil servants to work on elevators not used by French Canadians. He explained that one away as being merely a jocular off the cuff remark. It may have been only that, but it was too close to reflecting the real feeling that runs just below the surface of the whole racial and linguistic question in Canada. Always present is the implication of dominance by one side or another or of jobs in the civil service and elsewhere being more in the nature of the spoils of war than the result of an unemotional search for justice.
I often wonder what has happened to the rights of English speaking Canadians. Why are these never mentioned? After all, there are vast areas of this country where the problems of the French language group have no relevancy whatsoever. In his earlier remarks on this bill the Prime Minister said that English Canada should not attempt to crush or expect to absorb French Canada. That is true, of course, but most English speaking Canadians have never wasted time or energy considering such negative and fruitless policies.
The setting up of special language reserves and the passing of a mass of entangling laws and regulations will do nothing in my estimation to solve any problem, be it linguistic or some other kind. What we need most is to develop our country to its maximum potential, and to lay the foundation of prosperity-
May 27, 1969

and growth which alone can provide the equality of opportunity and equality of return that is every Canadian's right. Let us, in the name of reason, not start rationing rights and apportioning reserved areas for any Canadians. We need to create new work and new opportunities in this country; we need to overcome regional disparities; we need to make this one nation in economic fact as well as in name. Only by these means can we assure every Canadian his rights and protect him in respect of them.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In my opinion this is unnecessary legislation that will create more problems than it will solve and will sow more division and greater animosity than we have at the present time. It is my belief that the only way to unite this country, with the diversity of its people, is by encouraging every Canadian, be he French, English or of any other racial origin, to want to speak the other languages, to want to share in another's cultural heritage, to want to see justice done and rights preserved. Only then will we attain our goal. We can never hope to meld our people into one distinctive Canadianism by legislative compulsion or by building new barriers within the country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is contrary to our political traditions to set up officials as enforcement authorities who, because of the nature of their task and the powers conferred upon them, will almost inevitably degenerate into policemen or, worse, coercers of the public. I am afraid that the language commissioner envisaged in this bill will be just such an official.
In closing I would like to observe that the atmosphere in which these discussions are taking place is certainly not one that in my opinion is conductive to unemotional and impartial judgment being passed. If we are all honest with ourselves, if we would only stop trying to be so delicate in talking about these matters, we would state plainly that this bill has come before us in a national atmosphere of racial combativeness and rivalry.
We have but to look at the province of Quebec, the heartland of French Canada, to see how popular bilingualism and bicul-turalism are there; we have but to consider the recent St. Leonard school crisis and its aftermath; we have but to listen to voices in Quebec City. Can anyone honestly say that we are seeking the same end, that we preach
Official Languages
the same type of gospel in Ottawa as in Quebec? If the. spokesmen for the province of Quebec are to be believed, their aim is to have a unilingual province or separate state where the non-French will have to conform in every aspect of life or go under. Their cry is "Masters in our own house". I believe it may now have gone beyond that and could be "Masters in yours, too".
In the light of all that has been said and is still being said, in view of the state of race relations at the present time and in recognition of the facts of North American life, we should drop this bill and get on with legislation which carries some real hope for the future of our country. I have a sincere belief that this bill will not accomplish the desired purpose and therefore I must vote against it.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for several days to take part in the debate and have been putting it off hoping that my cold would get a little better. However, it appears that the debate will wind up today and I would not like it to pass without putting my views on Hansard. We have had several days of excellent debate on the official languages bill which is currently before the house. As a member from western Canada, I feel that my views on the proposed legislation should be given in the House of Commons. Right at the start I can say that it is my intention to support the legislation. I shall outline my reasons for taking this stand.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate of the past several days. I greatly respect the views of those who have indicated that they intend to oppose the legislation. I frankly admit that they made some good and valid points, especially with regard to the powers of the proposed administrator. I believe that the government, and especially the minister in charge of the bill, should endeavour to bring in amendments so that some of the clauses dealing with the administration of the legislation can be made more palatable as far as the house is concerned.
However, the basic issue at stake is not whether there are several flaws in the bill; the big issue is that of Canadian unity. If by this bill we can take one small step toward achieving a Canadian unity, then every member of the house should support it. I have found that no matter where you go in Canada you will, with very few exceptions, find people who are unhappy with many aspects of the official languages bill, and they will tell you so. But if in the long run this is one of

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
the many measures needed to keep Canada united, they are prepared to go along with it.
I point out that there has been a great deal of criticism of the official languages bill from many sections of Canada, especially from the western provinces and the Atlantic provinces. In most cases I feel that this criticism has stemmed mainly from a misunderstanding of the purposes of the legislation. Much of it is due to the lack of a clear and concise explanation by the government of several clauses which certainly need clarification. It was quite obvious from the start-I could go back to last fall-that there was great public concern as to how the administration of the legislation would affect the civil service, the general public and all the provincial administrations. I believe that much of the current unrest and dissatisfaction in Canada could have been headed off by the government if prompt and clearcut explanations had been given months ago.
The official languages bill does not really grant any new, fundamental right which is not already granted by previous acts. I think we must make this point very clear. It does set out more specifically just what language rights the two founding races of Canada envisioned over 100 years ago. Clarification of those historic rights granted to both our founding races by the British North America Act of 1867 is clearly needed in 1969. Apparently these historic rights have somehow been overlooked in the teaching of history in our educational institutions.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I believe these rights must be respected, honoured and preserved by those of us who today are reviewing the decisions made by the Fathers of Confederation over 100 years ago in respect of the language rights of the founding races. I shall read section 133 of the British North America Act because I think it should go into the record. It is not too entertaining but I think I should quote it. In section 133 of the B.N.A. Act of 1867, I repeat, the intent of the current bill is clearly set out. The section reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates ot 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 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.

I think that language is very clear. It does not go into the fine details, which we do not expect to find in legislation of this type, but so far as I am concerned its intent is crystal clear. I view the current bill as merely setting out the above section in more detail. It gives equality to the two official languages of Canada insofar as the federal jurisdiction is concerned. There is nothing wrong with that. This was and is one of the foundation stones of Canadian unity. The bill indicates that both the official languages will be recognized and used by the federal government service in communicating and dealing with the general public. Every citizen will have the opportunity to communicate with the federal government in either of the two official languages. This, in effect, is the principle of equality of the two official languages as outlined in the B.N.A. Act.
The present legislation in no way forces English speaking persons to learn French, nor does it force French speaking persons to learn English. As I understand it, its bilingual aspect does not apply to the whole of the federal government service, and this has been indicated to us by several ministers who have spoken in the debate. It cannot force any of the provinces to teach French in their educational institutions. This matter is entirely up to the provinces and must be negotiated with them, although the federal government has indicated that it will assist financially any province that proceeds with additional French instruction.
I found in talking to people, many of them in western Canada, that there is a feeling among some sections of our Canadian society that the official languages bill will protect only those whose mother tongue is French. This is basically not a fact, for we find that in the province of Quebec alone there are well over one million persons who consider English as their official language. We must remember that the language rights of this group are also being protected in those areas which are predominantly French speaking, and we in this house must never forget this fact. One group is getting protection in on section of Canada, and other groups are getting protection in other sections.
As I said previously, I have found in the past two years that one of the most important issues in this country is Canadian unity, and let no member of this house dodge that issue. I have talked to individuals who are very much opposed to the principles outlined in the official languages bill, but when the chips are down, if it means strengthening Canadian
May 27, 1969

unity, they are prepared to go along with it. Even in this house I am certain that all members of all parties in their own hearts and in their own way desperately want this Canada of ours to remain a single unit. I have no quarrel with those who feel that this legislation is bad and might do more harm than good. That is the view they hold. We might quarrel over the direction to follow and the method of attaining national unity and of holding the various provinces of Canada together, but I know of no member of the house who really desires to see Canada split in two. I am convinced that the vast majority of Canadians in every province also wishes to see the bonds of national unity grow stronger and friendlier as the years go by.
In my opinion the official languages bill is not the most important move we can make in the lengthy process of strengthening the bonds of union within our nation. I believe it is only one of the foundation stones of Canadian unity. I trust that no one in this house or in Canada will consider that national unity has been achieved merely by the passage of this piece of legislation. Much more remains to be done if we are really to put Canadian unity on a solid foundation.
The government of the day has the political power to initiate those moves which will do as much or more for Canadian unity than even the present piece of legislation. I am referring to those grave and continuing social and economic problems which haunt a large section of Canadian society today. These pressing economic and social problems can do vast harm to Canadian unity unless they are dealt with quickly and effectively. In every section of Canada we find these economic problems hanging like millstones around the necks of governments and individuals alike. Any benefit gained from the passage of the official languages bill could be quickly lost if these unsolved economic problems were used as a lever by some unscrupulous politicians to try to separate some of the ethnic groups in our society from Canada.
Today we see most sections of Canada facing serious economic problems, and to me the alarming thing is that this government has done so little about it. I would like to mention briefly some of the problems, such as unemployment where we have a promise of action but no clearcut plan. The tragic housing situation, especially in the larger urban centres-its solution could go a long way toward solving the problem of national unity in this nation-can never be tackled by the anaemic
Official Languages
legislation proposed by the present administration. The sharp increases in the cost of living, with their resulting erosion of the living standards of people on small pensions and low incomes, is just another example of inaction in a vital area. The poverty and insecurity of millions of Canadians, as outlined in the fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada, is another indication of lack of action by the present administration. These are a number of other fields where neglect by governments past and present is obvious. Our pollution problems, the heavy taxation loads on those who can least afford them, and the need for urgent pension reform are other areas which should be looked into immediately.
One thing of which I am sure is that all the points I have mentioned briefly, together with the official languages bill, add up to national unity. I believe it is safe to say that a contented, happy group of people, regardless of their ethnic background, with adequate living standards, is not apt to seek solutions to economic problems by separating from the unit which has given it these standards. This must be our objective as Canadians, and I feel that the time is too short for politicians to delay further the solutions to many of the grave economic problems which we all know exist and which we all know must be solved. We all know that these solutions will help to solve the problem of national unity.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I would like to say again, having in mind all the amendments which are to be made to the bill, that taking the bill as a unit I am convinced it is one step toward that great Canadian goal of keeping Canada united. Despite the many inadequacies of the measure I am prepared to support it. I trust it is just a start on the road to that real Canadian unity which the vast majority of Canadians desire and will work toward.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of regret and with some bitterness that I find myself compelled to speak in this debate on second reading of the bill respecting the official languages.
With regret, I say, because, having heard and read the exaggerated comments of some of the hon. members opposite, I have told myself that there are after all some prospective separatists who are not French-speaking and who are not from Quebec.

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
I find that there are in this country some blind people who wish to lead other blind people. I also find that some opposition members have been moderate, logical and reasonable in their comments, like the last speaker.
When I came to this house in September last, I was under the false impression-and I recognize it now-that the 28th legislature would be characterized by rapid progress in the field of social justice. Alas, the wailing we have heard from the opposition during this first session clearly indicates that in spite of the good dispositions of the government, some hon. members are bent not on working for the national interest, but on filibustering, embarrassing others and making a fuss about everything and nothing. But if I am a little disappointed by such behavior, I am still firmly convinced that the time is ripe to consider the immediate implementation of institutional bilingualism in Canada.
I had not intended to take part in this debate, for I do not have to be convinced of the value of the official languages bill.

I do not need to be convinced of the good to be derived from this bill. I am bilingual, yet I am a Canadian first and foremost. Nevertheless, I was born a French Canadian, and it did not just so happen that I am bilingual; my father was not fluent in the English language. Yet he was a tolerant man and had an open mind. I had the good fortune to be brought up next to an English speaking family. They learned French from us and we learned English from them. And we got along extremely well. Those were the days, Mr. Speaker. One of those English speaking boys next door today holds a master's degree in French and is a superintendent of schools in New Brunswick. And I, as a French speaking Canadian from the province of New Brunswick, was for some two years English announcer in Fredericton for the radio network of the C.B.C.


Some hon, Members:: Hear, hear.


Eymard G. Corbin: Thus, I have no problem in appreciating the importance of this bill.
My riding is also bilingual. At one extremity there are people who have never spoken one word of French and cannot understand the language. At the other there are French Canadians who do not understand much English; some of them do not understand one word of the language. Yet we get along pretty well because we respect each other and the

cultural values for which we stand. We also respect the valiant citizens of New Denmark who have held on to their Danish traditions, their language and their songs of faith. Their sons marry our daughters and our women marry their men. We also respect, in Mada-waska-Victoria, our native people, the Mali-seet Indians of Tobique and of Edmundston, who undertook last summer, with the assistance of the New Brunswick government, to learn to speak their forefathers' language which had been forgotten by all but a fortunate few, and to pass it on to their children.

When I hear some opposition members speak in exaggerated and excessive terms, I can hardly believe that they have the country's interest at heart. As far as I am concerned, when I do not know anything about a particular problem, I let others enlighten me, but I agree it is their privilege to spread their ideas to the four cardinal points, if they want to. No doubt these mustard-seeds will be blown far away. However, it is sad to know that their prejudices will, even now, take root in the mind and heart of young Canadians, of innocent souls.
Fortunately, our democracy and our parliamentary system can preserve us for ever from a racial confrontation such as the bloody riots that happened at Caraquet, in New Brunswick at the turn of the century when the majority wanted to impose unjust laws on the French minority.
I took notice of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who, as it happens, is absent at this moment. According to Hansard of Friday, May 16, here is what he said, and I quote:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I suggest that very little effort has really been made to ensure that the people of the country understand what this bill is about and that very little effort has really been made to remove the misapprehensions concerning what the bill will do. It is very Important that the bill not be launched in an atmosphere of apprehension and concern in many parts of the country.
Then why such blame on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker? I cannot agree with him although he accepts the principle of the bill.
It is true that it is always possible to do more, to do better. It is also possible to do less. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition, if he were here, that if he looked immediately to his right, to his left and on
May 27, 1969

the benches behind, he might start by putting his own house in order and by punishing the members of his own party who refuse to be sensible, before upbraiding the government unwarrantably, as far as I am concerned.
He says: "Little effort has been made" and this is true especially of his party within which, on the contrary, a great deal has been done to revive old prejudice, old grudges. Some take pleasure in this almost sacred house in confusing the minds, in subtly playing with racial feelings, in running down some important people.
I would be ashamed to call myself a Canadian if I had to sit next to those people during this debate. My whip forbid!


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe on a question of privilege.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I heard the hon. member say earlier with regard to my leader: Let him look immediately to his right, immediately to his left-I do not remember his exact words-but he wanted to suggest that I was one of those who sowed the seeds of discord, or who opposed the bill now under consideration.
I should like to ask the hon. member whether he intended to single me out when he said that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may not put a question to a colleague who already has the floor.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe rose on a question of privilege which to my mind is not justified. The hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria should go on with his remarks.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I feel that motives have been wrongly imputed to me; I have the right to ask the hon. member for an explanation to find out whether or not I am incriminated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Eymard G. Corbin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to add that I was not referring to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe personally whom I consider as a reasonable man.
I should like to urge, however, some opposition members, such as the members for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh)
Official Languages
and for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), to have themselves invited or to take it upon themselves to visit New Brunswick in order to see at first hand what goes on there in the field of bilingualism. I believe they would come back delighted with and informed by their experience, provided of course they go with an open mind.
Mr. Speaker, on May 18th New Brunswick, and more particularly Moncton University, had the honour and privilege of welcoming the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to award him an honorary doctorate.
The Prime Minister, at the end of the speech he made on that occasion, said this, and I quote:
French and English Canadians of New Brunswick, you are showing, in spite of the tensions that may still exist in your province, a remarkable willingness to live together. As a result of your mutual tolerance and understanding, you represent in a way the crucible of the Canadian experience.
On your determination and success may depend the success and future of Canada. For you will have shown the rest of the country that two great families, formerly divided, can unite and rediscover one another.
Citizens of New Brunswick, you are laying the foundations of the Canada of tomorrow if, by common consent, we are all willing as you are through mutual respect, confidence and brotherhood, to try our luck and rim the risk of experiencing a new and full life.
I said, at the outset of my remarks, that I would take part in this debate with a certain feeling of bitterness. I may have exaggerated, but I often think of the past. And if ever the past got the better of me, I might, like many members of certain opposition parties, give way to exaggeration and political abuses.
About six years ago and even before, I personally called for the recognition of both official languages in New Brunswick. I was neither the only one nor the first to do so. Indeed, hundreds of other young Canadians, English and French were calling for the legal recognition of their culture and their language. Numerous associations and groups have kept insisting on recognition so that today, in New Brunswick, English and French are official languages, and everybody is all the better for it.
Mutual tolerance which was practised in my own village of Grand Sault-in English down home we say Grand Falls-by both linguistic groups, tolerance and mutual respect for both cultures in New Brunswick can very well be transposed on the national scale with a tiny bit of goodwill.

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
I remember an incident which is still very-clear in my mind, and goes to show how much progress we have made in New Brunswick, though it is hardly acknowledged.
In 1953 or 1954, the present member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) was premier of New Brunswick. I shall not grudge him some respect for the high position he held then. He came one day to pay a visit to Saint-Louis College in Edmundston, where I was a student. All students and professors had gathered to meet the premier of New Brunswick. He was welcomed with great courtesy and even with some warmth. His first words were to apologize and to tell us that we had all his sympathy but that he could not speak French. I was very impressed at that time. I would even go as far as to say that I shall never forget it as long as I live. So there was the premier of an unofficially bilingual province who could not speak French but sympathized with everybody. It was the thing to do in those days to sympathize with such people.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to point out once again that in New Brunswick sympathy has evolved into an officially recognized bilingualism. Our premier is bilingual and so are a number of ministers and members. The legislature in Fredericton has simultaneous translation facilities, and our institutions, such as our two normal schools are bilingual, and not one head, except perhaps a pig head, had to be chopped in order to achieve this. There were no injuries or disorders. That is how far we have progressed in New Brunswick, my own province.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Why should not the situation be the same all over Canada? I am rather young, for I will be 35 soon. However, I wish I were still younger.
When that legislation has been approved by parliament and given royal assent, Canada, will enter, so to speak, a new era of confederation, brought about by the courage of the present government, under the aegis of its gallant leader, and tomorrow's confederation will be altogether different from that of yesterday.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and many other members said so eloquently during this debate, Canadian youth is longing for this legislation on the official languages. It is only a beginning, but we want it, and that is what all hon. members should want. Even

if many of us are bound to keep their prejudices and their grudges all their lives, let us have at least enough magnanimity to give today and to-morrow's youth the tools that are essential to build and strengthen the future of confederation. The hon. members who are firmly opposed to this bill should have enough intellectual and legislative integrity not to impose on young Canadians the yoke they themselves had to bear all their life.
It was thought that the debate on the Canadian flag had struck a death-blow to the very heart of opposition to true Canadian nationalism. But we still can see today that the beast is not quite dead yet. It will heave a few more sighs. All Canadians and all those who will come to settle in Canada will be able to breathe more freely, because the apocalyptic beast of separatism, of extremism, of prejudice, of fanaticism and of bitterness will be dead, as I hope and pray it will.
In this Canada week, Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude my speech by these words: Long live Canada.
Long live English Canada.
Long live French Canada.
Long live a Canada united from sea to sea!


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed thoroughly the speech made by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). I agree with much that he said and noted his remark that he had reached the ripe old age of 35. I think that is a very good age and I would be happy to be that age again. I can tell him, however, that by the time he reaches the age of 36 he may wish he had not made some of the comments he made today.
There are people in this house who hold very strong views on this issue and have expressed their views strongly and forcefully. Some of those views are not views I entertain, and hints I will drop as to how I shall vote on this measure will probably indicate this. Although I cannot agree with the contentions of some other hon. members in their entirety, that does not mean that I think that in making their comments they were animated by motives which would compel them to seek the disunity of this country. Any issue as emotional as this one, any issue affecting race, religion, language, or which take us back to the issues of our heredity and is thus hundreds or even thousands of
May 27, 1969

years old, affects deeply all those who sit in this house.
I think it is wrong to say that in making the remarks they made some hon. members were animated by a desire to see division in this country. I heard the hon. member talking about the visit the Prime Minister made to the hon. member's province. I only wish the Prime Minister had made trips to all other parts of the country during the last few months in order to explain this bill. This measure is not a matter of high-flown sentiments such as were recounted by the hon. member. This measure needed clarification and detailed and careful explanation. Obviously the message was not taken to many parts of Canada because many people still do not understand what is involved here. There is an onus or responsibility on a government introducing a bill of this kind to make certain the measure is understood, and understood well in all parts of the country. It is quite obvious from what I have seen and heard that the government has failed lamentably in discharging this responsibility.
Some hon. members have said they sit here as members representing eastern Canada, Quebec or western Canada. If I were to claim any geographic location I should probably call myself a northern Canadian. But having taken the oath of office before the distinguished Clerk of this house, I can only speak on this issue as a Canadian member of parliament.
In considering this legislation one must consider all aspects of it; one must consider its advantages and defects. With any piece of legislation, that becomes a complex process. Any hon. member who is to cast his vote on a bill must properly assess and evaluate his position and the approach he takes to the legislation. On the scales on which one weighs carefully the virtues and defects of a measure one can put on one side all those things about the measure which are good, on the other side all those things which are bad, and consider just how the scales balance. If one were to take this legislation on its own, without considering the very deep and fundamental issue we are involved with here, I would have to say this is not good legislation. But here, Mr. Speaker, it is essential to place on the good side of the scales the intangible and delicate substance of national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Having done that and surveyed how the scales balance, I can come to
Official Languages
no other conclusion than that I must support this bill and vote for it.
I will not traverse the ground other hon. members have traversed since, quite properly, Your Honour would rule me out of order on the ground I was being repetitious. Certainly in the last two or three weeks debate has been repetitious. Therefore, since I wish to remain within the four corners of the rules of the house I will not deal with ground that has been covered before. Nevertheless there are two particular issues having to do with this bill which require comment.
I think the Prime Minister and the government are approaching this matter with that degree of rigidity which, I am afraid, forms the basis of the government's approach to government business. It may well be that the right hon. gentleman will be known to posterity as the right hon. member for rigor mortis, largely because of his rigid stance.
One cannot legislate completely and effectively in the area we are considering here with measures of this kind. It is most difficult to do so unless you have the full co-operation and understanding of the people of the country. There is a fallacy abroad in many parts of the country that you can legislate virtue. If that were so you would only need one statute a year saying, "Be it resolved that all people must be happy. Anyone caught being unhappy is subject to a penalty and must pay a fine." The usual third clause would be, of course, "The government may enact all regulations, decrees and orders in council to ensure that everyone is happy."
But here it is not that simple. Having examined the issues, having read the bill carefully and having studied the constitutional background, I am convinced that we are enacting an administrative measure. Virtually all those things the government seeks to have us approve are things which the government of its own volition could bring about without the concurrence of this house or the other place. We might well have had, and I should have preferred this, a resolution of this house to the other place expressing the views of hon. members and saying that in their opinion there are two official languages in this country and that it would be desirable for the people of this country, so far as it lies within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government and in co-operation with the provincial governments, to work toward the greater acceptance of the two official languages. A resolution like that could easily have been concurred in.

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
In my humble opinion there would have been more willing concurrence in such a resolution than there is in some aspects of the more difficult legislation we are dealing with now. I think a resolution and certain administrative acts would have met the situation, and I believe something like that ought to have been done. However, it was not done and we are compelled now to deal with this measure as we find it. It will have to go to committee and a great many improvements will have to be made to it. We will be compelled to examine in committee ways and means of improving the bill. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) stated, it must be carefully examined from the viewpoint of constitutionality. I express no opinion here. I have been away for some time and have not had an opportunity to examine carefully the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner); therefore I will not express an opinion at this time.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In committee there should be every opportunity for hon. members to hear expressed the views of the law officers of the Crown. They should be permitted to state their reasons for the foundations upon which they expressed their opinion to the government that the bill is intra vires. Provincial governments which still express doubts as to the legality of the bill should have an opportunity to state their case before the committee. Those who may have a genuine concern as to the effect this legislation may have upon the government service should also be permitted to express their opinions. Hon. members, including government members, should be given complete freedom to propose such amendments as they see fit. There should be no attempt to speed up the proper degestive processes of the special committee which will be dealing with this measure, as it is far too important for the future of our country.
The other defect I find in the bill is that it fails to take into account the tangible and intangible rights of other minority groups in Canada, including the Indian and Eskimo people. Until the end of the last world war, hundreds of thousands of people came to Canada from other lands where the mother tongue is neither English nor French. This is particularly true in western Canada and parts of northern Canada. A great deal of the opening up and development of the west is due to the accomplishments of people from European countries such as the Ukraine, Poland and

Germany, and also the Scandinavian peninsula.
If one reads the history of the development of the west it will be found that for a period of time after the Hudson's Bay Company was persuaded to give up many of its holdings there was not that attention to the development of the soil and other resources of the west that was hoped for. It was only when shiploads of these immigrants came to Canada that development proceeded. These people had great resourcefulness, courage and determination. People such as those from the Ukraine were fiercely independent. They have a real culture and great musical talent. This country owes a great debt to these people who have helped to make western Canada the land which it is. I know that these people accept the fact there are two official languages in Canada. Practically all of them have opted for English as their working language. In many instances, inspired by their pride of ancestry and spirit of independence, they have retained their literature, language, art and culture. This has been recognized in some of the western provinces because I know that the Ukrainian language is now being taught in the high schools of Alberta and Manitoba.
I do not go along with the idea that there should be equality to the extent that the dissenting report of Professor Rudnicki of the B and B Commission suggested. However, I still feel it would not have been too difficult to have gone far beyond the modest scope of this bill which merely pays lip service and says in fact that if these people have another language than French or English they may continue to use it. This is most inadequate. Many of the problems now faced by this government and this country, because of the inability to understand and accept parts of this bill, arise from the fact that nothing was done in this instance.
For example, I think it would have been well to have accepted the belief that these people had made a contribution. It might well have been done in the form of a new preamble to the constitution. I sometimes wonder what dry legalistic mind conceived the present preamble to the British North America Act. The time is ripe when this parliament should delegate to literary and historical personages the task of writing a true and proper preamble to our constitution which will pay more than lip service, not only to the people who form the two great groups whose mother tongues have been official languages
May 27, 1969

ever since the B.N.A. Act was passed but to the other people, the original inhabitants and the other races who have come to this country and have done so much, particularly in western Canada, to bring about the tremendous improvement and development which we now see in this land. There should be more than a symbolic gesture such as is contained in this bill. It would have done a great deal to alleviate the anger, hostility and discomfort which has been aroused in the minds of many people of other than French or English descent, particularly in western Canada.
Before redistribution, of some 90,000 people in my constituency 18,000 to 20,000 came from Quebec more than 60 years ago, possibly 25,000 are people of mixed descent from Europe, 8,000 to 10,000 are of Indian and Metis background and the rest are of mixed nationalities. These people have grown up together and shared the common experience of finding, developing and opening up a new land. The people from the province of Quebec and those who have joined them have no difficulty in accepting the fact they are in an English speaking milieu. They have accepted the English language as the one used in the province, but they have also retained their original language, art and culture. It is because of this fact that in a new land, a pioneer country, we have shared this experience, have learned to understand each other, and have grown up together. French people speak French and the rest speak English. There has been a peaceful accommodation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In my opinion the government has lamentably failed to take the situation in western Canada into account, an area where, to be realistic about it, there is a great measure of misunderstanding and some failure to respond to the proposals in this bill. In this respect the government must bear a tremendous burden.
However, having said all this there can be no doubt as to how I must vote now that the bill has been introduced and set upon the assembly line of the legislative mill. In my opinion it would create a greater measure of disunity, of lack of harmony, and would do far more to prejudice the prospects of this land becoming a country where for the first time there is an opportunity for people to live together in peace and understanding, irrespective of their different cultures, languages and races, if the bill were defeated.
Official Languages
Apart from some of the countries of Asia, the French, English and Slavic languages are spoken in tremendous areas of the world. Having in mind that here in Canada French and English are official languages, and that the Slavic language is retained and practised in many parts of the country, we have a tremendous opportunity to play a part in what I would like to think could be the ultimate bringing together of many parts of the world.
During the course of the last two weeks it was my good fortune to be present at the meetings in Strasbourg of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, comprised of 18 nations including most of the Common Market nations, some of the nations of EFTA, and some nations outside the ambit of those two bodies. As I say, it is a consultative assembly. They make no decisions. But it was interesting to us when we got there to find that the official languages of the consultative assembly were French and English. This permitted the delegation from Canada to fit into the pattern of the meetings and to participate effectively and well. I hope that the federal government will take its responsibilities and do something more than it has done, and more than is proposed by the B and B Commission, not only to preserve the rights but to enhance the culture and linguistic prospects of the third ethnic group in Canada.
I end on this note, Mr. Speaker, that if we in Canada cannot learn to live together in friendship, peace and understanding, what hope is there for the rest of the world? For this reason, despite the misgivings which some hon. members may have, I urge them to have regard to the over-all advantages and to the greater benefits which will arise from the continued unity of this country, to swallow their genuine reluctance, as I have mine, and vote for this measure.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as I have no objection of any kind against this official languages bill, I approve it unreservedly, even if-in spite of the ambition of this legislation for the future-it cannot affect in any way the true problem of national unity.
I have no objection at all against the enactment of this official languages bill. The problem we are facing will have to be solved by the provinces themselves.
Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate, I want to deal with the real problem we are facing and which, as I said at first, is

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
not related in any way to the passing of this legislation.
If Mr. John Smallwood were to become Mr. Jean Petitbois, that will change absolutely nothing in the national situation of the country.
The French Canadian does not enjoy the traditional freedom of handing over his language and his culture without restraint. On the contrary, he must spend the best of his creative energy struggling constantly and consciously against huge difficulties to preserve that which is considered as quite natural in all normal societies, namely the free gift of language and culture.
History proves that his fight has not been too successful since his language and his culture are consistently declining and rapidly changing, or, if you prefer, degenerating. It takes someone who has taught for some thirteen years in the province of Quebec to accept those comments.
From the anthropological angle, culture can be seen as a gift of gods that is transmitted from one generation to another. It is the automatic transmission of creative efforts, of knowledge and ability resulting from experience and wisdom of previous generations to ensure the preservation of the group.
We cannot help being reminded of some old life or even survival patterns shaped through experience and tested over a long period of time. In short, the cultural structures contain the total historical conscience of a people. Culture is the sum total of preferences, propensities, aptitudes, specific objectives and aims of a people, its particular way of perceiving, feeling, thinking and reacting to objective facts.
I would like to stress how difficult and frustating it is to have to consciously analyse the rules of a language while we speak it. If there are any of those unfortunate in this house, and some are very unhappy about such a situation, such is the plight of most French Canadians, specially those who are bilingual. They have become experts in the difficult and frustrating exercise of consciously speaking their own language. Normal people, like the English Canadians, the French or even the Eskimos, do not have to worry about their language, they just speak it. Abnormal people, like the French Canadians, have to stop and think before they speak because the words they use automatically are misunderstood by society; they have to watch themselves and consciously change them quite often.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The question of linguistic changes due to contact with other languages-another important source of external compulsions-can become really disastrous for the weaker language involved. In this case, French is the weaker language, not because its internal structure is deficient, but because the social dynamics prevailing throughout the country and even in Quebec is clearly to the advantage of the English language. It is clear to linguists, even if most people are unaware of it, that the French spoken in Canada, including in Quebec, its stronghold, is undergoing fast alterations as a result of pressures exercised by the Anglo-American culture and language.
Within the fortress of Quebec itself, one finds in Montreal the Anglo-Quebecker Trojan horse.
That is why thousands of French Canadians have been assimilated by the English throughout Canada, including the 50,000 on the island of Montreal. They can no longer pride themselves on being promoters of the French language and culture in Canada, even if they continue to eat pea soup.
What does the term "to feel at home" mean if not that the individual feels at ease within the linguistic-cultural framework which he knows and unconsciously understands, because he has been raised and educated within it and he adjusts perfectly to it, because they are made for him.
The linguistic-cultural environment is another one which feeds and develops human personality.
Language is the most important vehicle for the expression of culture and human personality.
It is the first means which permits to perceive the knowledge and the organization of the exterior and interior reality of the speaker.
Structuration of human personality, through formative agents of culture and language, is mainly a painless and unconscious process, and human behaviour as it is conveyed by language and culture, constitutes a range of unconscious mechanisms.
The linguistic-cultural environment prepares the individual to integrate himself easily and comfortably within his own structures so that he may live, work, think, feel, perceive, progress and act, in short, survive with the maximum of efficiency within structures where he feels at ease.
May 27. 1969

We can say that a society gives its full contribution and progresses normally when its dynamic internal forces help maintain a constant balance between its cultural and linguistic structures, having regard to the unceasing pressures exerted both from inside and outside.
Culture and language embrace all aspects of human life, all human institutions, among which religion, education, industry and commerce are not the least.
If we recognize the merit of those remarks, we are compelled to conclude that most French Canadians are strangers in the greater part of the Canadian territory, and even in their own bastion, Quebec.
A culturo-linguistic community, to operate normally, needs reasonably homogeneous structures and fundamentally self-animating, self-creating and self-regenerating social dynamics. Its institutions and national life must express their homogeneity and this internal functional harmony. Its inventiveness and creativeness should proceed mainly from interaction among all the forces at work within its structures.
It is recognized that no cultural change could occur without the creative activity of actual persons, sensitive to internal and external influences. However, if an extraneous influence overwhelms and supplants the interior dynamics, a serious unbalance results.
And immediately we can ask ourselves, if even a normal, homogeneous and self-creating society, as the French society, for instance, feels threatened by the influence exerted by strong foreign cultures, how could an abnormal, heterogeneous and imitative society as that of French Canada hope to survive? That is indeed a most timely question. However, one thing is sure: if we choose to answer in the negative, the solution to the French-Canadian problem becomes very simple. That solution would be to have all the French Canadians totally assimilated to the Anglo-American culture, as soon as possible, and to forget once and for all the dream of a bilingual and bicultural Canada from sea to sea.
French-Canadian society is an unusual society because its internal social dynamics or its self-generating forces are too weak to enable it to change while remaining itself, or to change without distorting too much the image it has of itself. It is terribly weakened by the heterogeneity of its linguistic and cultural structures which is a kind of Franco-Anglo-American hodge-podge. It is threatened at the
Official Languages
very core of its Quebec fortress, i.e. Montreal, by a real Trojan horse, namely, the English Quebec which, in spite of its low representation in numbers, is infinitely more powerful than the French majority. Therefore, there exists, at the very core of this French-Canadian society, a foreign body whose dynamic social power permeates visibly, gradually and inevitably all the fields of the French life. In the modern world, industry and trade are very powerful structures that extend their tentacles in all the others structures which make up the linguistic and cultural environment. When a language, as is the case of the French language in Quebec, must continually express the structures of a foreign culture, in this instance, the English culture, together with what remains of its own cultural roots, it ill serves both groups and, indeed, is rejected by both ethnical elements involved.
It is exactly what is happening in Quebec at this time and in Canada as a whole. French Canadians themselves despise their own language because they realize it is neither fish nor fowl. They know it is a hybrid thing, a mishmash because it naturally springs from a hybrid culture. Did not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, describe it not so long ago, as a lousy French?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
English Canadians, and more particularly English-speaking Quebeckers, have every reason to reject any idea of imitation or association with the monster that is French-or rather "franglais"-all the more as it is of their own making. Human psychology teaches us that sound individuals are not inclined to imitate or compete with weak or crippled people. The same holds true in respect of peoples' psychology.
In short, the French Canadian today is saying to himself: I loathe myself and I wander as a lost soul. I am just beginning to understand the dynamic forces that moulded me and, from the bottom of my heart, I wish for the transformation of those structures, so that, at last, I may be able to identify myself with my essential image. But fundamentally, the only real question boils down to this: Would it be that my cause is hopeless?
In that perspective, it is important to note the following facts. French-Canadian demographers forecast that within 15 years, the majority of the population of greater Montreal will be English-speaking, if the present birth-rate trend is maintained among French Canadians, and if the assimilation of new

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
Canadians to the English-speaking minority continues at the present rate of 95 per cent. If the French social dynamics, in Montreal, is already threatened with a French-speaking majority of 63 per cent, how can it be strengthened, in the presence of an Englishspeaking majority? Montreal is the vital centre of cultural and industrial life in Quebec. When a vital organ is endangered in the system, is there any hope left to the person concerned? The following argument is usually given to that assertion; But if everyone is bilingual on Montreal island, French will no longer be in danger.
Generally speaking, bilingualism concerns individuals rather than society as a whole. Collective bilingualism pre-supposes the existence of two social dynamics at work within the same society, in order to maintain and ensure the functioning and development of two distinct structures as regards culture, language and personality. Wherever that exists, one of the two structures must necessarily, sooner or later, dominate the other. The supremacy of a group of structures on another has always been true at the level of the individuals, no matter how they may have learned two languages. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in the case of the present right honourable Prime Minister.
It is clear that those who learn French in Maillardville, British Columbia, do not participate to the same extent in a strong French linguistic-cultural structure as those who were privileged to be born and brought up in Quebec City, which is relatively homogeneous, or in a very homogeneous centre like Paris.
Even if Premier Bennett offered a free education in French to the French-speaking minority of his province, from the cradle to the grave, he would not be able to change the fact that French is not part of the institutional and global life of British Columbia. The effect would be about the same as if the French Canadians were granted the same privilege in England, in Italy, or in Russia. This generous offer, at best, could only facilitate things, to a degree, for the French-speaking minority in British Columbia, And even if the high society of Vancouver became as truly bilingual as the English elite in Great Britain for example, it would in no way modify the absolute supremacy of the English element's dynamics in this Pacific province. One thing is certain, it would not help in the least the French-speaking element in Quebec.

The co-existence of two language structures within the bilingual language of French Canadians allows the English pronunciation to affect French structures, rhythm, intonation, as well as vowel length and accent.
But the most serious and perhaps most sinister invasion is taking place on the semantic level. It is subtle and destructive. The semantic confusion in the mind of most French Canadians is beyond description. The average bilingual person-I do not mean the elite-is truly handicapped in that he is seldom able to speak properly and consciously in either language.
In any language, every word has its own semantic contents, defined by various contexts, each having its exact meaning and shade. It is difficult enough to learn to understand the exact meaning of words or to separate them within one language, because the meaning of words is ever changing, let alone to master the fuzzy outlines of semantic fields in two languages, especially if one has greater stability, because of its greater use and creativeness, based on powerful social dynamics. This is not only due to a more frequent use of English, but because most new concepts originate in English, and every French Canadian cannot be expected to carry constantly a dictionary under his arm, which, in any case, would be of very little use to him, since it hardly reflects the environment.
Moreover, French Canadians are not born first-rate translators or interpreters any more than their English counterparts. The official qualified translators are like prisoners, chained to their pile of dictionaries from France which very often prove to be inadequate to translate Anglo-American facts of North America. Their translations are close imitations of the English style and way of thinking for translators themselves are not living in or do not come from a creative, homogeneous and dynamic French environment. Only the best among them succeed reasonably well in recreating in their translations the French style and turn of mind. For the worst of them, who are not in slight minority, their job consists in writing English with French words. The federal statutes, and even those of the Quebec national assembly, are classical examples of those awkward, clumsy translations which are obvious imitations of the English way of conceiving and expressing ideas. But even if all translations of English texts were perfect, let us not forget that the way to learn a language is not by reading but by listening. What we learn

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
To solve the problem of unity in Canada, if we must go beyond the confederation structures, we must not hesitate to do so. We are all mature enough and conscious enough o know that some day or other we must come to a conclusion in this regard and do so without any animosity, in the greatest possible spirit of charity, so that we might manage to shape north of the 45th parallel a country that is truly that of all Canadians.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Malane):: Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock, I am afraid I only have a few minutes left, so I shall be very brief.
It is a pity, in a way, that the original concept of this bill which was to entrench the language rights in the constitution was not carried out earlier. Though the federal Sov-ernment is through this bill, legislating within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it remains that it would have been most desirable that the language rights be entrenched in the constitution, as the government said it intended to do.
However, when one hears comments such as those we have heard for the past few days from some opposition members, one tends to feel discouraged and to wonder whether this country has any future at all.
When one realizes that it took us 50 years of struggle to finally obtain, a few years ago, bilingual cheques, When we notice to-day s opposition to a bill whose only function is to allow the citizens to address themselves to the federal government in their mother tongue, I think we are right to have certain misgivings concerning the future of this country.
Obviously, there are several indirect ways to express what I would call bigotry and intolerance, such as saying that this legislation is not the best means to guarantee linguistic rights. It might be that some people have not yet understood the real scope of the legislation. But I think we must tell it as it is, whether this country remains or not united. If intolerance and bigotry supersede the highes human qualities, I think we shall have to resign ourselves to put an end to this political union.
When I think, Mr. Speaker, that today while I am speaking to you the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, in order to work for the federal government or for certain government agencies, I am thinking especially of Air Canada must learn English and must take courses in English; when I think that the French-Canadian civil servants who work in Ottawa can only do it in the language of Shakespeare . [Mr. Matted
and when on the other hand we hear people say that this is but a minor problem, that goodwill and mutual understanding are the remedies to these situations; I wonder Mr. Speaker if wool is not being pulled over our eyes. In other words, either we face facts, find solutions and pay the price for a union or we take a firm stand and put an end to a situation that would no longer make sense.
I would like to end my remarks by saying that in a hundred years from now, those who might read the reasons that have been advanced against this bill and detect t faint-heartedness the intolerance, the vanou forms of opposition sometimes blunt, more often subtle which were marshalled against this bill, will realize that there are still peop. who would like to impose an exclusively Bn-tish way of life upon this country.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the few remarks I should like to make on Bill C-120, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall vote for this bill when the time comes. I do not mean for all that that this measure is entirely perfect far from it. I am even somewhat inclined to think that this measure contains perhaps a political purpose much more than a real willingness to promote bilingualism.
Since we have to pass judgment on the measure now before us, I should Je to speak as a reasonable and tolerant man, with the hope that the few words I will say will help to make our views better understood.
This measure is not perfect, Mr. Speaker, and one only has to consider the 41 amendments already before the house to realize it.
One might believe it was drafted hastily, without due consideration. That is what prompted me to say at the outset that there was probably a great deal of politics in this issue.
One must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of this bill is to provide equality of status and rights to both languages in government services.
All those who have at least a little common sense will admit it is high time we considered this measure, because what it tends to correct is the source of misunderstandings and of various forms of unrest that we encounter everyday.
Mr. Speaker, like many others I do realize that this bill will be extremely difficult to administer.
May 27, 1969

I would not want to use the same terms as were used by hon. members opposite in an attempt to blame some western members who expressed their fears and their concern with regard to the administration of this measure.
On the contrary, I think these people wish to be of service to their people and they want to express the views of their fellow-citizens in the house. However, I do not want to suggest that I share entirely their views, but at least I give them the benefit of the doubt, namely that they are doing their best to express the opinion of their constituents.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill has led to all kinds of interpretations. Some have said: It is intended to impose bilingualism all across Canada, to force us to learn a second language, to force our children to learn a language which is not theirs. There are no such things in the measure now under consideration. All it intends to do, as I have said before, is to ensure a bilingual service within the government departments and the courts of justice.
Some even went as far as to suggest that there was a danger of domination on the part of Quebec over the rest of Canada. I immediately deny such a claim and I note that even though Quebec might want to dominate the rest of Canada, it would be physically impossible.
It is too bad some government members chose to speak the way they did during this debate. It is obvious they are seeking to provoke the members of the opposition, hoping to hear statements they could use as they see fit in their riding or at the next elections.
Some accused us of being against bilingualism and even evolution of the French fact. Some of my colleagues were accused of being hostile to the advancement of French culture in this country. Far from being opposed to a greater use of the French language in the country, we, as members of the opposition, want to do our best so that French Canadians will be at ease in the national capital as well as in all other cities and places where there is a sufficient number of Frenchspeaking Canadians to deserve an adequate attention from the government.
Let us see, Mr. Speaker, what has been the attitude of my party towards a more extensive use of French. When I first came here in 1957, it was striking to see how very little French was used on parliament hill and in government buildings. Posters and signs on the doors of ministers' office were solely unilingual and not in French.
Official Languages
I then made a survey of the various anomalies which could be found here and there and I discussed them with the Speaker at that time, the Hon. Roland Michener. I discussed the matter also with several ministers and from then on, we started seeing bilingual signs and posters in the house of commons as well as on parliament hill.
It is a well known fact that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm at that time, Mr. Breton, introduced, session after session, private bills to have simultaneous interpretation and bilingual cheques accepted by his Liberal colleagues. And we should be surprised, to meet the views of our friends opposite, to find that at the time, those requests made by a representative of the province of Quebec were either killed or rejected by a Liberal government. And today, those people are trying to blame us and to make people believe that we are opposed to the French language.
Who gave this house simultaneous interpretation, if not the Conservative government which preceded that of Lester B. Pearson?
It was the same government, that also agreed to have the "Parliamentary rules and forms" by Beauchesne translated and had it done; up till then it had always been published in English.
It is also the government headed by the right hon. John Diefenbaker that granted bilingual cheques and allowed the election briefs to be published both in English and in French.
It is the same government that elected a French Canadian as Governor General of Canada and that reached an agreement with the government of the Quebec province for the building of the transcanadian highway.
It is the Conservative government that also settled the matter of the subsidies granted to the universities of the province of Quebec, which, under a Liberal government, had been left pending for many many years. It was also this government that reached an agreement with the Ontario and Quebec provinces for the building of the interprovincial bridge which we may admire not very far from here.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw the attention of the house on the steps taken by our leader and on the statements he made about the French language. And those statements were not just made today.

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
I have here an excerpt of the 28th of August 1967 issue of the Halifax Chronicle Herald which reads as follows:

There is surely no reason why we could not have two languages and two cultures existing side by side and yet have an effective nationhood. English speaking Canadians should accept and welcome the French language and culture in Canada as a continuing fact. This involves no more than the acceptance of reality and the recognition that the French tradition is a great tradition which has contributed and will contribute much to our national life.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The speaker was the then Premier Robert L. Stanfield of Nova Scotia, and the time was not August, 1967, but April 6, 1964.

This statement from my leader clearly illustrates his stand.
I am going to quote another of his other statements:
The Canadian federation will work only if the French-Canadian people do not feel threatened in their development as such.
And also on March 10 last, he said and I quote:
Everywhere in the world, the citizen must pay a price for his right to citizenship. In some countries, he pays with his freedom-in others with his life-in others again with his pride and his peace of mind.
Compared to that, the price which the Canadian people are asked to pay is not so high. I believe that it is a price which we are prepared to pay.
Let there be no misunderstanding.
Should there be a Canadian who would divide this country further, I am not his leader.
There is the proof of my leader's position with regard to the language and the rights of the French Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty to refer to some remarks, made during this debate because I believe they reflect on my province.
For instance, the Saint-Leonard affair was mentioned. Mr. Speaker, that is the only incident of that kind in the province of Quebec in the last hundred years. I could tell those people who fear that the same situation may become the rule in the province of Quebec that each time the Saint-Leonard case is mentioned with respect to Quebec, one can bring up hundreds of similar cases throughout the country that were directed against my fellow French-Canadians.
Reviving those stories will never bring about an understanding. It should be remembered that we, in the province of Quebec,

are proud of the way we have treated the English-speaking minority.
In our province of Quebec, 38 per cent of expenditures incurred for education go to English institutions. And it must be noted that the English-speaking people of Quebec represent but 18 per cent of the population.
It must be mentioned also that McGill University, which is regarded as an English university, is subsidized by the government of Quebec in the ratio of 70 per cent. Needless to repeat that the large majority of taxpayers in Quebec are French-speaking Canadians.
Some have also said that capital was flowing out of the province of Quebec because of the uncompromising attitude of the Quebec population.
I should like to correct such an impression because it is entirely false and to inform the house that if some are afraid of the province of Quebec, many English companies have faith in it.
In fact, during the last months, Shell Oil of Canada Limited has invested $100 million and Golden Eagle, $70 million, in Montreal. Canadian International Paper has invested $50 million in Gatineau, Quebec North Shore Paper, $54 million in Baie-Comeau and B.A.S.F., $30 million. Donahue Bros, has invested $16 million in La Malbaie, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., $11.5 million in Val-leyfield, General Foods Ltd., $7.7 million in Ville LaSalle, J. H. Normick, $2.1 million in La Sarre, Burlington Industries, $1.15 million in Granby, Canada Packers Ltd., $1,225,000 in Joliette, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., $1 million in Joliette, Chemcell Limited, $1 million in St. Bruno, and Simons Cigar, $1,029,000 in Sainte-Therese. I could go on giving the names of other companies which have invested millions of dollars in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is sufficient to show that reasonable people, English Canadians who study reality objectively and advisedly, have confidence in the province of Quebec and want to continue to do their share in promoting in Quebec the interests of French-speaking Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, imperfect though the measure before us may be, I will vote in favour of it. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, to disagree with certain clauses of the bill, without having to condemn it as a whole. The bill will be studied in committee and I hope, as do some of
May 27, 1969

my colleagues, that the necessary corrections will be brought to it in order to improve it as much as possible. Until then, Mr. Speaker, let us show understanding and tolerance.
I am happy to say that this is the policy adopted by our party leader, who is anxious to see national unity preserved.
The one million English-speaking Canadians living in Quebec and the one million French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec deserve to have their languages recognized in their respective environments and to be provided with the services they are entitled to in their own language.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for Bill C-120.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I will make a few remarks only in connection with the bill on the recognition of the two official languages, which is introduced by the government, and which, in my opinion, is quite timely, even if it is overdue. The introduction by the government of that official languages bill will probably not change much because finally the teaching of languages is for the most part the responsibility of the provincial government.
Above all I would like to deal with the following idea which has been discussed for some years, mainly in the province of Quebec, and as a French Canadian, I would like to say a few words about those who advocate, chiefly in the province of Quebec, the priority of one language, and who as soon as the topic is about finance, about administration and other things, at once wave the flag of dissatisfaction in connection with languages, which does not change the situation in any way.
To clarify the debate, I would like to give hon. members, this afternoon, a detailed account of the work accomplished by the Ral-liement creditiste since it has been represented in the house.
I suggest that the French language is far from being about to disappear from Canada as some politicians, mostly French-speaking ones, who have few scruples when they speak about linguistic equality, would have us believe.
In my opinion, those politicians are irresponsible men and show by their words how independant they are and that they do not care at all about the common good of Canadians, particularly those in the province of Quebec. For them, it is enough to try to stir
Official Languages
up panic within the Canadian people, to get them to quarrel and separate one day, so that they may carry out their design, which I would call false and dishonest.
All those demagogic detractors are feeding on their fellow citizens, either French or English Canadians. To achieve their goal, they think only of inducing disorder, and even disputes if at all possible.
Those politicians play hard on sentimental values, such as language, in the first place, religion, race, colour, and so on, thus dividing in order to rule, because they are not powerful enough.
At this stage, I would like to quote from an article by Mr. Viateur Beaupre published in Le Devoir, and I quote:
I'he Great Pity of the So-called Mother Tongue
"Those people are now justified in saying: What! You claimed to be French, and you do not know how to speak or write your language! ..." Daudet, The Last Lesson.
We have given them this right; we now have to take it away from them. There is a very simple but very difficulty way: learn how to write and speak our language. Because "as long as a people which has fallen into slavery holds on to its language, it is as if it were holding the key of the prison ..." adds Daudet.
We shall not break prison only with this tool of language. Culture is also politics, economy, arts, the taste of bread, the bouquet of wine, courteousness, righteousness, and everything.
Even if we would shake ourselves free in all other respects, without mastering our language better, we would have that dubious comfort of being free barbarians.
Mr. Speaker, let us ask ourselves what are the views of those who have served in our armed forces since confederation, especially during the last world war. Should we not also ask ourselves why those men in the past wars gave their life to save Canada?
Did those brave Canadians ask themselves if they were fighting in English or in French?
I say no! With the help of the Allies, Great Britain and others, they saved their country, Canada, with all its human wealth, irrespective of their language and culture.
Closer to me, there was my brother, Antonio Beaudoin, a member of the Fusilliers du Mont-Royal regiment who died at Dieppe, in 1942. He received five decorations, including the Victoria Cross. He was a gallant soldier and he died at Dieppe at the age of 22. He gave his life for Canada and the Commonwealth. He did not ask himself, I am sure, if he was fighting for English Canada or for French Canada. All he wanted was to save freedom, protect Canada of which he was so proud.

May 27, 1969
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, now that we are done with external wars, we must come to grips with the internal ones, those that exist between the French fact and the English fact, as some are trying to make us believe. The two races are equal and, therefore, they must get along together.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The French nation must assert its rights without encroaching upon those of the English language and vice versa. We did our share and will continue to do so and I will tell you how. When one comes to think that in 1946-1947, not a single member spoke French in the House of Commons, except the present leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette), one cannot but be amazed at the progress made by the French language here, in this very house.
Mr. Speaker, that is only the result of the long, tenacious and relentless fight carried on by the Ralliement creditiste for the enforcement of the French Canadians' rights.
At this stage, I will refer to an article published in the October 16, 1962 edition of he Droit, signed by Mr. Maurice Huot and entitled:
"Excellent attitude towards the French language".
I quote:
If they keep it up, the Creditistes will have done more in a few weeks for the advancement of French in the House of Commons than all political parties since confederation.
The Creditistes from Quebec have not only multiplied their interventions in favour of French in government services, but have created the necessary climate that has prompted many members from other parties to use that language.
And the author says further:
It would be impossible to quote all the strong protests made by the Creditistes in order that the French language be respected throughout Canada-
The Creditistes are very much criticized in some circles, especially as regards their monetary doctrine and economic principles. The unfortunate aspect of it all in that those who try to heap ridicule on that party are sometimes people who share the same culture and the same language.
Say what you will about the economic doctrines of the Creditistes, one thing cannot be denied: their devotion to the French language.
Their absolutely legitimate nationalism, that is never carried too far, does them great credit.
The Creditistes are right in requesting that the standing orders of the house, the procedure in the house, according to Beauchesne, should be given to them in French.
Mr. Caouette was right in requesting French in all the services-

-in Canada, especially with regard to-
-Air Canada . . . Mr. Dumont was right in asking the services of an interpreter when he met with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton).
The Creditistes have every right to ask for French in the parliament cafeteria. The Creditistes have every right to demand a perfect simultaneous translation service in parliament and not a halting French translation.
Some English milieus have started to understand, either through a sense of justice or in their own interests. It is not any too soon. But the other French-speaking people must understand as well and set the example first of all through practical actions similar to those of the Creditistes.
Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement creditiste asked and obtained a lot for the French Canadians. I believe the present government, through its bill, wants to help us with what we started in 1946,-as the article says-and I for one agree with this bill which may not give us exactly all we would have liked, but which does meet a good number of our requests.
I continue:
The Creditistes asked and obtained for French Canadians the complete translation in French of the procedures in the House of Commons: a complete french service on all Air Canada lines; the posting in French of all railway schedules; an adequate and accurate system of simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons; interpretation services in all government services, in all federal government departments; French spoken in the parliamentary restaurant; a perfectly bilingual telephone service provided in parliament by the Bell Company.
This is what I wanted to quote. It was written by Mr. Huot.
If the province of Quebec feels frustrated in its rights and future, should it blame others or itself? If the province of Quebec has been unable to elect leaders in order to assume its responsibilities, who is to blame? If Quebec fell a victim to the charms of a few separatists, whose fault is it? If Quebec was unable to get to the bottom of things and preferred to practice a shameful patronage, who is to blame?
In my opinion, the fault lies certainly with government representatives here in the house especially the French-speaking ones who by keeping silent, or practically, caused the dissatisfaction prevailing today.
If the Quebec leaders or those of every province had been able to look after then-own business, they would have required Canadians to respect each others' rights and we would not have reached this point in Canada. If there is now discrimination among workers or in any other sector, it is actually
May 27, 1969

because Canadians whether French or English, refused to learn the other language and because the governments blinked the facts, without requiring any effort from either side.
Why does Quebec want its independance? Because French Canadians cannot even be respected at home and even less elsewhere. It is high time, if not too late, to introduce a legislation through which all will be respected and, especially, the minorities. I hope that the minorities will, in turn, respect the majorities, as it is not yet the case in the province of Quebec since only yesterday, English was required in some areas, especially in a province which is essentially French.
This is only one of the numerous ways suggested to allay the fever that is mounting across Canada.
If we do not want to wake up one day bound hand end foot, it is high time, more than ever, that everybody assumed his responsibilities and took his destiny in his own hands. One does not solve a problem by creating another one. Let us look after our business before everything else. Let us not do as we did for the first 90 years of confederation.
Before looking for trouble elsewhere let us start by putting our own house in order.
In order that Quebec be itself within confederation, let us start by being ourselves in Quebec. Let us stop accusing the English of being damned English, the French of being damned French and let us recognize the fact that we belong to a bilingual country. Let us stand firm while so many others remain idle or sitting on the fence.
If we want to be respected, let us then start by respecting the others, that is the minorities, and this is how the English, the French, or the others will feel at home in Canada.
If the various linguistic groups that exist in Canada, are fully respected we shall achieve and consolidate Canadian unity forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Division


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Depuiy Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.	
Bill read the second time and referred to	
the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


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 Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Administration of Justice-compensation to victims of criminal acts; the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Xvfr. Perrault)-Air Pollution-coal dust from shipments through Vancouver Harbour; the hon. member for St. John's West

Water Resources-Placentia Bay, Newfoundland-attendance of minister at meeting to discuss pollution.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-153, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it was my hope to be able to make a few comments on the bill which is now before us, namely Bill C-153 which deals with historic sites and monuments. As all members have undoubtedly noted, there are only two principles in the bill. The first is to provide for membership on the board of an officer of the National Museums of Canada, and the second is to provide that the remuneration paid to members of the board appointed by the Governor in Council for attending at meetings or to other business of the board is to be fixed by the Governor in Council.
These two principles regarding the operation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board are open for consideration and discussion. That is why I desire to make a few comments on them. Over the years I have had a great interest in the work of this board, but I have been disappointed in some of the policies adopted by the board and also in the fact that greater support and money has not been made available to the board. I may say
May 27, 1969

that one of the reasons I have such a great interest in this matter is that I believe a properly supported board, whose policy would be a true recognition of the national historic sites and monuments, would build up what I am afraid we lack at the present moment in our country, that is a real understanding of Canada and a pride in being Canadian. I believe that more support for and more forward looking policies by this board would do a great deal toward the recognition of Canada as a nation and the encouragement of pride in Canada. I believe there are too many citizens of Canada who consider themselves as hyphenated Canadians, as English-Canadians. French-Canadians, Chinese-Cana-dians, etc.
It is my feeling that the majority of people whom I meet want to be Canadians and have a pride in being Canadians. I have had the opportunity over the years to travel in other countries of the world and have found a fantastic respect for Canada and Canadians, even more than we have for ourselves. I think that one way of getting over what might be called an inferiority complex is to proceed with greater speed toward the establishment of a policy recognizing the importance of national historic sites and monuments. In particular, we should try to overcome a failure of the past by encouraging the board to work in co-operation, co-ordination, liaison and partnership with provincial historic sites committees and municipal archivists.
I was most interested in reading the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 12 of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development covering the meetings that were held on March 10 and March 11 of this year. At page 287 of the proceedings we have the evidence of Mr. Gordon, who is I understand, senior assistant deputy minister responsible for conservation. He had the following to say to the committee:
The principal objective is to commemorate major events, persons, places and structures of truly national historic significance in such a way that history is brought alive for Canadians, students and adults alike.
I certainly agree with that statement and hope that with the addition of one member to the board, and a new approach which he might bring, we will see the achievement of the objective as laid down in the words I have just quoted. But if this objective is to be achieved, there must be, as I said a few moments ago, a greater recognition of the need for the national board to establish a more close liaison with provincial committees
Historic Sites and Monuments Act and municipal archivists, so as to better commemorate major events, persons, places and structures.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I should like to give an example of what I mean by co-operation, liaison and partnership. The city of Vancouver is the major city on the west coast of our great country. At the present time it is the third largest city in Canada. It is growing at such a rate that, in the near future, the population of metropolitan Vancouver will exceed one million. Yet, I found it absolutely impossible over the years to encourage action to be taken to recognize the historic nature of Vancouver. I should like to refer to what we in Vancouver East call New Brighton, a park which is under the jurisdiction of the park commissioners of Vancouver. It was in this area that the City of Vancouver was commenced. In this small area, in this corner of Vancouver East, the first wharf, the first hotel, the first post office, the first customs building were established. Sketches and photographs are in the hands of that famous archivist of Vancouver, Major Matthews. Yet it has been impossible over the years to obtain any recognition on the part of the national board that this should be a national historic site. With all the records which are available we could rebuild the first hotel, or at least the fagade, the first post office, the first customs house, the first wharf, and so on.
The parks commission of Vancouver would be happy to co-operate in any way-to carry on the administration and to look after it-if there could only be a recognition of the case for preservation which, as has been pointed out, is really the objective of this body. Yet one cannot get anywhere.
Millions of dollars can be voted to rebuild an old fort in the maritimes or a fort somewhere else, but when it comes to a project of this nature on the west coast there is no cooperation, no partnership, because the founding of the City of Vancouver is apparently not of national historic interest.
I have used this case as an example. I am just as interested in national historic sites and monuments all across the Dominion of Canada. But I do have a strong impression that even the board itself cannot have this feeling of being Canadian, this feeling for recognition of our history, this feeling for building and reconstructing and marking in such a way that the people of our country, especially those who have come here in recent years,
9126	COMMONS
Historic Sites and Monuments Act may have a knowledge of our country and be proud to call themselves Canadians.
One way of imbuing this feeling of pride is by means of greater understanding on the part of the board and an extension of its activities. This, of course, means greater support not only by way of legislation but financially, in addition to a great educational program the length and breadth of the country. It is because of my strong interest in this matter, my strong feelings in this matter, my strong support for Canadian history coming alive through the medium of this board that I deign to get up and take the time of the house for a few minutes on this subject. Poorly as I may have expressed it, I hope the feeling I am trying to convey has got across to the minister and to the board and that we shall in the not-too-distant future see them lift their eyes, get a broader perspective and realize that we can do a great deal more than we have done in the past if consideration is given to what I term co-ordination, liaison, partnership with the various provincial bodies, both governmental and non-governmental. This country is rich in historical knowledge; we should have the sense to do something about it before it is too late.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it being six o'clock, with leave of the house, I shall take only a few minutes to indicate that we support Bill C-153, that we are happy about it and that the minister should be praised for it.
However, I wish to remind him of a particular fact in connection with the Sir Wilfrid Laurier museum, in the city of Arthabaska, in the Lotbiniere constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important subject. I am not speaking as a politician or otherwise, since Sir Wilfrid Laurier was, as everybody knows, a great man of the liberal party as well as a great Canadian statesman. The members of our group and fellow-citizens of Arthabaska admit it readily. The latter have moved heaven and earth to achieve their goal-and that is why I think it my duty to rise in this house and put forward a claim-namely the restoration and the maintenance, often carried on on a voluntary basis, of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's house in Arthabaska.
I would like to tell the minister that thousands of people visit that castle each year. It is called a castle but really it is not really due to the state of the premises. How-

DEBATES	May 27, 1969
ever, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the government or that Board should study that matter very closely. I would like to make that request on behalf of the people of my city. This Board should institute an inquiry to subsidize in some way that historic site commemorating the coming there of a great statesman, Conservative, Liberal or of any other political affiliation.
Mr. Speaker, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a man whose merit was recognized by everybody. My fellow citizens are pleased to recognize it also. We would be glad if the Historic Sites and Monuments Board would recognize it and do its utmost to undertake such restoration and to co-operate with the citizens of Arthabaska so that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's residence in Arthabaska may become an agreeable place to visit to commemorate events of the past.
I would not want to keep the house any longer. However, I would like the minister to take under serious consideration this request that I am making in the name of the people I represent. I ask him to give it special attention in order to come to their help.
Finally, I would like to remind him that the electoral district of Lotbiniere has received no subsidy whatever during centennial year, and I suggest that the time has come to make up for lost time and, in this way, to give to the town of Arthabaska the importance it deserves, that is to commemorate the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has lived there.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council), for the Minister of Justice, moved that Bill C-197, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
May 27, 1969
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about this bill and I believe there is general agreement in the house to give the bill second reading without debate and refer it to the committee. This measure deals with the off-track betting problem that has been so much before the attomeys-general of the provinces in recent days.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson that Bill S-23, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-23, entitled "an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act" was passed on March 20 by the other place. For reasons which I find questionable, the Senate places before us a bill dealing with something that does not exist any more in Canada, namely the Canadian Merchant Marine.
At the outset of the bill, section 1 deals with air cushion vehicles and I quote:
"air cushion vehicle" means a machine designed to derive support in the atmosphere primarily from reactions against the earth's surface of air expelled from the machine:"
The air cushion vehicle is called aero-glisseur in French, from the verb glisser, to glide. According to various dictionaries, gliding, skating, are related to playing, to fun and games. I imagine that it is in that perspective that the other place sent us this famous bill since there are in Canada, at the present time, but two air cushion vehicles, one in Montreal and the other in the Vancouver area.
In 1964, our country had but three units and among them there was an old cargo that was built during the second world war. There was also a tanker, where work was provided for less than 100 persons.
Canada Shipping Act
Bill S-23 contains 28 sections dealing with amendments, regulations and 15 and 18-foot boats. On the other hand, I did not find anything that would revive our sea-going fleet.
All countries in the world, even those who have a smaller coast-line than Canada, take pride in building and launching sea-going cargoes.
Niger, for instance, is a small country, considered by the Canadian government as an underdeveloped country, a country to which we grant loans without interest, subsidies. Yet, that country has ships navigating on our waters and carrying our own goods.
And that is not the only case. Numerous ships fly flags of all the countries in the world. All their crews were hired in their own country, which explains why so many unemployed people in Canada are disgusted at seeing so many foreigners earn a living in Canadian waters by carrying Canadian goods. Canada has 59,670 miles of sea-coast, almost three times the length of the Equator, the longest coast-line in the world. This country has nevertheless succeeded in creating unemployment and poverty in a sector territory once so properous.
We have huge cargoes of oil, grain, paper, wood, minerals, asbestos, stone, granite and other goods to move to the great world markets. Few countries have a more direct interest in shipping than Canada, since nearly 17 per cent of our gross national product is exported.
From 1957 to 1962, our exports represented 5 per cent of all world exports. If we leave out the world oil trade, and if we take into account the fact that solid cargoes moved by sea by Canada totalled 10 per cent in 1961, it is obvious that exports and the transportation of exported goods should be linked together and that the opposite situation, as a whole, will give birth to an economic crisis more or less dangerous and more or less serious.
Mr. Speaker, the variety and the quality of maritime transportation and the control of maritime rates are essential elements of a Canadian trade policy. Having a merchant fleet is indispensable to the establishment of new markets and could well be the decisive factor in maintaining those already existing.
Since the involvement of our country in the field of maritime transportation is almost nil, this situation cannot last without being detrimental to our commercial position in the world. This suggestion is most ridiculous

May 27, 1969
Canada Shipping Act
if we consider that, during the years 1875-80, our country was fourth among the shipping powers. As a shipbuilding nation during the last world war, our country was third, immediately after the United States and Great Britain.
Today, Canada ranks not only last but lags far behind a number of countries admittedly disadvantaged and underdeveloped.
Canada, who has won the war, has allowed herself to be outstripped by countries ravaged by war. The first place, in shipbuilding, belongs to Japan. That country is followed by Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Italy and Poland.
As we know, Poland is a very small country-little Poland as it were-about a quarter the size of the province of Quebec. The population of this war-torn country numbered only 30 million people in 1964. Devastated Poland has built up again its economy after the war and in shipbuilding it now holds the seventh place in the world for ordinary ships and the second for fishing boats.
Canada, which was third during the war, is no longer aware of its present rank, since it has dropped so far behind.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
And we hear the most amazing answers. As for shipbuilding, it is out of the question; we are quite content just to lend our experts abroad.
And here, I refer tc an article published in the paper Montreal-Matin on Tuesday, April 15, and I quote:
Our experts invade Jamaica.
The director of the port of Montreal, Mr. Guy Beaudet, disclosed at a press conference held yesterday at the information bureau of the Expo, the conclusions of a three-week trip to Jamaica jointly with several Canadian experts.
Mr. Beaudet went there at the request of the government of Jamaica to make a survey of deep-sea and coastal means of transportation. The Canadian government, under its aid program, through the Canadian International Development Agency, recently granted a loan to Jamaica.
The director of the port of Montreal then dealt with the problems closely related to shipping in Montreal harbour. Mr. Beaudet pointed out that naval traffic would be increased by 12 per cent over the year 1968.
But what good is an increase in traffic? What an honour, indeed! It is not profitable, but the traffic increases. It reminds me of this old peddler who was selling clay pipes in the back country; he bought and sold them for the same price. He used to say that what

gave him a break was that once in a while he bust one of them.
As for us, we have built the Seaway, and all it brings us is a little more traffic.
Mr. Speaker, while other countries are expanding and modernizing their shipyards, we in Canada are satisfied with repairs. Some of them might have been financially worthwhile as, for instance, the repairs to the aircraft carrier Bonaventure. But all repair jobs are not as big as that particular one.
As for ship-building, never mind that. We have seen the closing down of shipyards like the one at Lauzon; we have heard about discussions concerning the closing of the Canadian Vickers shipyard in Montreal, and when we ask the government to do something about that, the answer is that we are going through a crisis and that we do not have any money.
On May 13, 1968, a year ago, a Montreal shipowner declared, and I quote:
Foreign shipowners are said to have received $50 million from Ottawa in subsidies.
The Canadian government has helped foreign shipping companies, engaged in coastal trade, to the tune of some 50 million dollars over the last three years, which was detrimental to Canadian interests, according to the declaration made on Monday by Mr. Phrixos B. Papachristidis, well-known Montreal shipowner.
In his brief on shipping submitted to the Canadian Transportation Commission, Mr. Papachristidis maintains that since 1965, foreign shipping companies "enjoyed or are about to enjoy, for their lake fleets only, direct subsidies of about $20 million, while Ottawa extols spending restrictions-
Mr. Speaker, while such presents are made to foreigners, we are witnessing other meetings which are less generous for Canadians. I have before me a release from the representatives of the C.N.T.U. whom I consider somewhat as the moral heirs of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand).
According to their report dated May 16, members of the executive of the union, accompanied by officials of the Federation de la Metallurgie, des Mines et des Produits chimiques, met the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in Ottawa on May 9. This interview had been requested on February 18, at the time the C.N.T.U. executive met the federal government. The minister then confirmed that the government had been informed by the company of its intention to give up shipbuilding. He said the government could not compel the company to build ships against its own will. He mentioned the possibility of awarding contracts for ship repairs,
May 27, 1969

explaining that it would not solve the problem.
He finally advised the delegation to communicate with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin).
In the same release, we find the following:
Since October last, 1,100 employees, almost all of them skilled workers, have been laid off. There remain only 400 workmen now assigned mostly to finishing two ships. That job will be completed by the end of June and no other start is foreseen at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, the shipyards of the Canadian Vickers rank second as to size in Canada and are among the best for the quality and the variety of the works they have achieved. They are the oldest modern Canadian shipyards, since they have built the first metal ships in 1910 and have managed to specialize in quite complex structures.
It is also important to point out that the Canadian Vickers shipyards are the only ones in Canada with building sheds where the work can go on in practically the same conditions as in the European shipyards which do not have to cope with a climate as harsh as ours.
In all technical publications on shipbuilding, it is often said that construction in building sheds is extremely advantageous. Highly complicated warships were built by Canadian Vickers, such as corvettes including the St. Lawrence corvette-great cargo ships for Colombia and Venezuela, lakers, the most modern ice-breakers, like the one built last year, and dredgers.
This diversification of labour enables the Canadian Vickers to undertake almost any kind of modern construction in conditions similar to those of any shipyard in the world, including those of Scandinavian countries.
Mr. Speaker, we remember that in a move beneficial to ships carrying the British ensign some Canadian boats were sold for peanuts to some individuals like Mr. Onassis who very quickly became millionaires and this while the Canadian government was applying a hand-out policy for shipyards, in order to let them make both ends meet and to ensure the construction of small warships or a few ice-breakers. Unfortunately, the decisions are always taken by a mere handful of politicians, while the directors and workers of those shipyards are left completely in the dark.
Mr. Speaker, I gave figures at the beginning of my remarks concerning the international position of Canada in the shipbuilding
Canada Shipping Act
industry. Let me quote a few other figures regarding our rank as owners of ships. The data come from a brief submitted by the C.N.T.U.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member, and although in view of the present situation at the Canadian Vickers, hon. members can be easily tempted to talk about the shipping policy. I believe the bill we are considering right now does not concern any shipping company of Canada, nor the closing or opening of shipyards. I therefore ask the hon. member to confine himself to the bill before us.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by quoting a very relevant summary, because I wonder, if we fail to take the opportunity provided by this bill, when shall we be able to discuss Canada's merchant marine? It is a distasteful subject, but at any rate, I shall take the liberty of quoting very briefly:
What the federal government must do.
It is a suggestion of the C.N.T.U.
Build a Canadian ocean-going merchant fleet capable of moving a minimum of 40 to 50 per cent of exports and imports.
Increase the subsidies for the construction of ships built in Canada in order to prompt Canadian shippers to order new ships at prices comparable to those which they could obtain in the United Kingdom.
Pass a legislation favourable in a practical way to shippers, seamen, workers in Canadian shipyards, as well as to all industries supplying materials and equipment. Encourage the replacement of obsolete ships with fast cargo ships capable of meeting foreign competition.
Revise the Merchant Marine Act of 1934 in order to take into account present day conditions of water transport.
Denounce the Merchant Marine Commonwealth Convention of 1931 and abolish the extraordinary privileges granted to those countries in order to protect our shipowners against the competition of ships registered in Commonwealth countries.
Levy a 50 per cent tax on repairs to or purchases of ocean-going vessels or equipment in foreign countries, except in cases of emergency.
Close our coastal and inland waters to all but those vessels that are registered and have been built in Canada and to all but those firms that are truly Canadian.
We ask for the immediate construction of a powerful ocean-going merchant fleet, built by and for Canadians, to transport at least part of Canada's export trade.

May 27, 1969
Canada Shipping Act
In concluding, I repeat that I cannot see how an important part of our exports could be carried in the ships mentioned in Bill S-23, since those are boats 15 to 18 feet long.


Mark Willson Rose: This bill brings together a mixed bag of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Many of them are technical and many are just housekeeping amendments. I am interested in two major areas, the regulations concerning pollution from ships and the extension of the Provisions of the act to cover hovercraft. It is not my purpose to speak at great length. I think the bill should perhaps go to the committee for further study.
When the then Minister of Transport introduced this bill approximately a month ago, he admitted it was a housekeeping bill. He promised a complete revision and some major recommendations later. He did not say when these would be made, nevertheless we look forward to them. Many subjects in the bill require comment,, such as the reaffirmation of the validity of certain pilotage by-laws. This bill will permit certain pilotage authority bylaws without reference to the governor-incouncil. I think this is sensible. This bill implements some of the load line conventions of 1966 governing the maximum, cargoes for ships. Since the load line regulation concerns itself with the safety of the men so employed, it is an important portion of the bill.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the bill deal with the eligibility of applicants for certificates as masters, mates and engineers, provide for the inclusion of landed immigrants. The Canadian Merchant Service Guild is obviously very concerned about this. I wish to quote a resolution passed at their last convention which is contained in their newsletter:
Be it resolved that the Canadian Merchant Service Guild strongly protest any move on the part of the Immigration Department or the federal government to open the examinations for certificates of competency for masters, mates or engineers to persons who are landed immigrants.
This resolution has particular reference to clauses 3 and 4 of Bill S-23. From this we can see there is some controversy with respect to extending this provision beyond British subjects. I am concerned about the almost general policy in Canada of importing skilled labour. We tend to import doctors, teachers and various technical personnel rather than training our own. This was confirmed by John Porter in his famous book "The Vertical Mosaic". He said that traditionally we have

tended to import our skills, just as we have imported our capital, mainly because we have failed to develop sufficient training institutions in our country.
This is a particularly important section of the bill, although 1 do not believe we should be parochial. We should be concerned with the welcoming of immigrants to Canada. We want people to be Canadians and we welcome them on those grounds. At the same time, when people with special skills are brought in to compete with an over-supply of personnel, it must not be only the landed immigrant who has an opportunity for employment but also the Canadian citizen. When this bill is considered in committee, possibly this eligibility provision might have to be amended so that, the landed immigrant who is competent to fill this role will have to have his citizenship before he becomes eligible. This would probably satisfy the Canadian Merchant Service Guild.
I am concerned about this whole trend. There has been a great deal of concern expressed in recent months regarding university teaching jobs in Canada being made available to citizens from other countries. I will not elaborate further on that point.
There are other interesting items in this bill, some perhaps quite humorous. The bill contains certain set provisions for the protection of seamen which I consider to be archaic. I was very interested to read in section 272 that it is no longer necessary for a keeper of a tavern or house of ill-fame to report to a justice of the peace the names of all lodgers on the pain of a $50 fine. This is part of the archaic regulations that are to be dispensed with, and none too soon. Clauses 10 and 12, dealing with requirements for radio installations on ships, are sensible, as are the increased powers to investigate accidents on ships outlined in clause 25.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
However, there is one matter of concern that I would like to mention at this time. It is that at present shipping does not come under the federal safety code. I think it is important that the federal safety code should apply to shipping, or at least that the Department of Transport should introduce a new safety code that would apply to those agencies coming under that department. This is something we will discuss in some detail at the committee stage, but certainly the provision for regulations respecting reporting of shipping casualties is an improvement.
May 27, 1969



I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that I was going to speak for a moment about the problem of pollution as it relates to ships. All of us are well aware of the Torrey Canyon incident, which may have stimulated the drafting of the pollution portion of this bill. Clause 23 is intended to extend the Governor in Council's power to make regulations governing pollution from ships. At present the Governor in Council is only able to regulate pollution from oil in inland waters. This clause would give power to regulate pollution from all substances, such as garbage, chemicals and sewage, in all Canadian waters, and this is a step in the right direction.
Clause 24 proposes to add new sections 495C and 495D to the present act. This concerns the unlimited liability of ships causing pollution. It is interesting to note that proposed new section 495D was struck from the bill before passage by the other place.
Proposed new section 495C would give the minister power to deal with a vessel that is in distress and is likely to pollute Canadian waters. The minister would have power to sell that vessel, and the proceeds from its sale and of its cargo would go towards meeting the expenses incurred. If the value of the ship plus its cargo did not happen to be enough to pay for the damage, then the proposed new section 495D, would apply. Section 495D was dropped by the Senate because it proposed unlimited liability and it was felt excessive costs would be involved in insuring the vessel.
If the charges arising out of pollution claim against a particular vessel were much greater than the value of the ship and its cargo, it would be impossible to insure the ship. For that reason the proposed new section was dropped, but if this is the case then I would like to ask who is going to pay the cost of the pollution damage, caused by that vessel? I submit that the cost will be borne by the same people who bear many of the costs against which there is no protection, that is the general public.
While proposed new section 495D has been dropped, and I think with good reason, I believe some other form of protection should be contemplated so as to avoid putting the cost on the public. Whether a ship causing pollution should have limited liability or unlimited liability is an open question. A shipowner may normally apply to a court, after being found liable for some damage, to limit his liability. I think the total liability would be based on the tonnage of his ship. It was
Canada Shipping Act
argued by insurance companies and others that a ship with unlimited liability would be uninsurable, but in this situation I repeat the question, who pays the cost?
This problem was argued in the Transport and Communications Committee of the other place, as recorded at page 61 of report No. 6, and I quote:
Mr. Shearer, sir, goes on to say in his statement that if unlimited liability were imposed on the shipowner by such legislation, it would be uninsurable. The position, as far as our group is concerned, would be that the shipowner would be uninsured as in respect of liabilities in excess of the amount to which the group and its re-insurers could provide insurance coverage. That figure may be between $10 to $15 million-somewhere in that region but in excess of that figure a shipowner would not be insured; and your bill as it stands places upon the shipowner unlimited liability.
I think the public has to be protected as well as the shipowner, and we should look for some alternative at committee stage.
The minister suggested that this was not a complete revision of the act and that there would be major revisions later. I think some interim measures should be proposed by the mover of this bill to suggest to the house how the public might be protected in the meantime. We note that hovercraft, which have been subject to the Aeronautics Act, will now come under the Canada Shipping Act. This itself is just an interim measure, and when we come to more detailed legislation we might consider the matter of noise pollution caused by hovercraft. Any of us who were at Expo know that a great deal of noise pollution emanates from hovercraft.
We are also concerned a little bit with what the bill does not say. The Canada Shipping Act administers navigable waters but does not define what is meant by that term. In this respect I quote from page 215 of the proceedings before our Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, volume No. 12, as follows:


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: One further question, and this is all I have to ask. The definition of navigable waters is somewhat enlarged for the purposes of this act Navigable water under, say, the Canada Shipping Act has a different interpretation. Would you get a conflict between the two acts this way?


Mr.   Fortier@: I do not believe there is any definition of navigable waters in the Canada Shipping Act. There is a reference to ships and how they must be navigated, operated and inspected, but there is nothing that touches this particular item.
In this legislation we deal with the erosion of banks, yet there is nothing in the act that defines what is meant by navigable waters. So, when we are discussing the pollution

May 27, 1969
Canada Shipping Act
provisions in the bill we shall have to consider them with respect to the Great Lakes since jurisdiction over them falls under both Canadian and United States authorities.
There is just one other item I wish to allude to briefly, Mr. Speaker, and that is the recent tragedy concerning the sinking of the Emerald Straits, a steel-hulled tug, lost off Vancouver Island. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has promised a complete investigation into this particular tragedy, but according to investigations carried on over a considerable length of time we find that in a period of nine years 24 of these steel-hulled vessels have been sunk. Some of them have sunk in as little as 13 seconds, and the loss of life involved has been approximately triple the loss of life experienced in similar accidents involving wooden-hulled vessels.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
As the minister indicated earlier an investigation is being carried out by a board of review. The Emerald Straits is to be raised. However, I should like to leave the suggestion that perhaps in the further amendments to the Canada Shipping Act some regulations could be introduced in respect of improved construction of steel-hulled vessels so that tragedies of this type might be avoided. I would hope that if such amendments are not made that certainly the minister would articulate regulations covering this aspect because he has the power to do so.
That is all I have to say about this particular bill this evening. I hope I have indicated there is concern by members of this party about some of the matters covered by the act. I hope we will have an opportunity to go into these things in greater detail when the bill is finally before the Transport Committee for consideration.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look at this bill. The terms are pretty good. It is a bill of what one might call the housekeeping variety. So far as I and the group I represent in this house are concerned we are pretty much in accord with the bill. There are, however, some minor details with which we should like to deal when the bill reaches the committee. We shall do so at that time. There would appear to be some errors of omission in respect of this bill because there are some things which I think the minister could have presented as amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.

For a long time now there has been a considerable amount of difficulty on that section of the Great Lakes under Canadian jurisdiction as well as on other waters which come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act. During the last few years in the summer months there has been a great increase in the number of pleasure boats, be they small cruisers, sail boats or others.
In all the minor waters of Canada, as they are referred to in the act, the number of boats has increased greatly. On Lake Erie alone, at a place called Port Rowan, there are as many as 5,000 boats in the area. During the summer months when a great many people are out in these boats there are a number of accidents and a consequent loss of life. This is of considerable concern, as is the loss of life on the highways. Generally speaking the highway problem comes under provincial jurisdiction but under the Canada Shipping Act the Department of Transport has taken unto itself control over the minor waters of Canada. This has a direct relationship to the matters we are discussing here.
For the number of years I have been in this house I have continually mentioned this matter. I have requested that the department take a greater degree of responsibility for safety on the Great Lakes and on the inland waters of Canada during the summer months. I am rather gratified to say that over the years a number of amendments have been made to the Canada Shipping Act with regard to certain safety regulations and other related things. I have a suggestion I should like to make and I hope that when this bill goes to the committee consideration may be given to it.
During the summer months, particularly in the province of Ontario but I suspect to a lesser but very considerable degree in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, the question of pleasure boats and the use thereof is of major concern. Over the years the Department of Transport and the respective ministers have made recommendations for changes to the act which certainly have provided a number of important safety features. These have involved such things as the use of life jackets and the provision of booklets on how boats should be operated on these inland waters in order to prevent accidents.
All these changes have been very helpful but one major problem still remains. In slimmer resort areas, which very often are areas not heavily populated on a year around basis
May 27, 1969

but which have a temporary population in the summer months, when an accident takes place there is the problem of how to get in touch with the authorities who can help save lives. In respect of water accidents, as is said, time is of the essence. Over the years we have heard the excuse given by the officials of the Department of Transport that all one need do is phone the R.C.A.F. Trenton, the provincial police or somebody else. The average person, however, does not know about this. If an accident should take place in a major city like the great city of Toronto or some other similar place, there is no problem in getting in touch with someone who is responsible. The situation is quite different, however, in some of the small summer resorts where there is perhaps only one policeman or none at all and the people do not know who to contact if a boat should upset or catch fire or if some other accident should occur. Nobody knows what to do. It might be helpful if people knew they could contact such organizations as the provincial police or perhaps the search and rescue unit at Trenton.
I had hoped, when these amendments were presented, something would be done to provide a remedy for this situation. I hope when the bill reaches the committee a recommendation similar to the one which I shall propose might be considered. One of the suggestions I would propose is one I have made before on a number of occasions. This involves the employment of university students. Goodness knows at the present time university students are in need of jobs to help them continue with their education. During the summer months, from the middle of June to the middle of September, university students might be given jobs at these summer resort areas. After a brief period of training the students could be appointed to be at the water areas of the summer resorts at all times so that if anything should happen they would know who to call on for help. The volunteer power boat squadrons do a wonderful job in this regard. The student would be able to contact this squadron, the provincial police, the R.C.M.P. or some other authority.
In addition, perhaps the student could help enforce the existing regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. At the present time much of this work is left to the R.C.M.P. The R.C.M.P. has a great many other duties, and I think perhaps more important duties to perform. This would seem to be the type of operation a student appointee could carry out during the summer months. He could see that the safety regulations are being observed and
Canada Shipping Act
perhaps could be given authority to help enforce some of these regulations, particularly in heavily populated areas where boats are operated often at excessive speeds. There would appear to be little control over the speed of boats in harbours and waters where people are swimming or operating canoes and sailboats.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I am sorry to say that we do have young people who have little regard for the safety of others, who are out to show off, zipping up and down in high-speed power boats. This is very dangerous. I think this is a matter that could very well be regulated by the government. Without elaborating further, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the details could be worked out.
I think the general principle should be this. In areas of Canada with inland waters where there are large summer populations, many of whom have boats, a number of students could be employed in a safety program. These would be seasonal jobs. Our university students need jobs, particularly this year when there is a cutting down of the employment of students. Lengthy training would not be needed for such a program; several days would be quite adequate. There would be plenty of time to do it, because the holiday season has not yet started. I hope the government will pay some attention to this proposal.
I think these people should be given jurisdiction in certain areas-some places, of course, would require more supervision than others-to act as contacts in case of an accident. They would be able to get in touch with existing agencies such as the R.C.A.F., provincial police, power squadrons and the like. At the same time they could check privately owned boats in the area and make sure that existing regulations under the Canada Shipping Act were enforced. I think this is very important.
We have had this year a great deal of trouble finding employment for our students during the summer months. They need the money. Under such a program they would be performing a very useful function. I hope the government will consider this proposal. When the bill goes to the transport committee, as it will very shortly, I hope the government, if it does not move amendments itself, will accept amendments in this regard.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up some of the problems posed by my colleague the

May 27, 1969
Canada Shipping Act
hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) with regard to the matter of insurance and unlimited liability. I assume that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is piloting this bill through the house in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), in whose name the bill is on the order paper.
If the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act concerning unlimited liability are being lifted, it seems to me that the insurance provisions regarding limited liability will need very high ceilings. To realize this one has only to consider the experience in Great Britain and the multi-millions it has* cost the government of that country, as well as the experience off the coast of California and the multi-millions it has cost that state and the federal government.
We have only to consider what would happen if a super-tanker broke up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. If the Minister of Fisheries thinks he now has trouble in the maritimes with regard to fisheries, I ask him to imagine the trouble that would be caused in an inland water such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence if a super-tanker were to break up.
I think all members of the house would be interested in hearing from the minister what the government has in mind regarding insurance coverage for shipping of the supertanker category with a cargo-carrying capacity of 150,000 or 200,000 tons that arrives at salt water ports in Canada. One can imagine what would happen at the new super port of Roberts Bank, British Columbia, if one of these vessels were to meet with a catastrophe.
We are dealing with the question of unlimited liability, and let me give this example. I drive my car, which carries something approaching $250,000 public liability insurance. But you and I, Mr. Speaker, both know that there is something a great deal more valuable than the car, namely myself. I am a little leery about legal limitations placed upon insurance liability which use as a criteria the value of the carrier and its cargo. If unlimited liability insurance is not to be imposed, surely the limits of liability will need to be very high. This is surely an area wherein government foresight can provide for any unexpected circumstances that may arise.
I invite the minister to tell us what the government has in mind regarding insurance, particularly in respect of super-tankers and vessels carrying cargoes that are of a pollutant nature. This is surely not something in respect of which we can just wait until an accident happens. The very nature of some of

our salt-water ports in Canada, some of which are a great distance inland, requires some sort of extra precaution.
I also suggest to the minister-he may be able to inform us on this-that there is validity in government participation in marine insurance with shipping companies, international insurance companies and carriers of deep sea cargoes, particularly in respect of massive vessels, to assist in the enlarging of so-called limited liability.
We would be very interested in hearing from the minister what kind of research and investigation has gone into this matter, particularly in light of the unfortunate experience in two other countries. Surely, in light of the kind of facilities we envisage building, and in light of the inland shipping waterways which undoubtedly 10 or 20 years from now will be enlarged to handle ever larger vessels which will carry cargoes of a pollutant nature, we require of the government enough foresight to make regulations and laws that do not just throw out this unlimited liability business, forgetting the kind of liability these carriers of cargo have to the public.
It is not sufficient to wait until an incident happens and then rely on the public purse to pay for all the damages. I invite the minister to let us know now what proposals he or the Minister of Transport have in connection with insurance for the new and enlarged kind of cargo-carrying vessels we have now and will have to a larger degree in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-195, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, before this bill passes I am sure the minister wants to make some comments. I would gladly yield the floor to the minister in order that he may make those comments.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will explain this bill very briefly. It involves several amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The principal amendment is one that would raise the ceiling of an individual
May 27, 1969	COMMONS
loan from $10,000 to $25,000. The expiry date of the act is extended by one year to June 30, 1971, and the third provision increases the fund which the government holds to guarantee these loans. The fund for the new period is established for $10 million in respect of chartered banks and for $10 million in respect of other lenders. Those are the principal changes.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The most important recommendation, that of raising the ceiling to $25,000, was made as a result of submissions directed to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, and to the federal government by the provincial ministers of fisheries to the effect that the optimum size of fishing boats and of fishing gear today involves costs well in excess of $10,000, and sometimes in excess of $25,000. These are the main reasons for the changes.


Mark Willson Rose: I did
not intend to speak on this bill this evening because I thought that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who wanted to speak on it, would be here to do so. But unfortunately the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry is meeting this evening and, in fact, I am rather surprised that the minister is not present at the meeting. I know that the hon. member for Skeena wanted to raise a number of points, but perhaps I can raise them briefly since he is not here to speak on the bill.
Certainly when the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry visited the west coast, its members heard many representations to support the idea of raising the loan limit from $10,000 to $25,000. In fact, there were suggestions that it might be raised even higher. There are a couple of problems associated with this because, in spite of the fact that the loan provisions have been raised from $10,000 to $25,000, the fishermen are finding extreme difficulty in receiving any kind of service through the lending agencies as a result of the particular conditions specified in the Fishery Improvement Loan Act.
It is all very well to raise the loan limit from $10,000 to $25,000. However, if you cannot borrow money from the lending agencies because the interest rate is not sufficiently attractive, then it seems to me that this act tends to be mere window dressing. It is all very well to have this figure established for a loan and it looks great, but if you cannot borrow that money what is the good of it?
DEBATES	9135
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act The problem is further complicated by the fact that many of the vessels in British Columbia are under the control of the fishing companies, that is the fishing companies have advanced loans to fishermen to finance these vessels. As a result, the fishermen are required to deliver their catch to a particular fishing company. Since the situation in B.C. is such that we have really only two large fishing companies left, the problem is even further intensified. There is a great fear among the fishermen that vertical integration will take place and perhaps in future there will only be one agency through which they may be able to market their fish. They are concerned, when this situation prevails, about their position with regard to marketing and the position which they may be forced to take with regard to prices.
Many of the boats-by the fishing industry's own count 2,094-are controlled by the fishing companies. The fishing companies have advanced loans in order to finance these boats. In some cases the boats are owned outright by the fishing companies and leased to the fishermen or the fishing companies have financed them. Since such is the situation, many of the fishermen are concerned about the fact that they are too closely connected with the companies and that they are indebted to them. They would like to be free of this particular obligation, and one way of freeing them is to allow the fisheries improvement loan to be granted not only for the financing of vessels but also for the refinancing of vessels. If the fishery improvement loan could be used to refinance through a disinterested source the vessel of a fisherman who has a loan with a fishing company, then he would have less obligation to that particular fishing company.
The minister explained in the committee today that for various reasons, because of regulations either of the Treasury Board or of the Department of Finance I have forgotten at the moment which, the refinancing of vessels was impossible and was not government policy. However, I really feel that not enough effort and thought have gone into exploring whether or not that would be possible in a situation such as I have described. It seems to me that if the fishery improvement loan is not available through the lending organizations for refinancing it has very limited use, and since it has a very limited use one or two things could happen. Perhaps there could be a provision, such as exists in
May 27, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act the regulations of C.M.H.C., enabling the government to make direct loans for the financing and refinancing of vessels. The minister hinted today that such direct loans were possible for the building of new vessels. It seems to me that such a provision might be extremely useful for refinancing vessels, if we are sincere, as the minister himself said speaking recently at U3.C., when we say that we really do not want company domination of the fishing industry. The minister stated-and I hope I do not imply anything that he did not mean-that he would have no objection if the companies remained in control of the processing part of the operation and the fishermen were responsible for the fishing. This is one possibility, that direct loans may be granted to the fishermen not only for the building of new boats but for the financing and refinancing of existing boats so that they can get out from under what they consider to be unfair domination and company control.
The other possibility is that in order to overcome the limitations of the particular interest rates which the lending institutions do not find attractive enough at which to lend money for this purpose, it would not seem beyond the realms of possibility for the federal government to deposit funds in various banks, credit unions and other lending agencies concerned with this industry and earmark them for a specific purpose at the interest rate outlined in the bill.
There are probably a number of other items that could be brought up tonight in this debate. I am sorry that my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, is not here to bring these matters forward. However, I think the two items I mentioned are perhaps the most pressing ones to be discussed at this time, so I will not speak on this matter any further.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that it was not possible for me to be here when the minister made his statement on Bill C-195 but, as he is aware, the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry is sitting at this moment. Therefore, I apologize to him for my inability to be present when he introduced the bill.
It is a pleasure to express the approval of my party of Bill C-195. We are pleased to see the introduction of the most important clause of the bill raising the ceiling on loans to $25,000 because this means that the amendment which we proposed to Bill C-151 in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on February 6 will now become law. At the same time we regret that the government has taken

as long as it has to bring this matter before the house. The need for raising the ceiling on loans has been apparent for some-time and was well known, at least to the opposition, at the time when the earlier amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in Bill C-151 were given first reading on December 20 of last year. The amendments which are now before us, Mr. Speaker should have been introduced at that time. The need was known. The opportunity to change the bill was there. Why were these provisions not included?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The earlier bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Was the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) not consulted to see whether other amendments should have been introduced at the same time? It is easy to suspect that the officials of the Finance Department, whose knowledge of the problems of fishermen is probably minimal, were so concerned with allowing interest rates on loans under this act to jump from 5 per cent to the going market rate that they completely disregarded whether or not the loans actually met the needs parliament intended them to meet.
Then, in February, we saw the minister's well meaning but rather awkward attempts to retrieve his earlier fumble. In fact, clause one of the bill now before us is word for word the amendment the minister tried unsuccessfully to introduce in committee three months ago. Two fumbles and three months later we have this measure before us.
The government house leader is constantly harping about legislative schedules. The cabinet uses the time required for measures to be debated in the house as an excuse, though a feeble one, for its procrastination on matters of bread and butter importance to the people of Canada. Yet here we have an example of the government itself wasting the time of this house by introducing two measures where one would have been sufficient. The minister must be a frustrating skipper, for we find him here tacking back and forth over the same waters. We hope he will see the way clear soon to piloting our way on the longer and harder courses we all know we will have to take to establish a more thriving and a healthier fishing industry.
The effects of the minister's actions in having to go through the unnecessary ritual of amending the same statute twice in a session reach beyond parliament. The minister had told us that it is principally fishermen from his own province who use the loans provided
May 27. 19S9
under this act. I ask him how many of his people took out loans under the old maximum, not because these loans met their needs but because they were limited by statute to the smaller amount? How many men in British Columbia are fishing this summer with less adequate equipment than they might have owned had they been able tb get more extensive credit in the first three months since February 27, when today's amendments would have received Royal Assent, had Bill C-151 included the amendments we are now considering?
I should like to now turn my attention to the factors which have forced the government to raise the ceiling on the loans it will guarantee. We all know the fundamental reason-inflation. Since 1960 prices have increased by 23 points. This is a crippling rate of price increase, and is especially so to those fishermen caught in the squeeze between higher cost equipment, higher cost money, and lower priced products. What is particularly striking, too, is the fact that 20 points of the 23 point increase have come into effect since this govermnent took power. And more relevant to this measure, an increase of a full 15 points has taken effect since the ceiling on loans under this bill was introduced in 1965. Much of the necessity for this rise in the amounts the government will guarantee flows directly from the inadequate and ineffective action this government has taken with regard to inflation. Hiding behind the comparisons the Minister of Finance makes with other countries, hiding behind studies, hiding behind the platitudes and bleating of white papers, this government has done nothing effective to stem galloping price rises.
Having pointed out that the recent bad record of the government in controlling inflation will to a considerable degree eat away the increases we are being asked to authorize, it is only fair to say that the balance of the increases will be welcomed by fishermen wanting to raise the standards of their equipment.
We are all familiar with the changes and modernization which are going on in our fishing industry. On February 6 officials of the department provided the committee with extensive tables outlining current capital costs which fishermen must incur in order to establish themselves. And fishermen already in business are faced with ever increasing demands on their capital funds in order to modernize as quickly as they must.
In this house and in committee, I outlined the magnitude of the problems faced by east
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act coast fishermen moving into the offshore fisheries. A new vessel of up to 45 feet in length costs at least $1,000 per foot; for vessels of greater length the per foot cost can escalate rapidly as the need for sophisticated electronic gear increases.
And where do these factors leave the proposal of the minister to increase the ceiling to $25,000? Since February, when I proposed a ceiling of $25,000, I have come to believe that these loans will be of less value than we would like to think they will be to the man wanting to become a fully equipped and competitive fisherman. When we are in committee I propose we study the possibility of raising the ceiling on the amount the government will guarantee to a more realistic level, perhaps in the order of $50,000. I believe that the minister himself, judging by his statements in the committee today, is aware that the source of funds presently available to our fishermen for modernization and expansion is inadequate and that the high cost of modern equipment means that some alternative source such as direct federal loans must be made available if fishermen are to expand in this important primary industry.
I have one regret with regard to this bill. On February 6, one of the amendments I suggested was that loans be repayable in full in not more than 15 years. The minister concurred with our proposal that the ceiling on loans be raised; I am sorry he was unable to see his way clear to lengthening the repayment term as well.
I can see no reason for objecting to this modest proposal. The minister himself drew attention to the exemplary record of fishermen in repaying loans made to them under this act. My suggestion involved no actual or potential expenditure of government funds except in cases of the occasional default in repayment. As we know, such cases are very rare; it is quite exceptional for the government to be called upon to repay any of these debts owed by fishermen. The lengthening of the repayment term would in no way prevent fishermen repaying their loans in a shorter period than the proposed maximum of 15 years.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In addition, I feel there are several factors pointing to the need for a longer term of repayment. The returns from fishing, as we all know, vary from season to season. Allowing the longer term for repayment would give fishermen the margin of flexibility to enable

9138	COMMONS
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act them to pay off loans with less risk of being caught by a few seasons of lower income.
In addition to the variations in catch caused by nature we have other threats today to the income of fishermen. Unsettled markets are not a new problem, but the fact that the problem is old in no way diminishes its seriousness. As we have seen in Newfoundland, we must now face the man-made problem of pollution which is ruining the fishing grounds and the incomes of the fishermen who use them.
In this regard I am very much concerned over the proposals that have been made by the federal Department of Fisheries to assist these fishermen. It is my understanding that an arrangement has been made whereby loans will be granted to aid those fishermen whose livelihood has been taken away from them.
If, Mr. Speaker, you should drive your car into the rear end of another automobile and thereby do it damage, the man whose car you damage would not ask you to lend him the money to fix his automobile; he would ask you to repay him for the damage which you caused. In this instance pollution caused by man-by a company, according to the minister's statement-has been responsible for some time for destroying the income of more than 400 fishermen in Newfoundland. Therefore, I urge the minister carefully to consider the program which was originally initiated as a means of providing support to these people who, through no fault of their own, now find their livelihood taken away from them.
I bring these matters to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to underline the need for an extension of the period within which loans may be repaid. To have a series of poor catches, or a disaster such as we have seen at Placentia Bay, or a period of unsettled markets, all of which force men to sacrifice capital equipment to meet bank loan terms that are more stringent than they need be in terms of the repayment period, just does not make sense.
As the motion before us is to send this bill to committee, I think it only fair to give the minister an indication of one aspect of this whole problem upon which I hope he will comment in committee. The minister has explained that it is the west coast fishermen who use this plan, that the Atlantic provinces and Quebec fishermen have preferred to use provincial loan and grant programs. At the same time, the minister agreed that the advertising the federal government does in the east to publicize the opportunities it offers
[Mr. Crouse 1
DEBATES	May 27, 1969
our fishermen has not been effective. This is due to the limited use that our Atlantic coast fishermen have made of this program. On several occasion in February when we were considering Bill C-151 the minister spoke of the need to upgrade the information services surrounding this program. At the time of third reading he closed his remarks in this regard with these words, as reported at page 5440 of Hansard for February 12 last:
But I think my department must take an initiative itself by publicizing the availability of loans under the federal act.
We will be interested to know in some detail in committee exactly what initiatives the minister has taken in the last three and a half months to make the benefits of this plan known to fishermen, especially those in the Atlantic provinces and in the province of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will say just a few words on the bill before us tonight, the purpose of which is to help Canadian fishermen and to increase the government guaranteed loans from $10,000 to $25,000. In fact, Bill C-195 recommends the following:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the house the present measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to increase the maximum loan amount to a fisherman from ten thousand dollars to twenty-five thousand dollars, and to establish a new period during which the Minister of Finance may guarantee loans made by banks and other lenders to fishermen and to limit his maximum liability during the new period to ten million dollars for each type of lender.
That matter will probably be considered in committee as soon as the house has approved it, for it is important to know what categories of lenders are authorized. If there are ten categories of lenders, at $10 million per category, that would mean $100 million. So the government must state clearly what it means by its maximum liability of $10 million for each category of lenders.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, Canadian fishermen from western Canada, the Mari-times, Quebec or New Brunswick, represent a class of our society that did not always get a fair treatment from federal authorities. We know that in Quebec and in other provinces, loans can be made under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has nevertheless a very important part to play with regard to Canadian fisheries, and this bill should be of some help to Canadian fishermen, from western or eastern Canada.
May 27, 1969	COMMONS
Any measure proposed by the government in order to help fishermen deserves to be considered and read by all members.
So, we of the Ralliement creditiste, are happy to see the government introduce a bill the purpose of which is to help Canadian fishermen from the west as well as from the east.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly easy at the outset to see that the government house leader is back in control of things because already this evening two items of business have been fouled up and confused. It is a matter of regret that the fisheries committee is meeting tonight to consider the estimates of the Department of Fisheries while we are also required to be here to deal with a legislative item under the jurisdiction of the minister. This accounts for part of the hurrying and scurrying back and forth between here and the west block in order properly to look at the item before us. It also accounts for the absence from the house this evening of members who would otherwise be here because of their interest in fisheries matters; they are trying to attend to two items at the same time.
On the surface, the bill before us looks good. It increases the amount of money available to fishermen for certain purposes and extends the period for which loans may be made. Yet underneath it all, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is very misleading and needs extensive examination. From my reading of the bill it seems, when one considers the present act, that the government has given no thought to allowing fishermen to refinance their current indebtedness for boats or equipment and thus extricate themselves from the clutches of fishing companies. When the fisheries committee recently held a series of meetings on the west coast that was one of the major points brought to its attention. Many of those making presentations asked the government to make available to fishermen the opportunity to refinance existing debts in order to enable individual fishermen to become free agents. Since this bill contains no such provision, that indicates to me the government does not desire to help the fishermen escape from the clutches of the fishing companies on the west coast. On the other hand, it indicates a desire to perpetuate a system of feudalism which ties the individual fisherman so tightly to the operations of the fishing company that he loses those freedoms and rights the people of this society have.
DEBATES	9139
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
On reading the conditions of a typical sales agreement between a fishing company and a fisherman on the west coast it appears that in many cases the fisherman becomes nothing more than a serf. One of the conditions of such conditional sales agreement, and I paraphrase, is that the individual financing the fishing boat or fishing gear with moneys advanced by the fishing company shall deliver his fish catch to that fishing company at whatever place the fishing company may designate. The fisherman may not offer his fish for sale to anybody else, not even to a cash buyer who may pay higher prices for the fish; he must deliver his catch to that company at prices established by that company and at no other prices. Surely, such provision is an infringement of basic freedoms.
The minister ought to recognize such provisions as infringing on the rights of individuals. Surely, fishermen have the right to refinance their debts and become free agents. Surely, they can sell their fish for the highest prices and thus advance their own economic well being.
The loan made under the conditional sales agreement is a demand loan, incidentally, repayable whenever the company wants its money, for whatever reason. Another condition of the typical sales agreement entered into originally for the purchasing of the boat relates to the purchase of additional fishing gear, supplies, equipment, grub, gasoline and repairs at the company shipyard as well as other sundry items. These charges are added to the original debt the fishermen incurred in the main conditional sales agreement.
Because of restrictions applying in the fishing industry, especially the salmon fishing industry, and because fishermen often are allowed to fish on only one or two days a week owing to conservation measures and other factors, many fishermen, especially native Indians who face economic difficulty in the best of times, at the end of the fishing season find themselves more indebted to the company than they were at the beginning of the season. Since this indebtedness is brought about in some degree by the structure of the conditional sales agreement, which in my submission constitutes an infringement of the rights of fishermen, and since the minister has not seen fit to correct the situation, it seems obvious that the minister is not interested in providing assistance to our fishermen.
May 27, 1989

apply to fishing? I am not advancing the argument that we should lift the interest rate under this act or the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I merely put forward the proposition there seems to be a conflict of view on the part of this government with respect to different loans.
On the one hand, the government says lift the ceiling and interest rates will go down. On the other hand, they say they will keep the ceiling on interest rates. As a consequence no help is provided because private institutions will not lend money at the low interest rate. The government should do something which would be of assistance to not only fishermen but farmers as well because they are subjected to the same type of interest structure.
As primary producers, fishermen are one of the few if not the only group in our society that has relatively little or no control over their economic position. They have no control over the prices charged to them for goods and supplies, gasoline,wood and other items used to build a boat. That is determined by someone else. They have little control over the prices paid for the product they catch in so far as the international market is concerned. That is done by a conspiracy under a price fixing arrangement sanctioned under the Combines Investigation Act. He has little control over the prices paid to him by the fishing company in terms of establishing a negotiated price for his fish. This is always difficult to establish.
In the co-operative system, the fisherman has a larger degree of control over the prices he will receive because he owns the production unit. He owns the cannery, the reduction plant and the distribution system emanating from the co-op. All of the so-called profits or surpluses are returned to the fisherman. Apart from that he has relatively little control over his economic position. He is squeezed at the selling price end and at the buying price end.
The government should recognize the primary producer, especially in the fisheries by setting up a government fund under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to lend money directly to him, at the interest rate of or 7| per cent or at a reasonable interest rate. The government has already decided that is a reasonable interest rate and this has been approved by order-in-council. The government should set up this fund toi provide money to individuals so that they may finance and advance themselves properly in the fishing industry, or re-finance their position.
The Patent Act
I look forward to the time when we can explore in greater detail and informality the propositions contained in this bill and any amendments put before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for Mr. Bas-ford) moved: that Bill C-194, to amend the Patent Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


John Gilbert: When one looks at Bill C-194, one appreciates how innocuous it is. I almost hesitate to speak on this matter. I notice it was introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) in March of this year when Bill C-1G2, the amendments to the Patent Act concerning drug prices, was passed. During that debate I referred to the minister as the shadow boxing champion of Canada. I did so because at that time the bill did little or nothing to reduce drug prices. I pointed out that the minister had done little or nothing with regard to consumer prices or to the problems of foreign ownership. In addition to those items I have mentioned, he has permitted the slave clauses to remain in professional and amateur sports contracts. He has done nothing to bring the Combines Investigation Act forward for review by this house and for action.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
When I read this bill, the purpose of which is to increase the fees with regard to applications for patents, it makes me realize that the Minister has more than earned the title of shadow boxing champion of Canada. Here we have a minister who could do so much in the field of patents. With respect to drugs alone 95 per cent of patents are held by United States companies. There has been a great deal of talk about changing the 17 year rule to a 10 year or 7 year rule in order to break monopolies and reduce the prices of drugs, but this is the feeble effort by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to meet some of these challenging problems. It has really made me stand in my place tonight and repeat to the minister that he is the shadow boxing champion of Canada.

May 27. 1969
The Patent Act


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into a debate on some of the points that were raised by the previous speaker. However, I do want to say that the minister has done a tremendous job introducing legislation to protect the Canadian consumers, and some of the remarks made here tonight were unwarranted.
I am very pleased to say a few words about this bill on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). As mentioned in the explanatory notes to Bill C-194, the object of this amendment is to remove from the Patent Act all statutory provisions relating to fees required in proceedings taken under the Patent Act, and to replace these with a simple statutory authority that will permit such fees to be prescribed by Governor in Council.
The Royal Commission on Government Organization, the Glassco Commission, recommended that patent fees should cover "at least the total of all costs, direct and indirect, incurred in performing the service." These indirect costs include provision for accommodation of the Patent Office and superannuation costs which do not at present appear in departmental estimates.
That is principle to which the government subscribes. It necessitates a periodic review of fees, and continuing fee revisions as may be required. At the present time, as many of the fees are embodied in section 75 of the Patent Act, any fee revision must be brought before parliament, with the result that valuable time must be taken from more urgent matters before the house. Most statutes which authorize the levying of fees for services give the Governor in Council authority to establish the fees and to revise them from time to time as necessary.
In 1964 the Appropriation Act authorized the Governor in Council to revise the fee structure under the Patent Act, and the present structure dates from that time. I think there would be general agreement in the house that it is better practice not to use the Appropriation Act to make this kind of legislative change. May I add that the Royal Commission on Patents, Copyright and Industrial Designs recommended changes of the kind now proposed in this bill. As regards the rest of the Patent Act, I would like to say it is under thorough study by the Economic Council of Canada and that we anticipate a report

from them within a year. After the government receives that report it will give it a thorough study with a view to bringing in any other changes necessary, or perhaps even a new bill.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note that this bill, C-194, is to amend the Patent Act. Since I have a complaint which has to do with patents and the execution of patents I feel that this is a good time to mention it. It has nothing to do with the explanatory notes to Bill C-194. I note that these say:
The purpose of this bill is to remove from the Patent Act the present provisions thereof fixing the fees to be paid on the filing of applications or the taking of other proceedings under the act, and to provide authority for the making of rules under the act respecting the fees that may be charged and their payment.
The matter I wish to bring up relates to the infringement of patents. It has been brought to my attention by the people in charge of the local arena in my home town, the Napanee and District Memorial Arena, that some time ago they bought an ice rink resurfacing machine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is out of order. He is not speaking about the bill that is actually before the house.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, how could I be out of order when I am bringing up a subject that concerns the Patent Act?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I want to remind the hon. member that the explanatory notes mention, and I quote:
The purpose of this bill is to remove from the Patent Act the present provisions thereof fixing the fees to be paid on the filing of applications or the taking of other proceedings under the act-
Therefore, I think the hon. member is out of order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, at what time will this house approve of my bringing up this subject? Under what category would I have to bring it up?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When we are studying the amendment to the act, or rather the estimates of the department.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: At what time will we be studying the amendment to the act then?
May 27, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. In accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is: "That this house do now adjourn."



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a matter of order to ask, through you, for the consent of the house and the government, considering the indicated business for this evening included the vitally important matter of housing, to the house sitting on for a length of time for the minister to make his opening remarks with respect to the bill or bills with which it is his intention to proceed. I see him shaking his head, indicating he is not interested in housing.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Frank Howard: I am only putting forward this proposition so that the country and the members of the house will have an opportunity to study his views overnight and be in a position to comment on them tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, a more sensible proposition than that advanced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would be that we give second reading to the bill amending the Patent Act, so that the minister in charge of housing and other hon. members might have a full day tomorrow to speak on the amendments to the National Housing Act. If the house would give that agreement we might continue until the second reading of the bill with respect to the Patent Act has been completed.


Frank Howard: If the house leader would tie in with that suggestion the assurance the opening statement of the minister in charge of housing would be given tonight we would be agreeable. Housing is a lot more important than the silly bill we have before us now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).
DEBATES	9143
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, every year, in Canada, and for a certain number of years, about 40,000 crimes with violence are reported to the police. In the majority of cases, the offenders are arrested, tried and imprisoned. Thus, they pay their so-called debt to society.
Our police corps, our government officers devote a great deal of time, effort and money to prevent crime, to capture the offender and then to rehabilitate him. Unfortunately, we have paid so far very little attention to the victims of criminal acts in Canada.
If the offender must pay his debt to society, it would be proper, I think, for society, in return, to compensate in some way that person or those who are victims of the criminal act of this offender. I think that the Canadian government should study carefully the report prepared on this subject by the Faculty of Law of Osgoode Hall.
Several countries, including New Zealand and Great Britain, several American States, namely California, New York and Massachusetts, have adopted laws providing for the payment of a compensation to the victims of criminal acts.
I feel that Canada should follow suit. Besides, several Canadian provinces guarantee a certain sum of money to the widow of a man killed by a non-insured driver. The legislators were right to provide for the payment of a compensation in such a case. They should now do the same for the victims of the most dreadful crimes afflicting our society.
Of course, financial compensation will not redress all the wrong suffered. I have precisely in mind the case of a personal friend who was the victim of a criminal act. In his case the wrong is immeasurable and irreparable. His widow will probably receive a certain financial compensation but this is little in relation to the loss suffered. Still, it would have been shocking if she had received nothing in such a case, since she has four young children.
May 27, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
May I be allowed an aside, since I want to pay tribute to Mr. Jacques Bernier, a fellow-lawyer, a personal friend, and the former executive assistant of the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was killed at Oka, last April, by a man who was driving while impaired, who had no driving license since it had been suspended following three serious automobile accidents which had happened in similar conditions, when he was drunk. I think that in the case of this man who took the life of Mr. Jacques Bernier, it is a criminal offence.
I want to put on record that Mr. Jacques Bernier, a young Quebecer, a bright mind and an undisputably talented man, spent more than a year of his short life working here in Ottawa, within the federal government, more especially under the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen).
During that short period, he proved eloquently that a young competent French Canadian, who does not suffer from the complex of the vanquished, can compel recognition in Ottawa and earn the respect and the admiration of all those for whom and with whom he works.
Mr. Jacques Bernier, 30 years old, is a highway victim. His wife and his young children are deprived of a beloved one. Our country has lost a young man with a brilliant future. He was about to be appointed assistant deputy minister in the Quebec Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Jacques Bernier enjoyed the friendship of businessmen as renowned as Messrs. Jean-Louis Levesque and Paul Desmarais, of Quebec politicians as well-known as the Hon. Jean-Paul Beaudry and Mario Beaulieu, of Canadian politicians as important as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Richardson).
With his talent, his love of work and the assistance of his friends, he could have had an enviable career in the world of business or in politics. He is a victim of a criminal act. The compensation that the government may decide on, will evidently not repair the damage caused.
I have given you this example to show how important it is to take care of the victims of criminal acts, so that even if the persons have passed away, their wife and children can receive an indemnity from society and continue to live in better conditions, that is better than if nothing had been provided for them in such circumstances.
	Till


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, you have already guessed that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and myself have much sympathy, not only for the particular case of which the hon. member for Papineau spoke, but also for the principle outlined by him.
The department of Justice already knows that legislation exists, not only abroad, but even here in Canada, in some provinces to give compensation to victims. I shall refer to Ontario, Saskatchewan British Columbia and even Quebec, where at the present time under a special legislation compensation is granted to the victims of hit-and-run drivers or criminal people.
But I will say more. The minister intends to go much further, for he wants the attorneys general of the provinces to deal with this very important problem, namely the compensation of the victims of criminal people.
Compensation means first of all civil damages and thus comes under provincial jurisdiction. That does not mean the Minister of Justice thinks that the federal government holds a certain responsibility as well, but only that the problem can be solved jointly with the provinces.
Then, at the next conferences with the provincial attorneys general, the Minister of Justice intends to put before them this very vital, essential and actual problem of the need to provide for this compensation, and also to refer it to the new committee on the uniformization of legislation in order to find a solution to it.
In the particular case now before us, I can say to the hon. member for Papineau that the minister and I have as much sympathy as he has for this victim and all the others.



AIR POLLUTION-COAL DUST FROM SHIPMENTS THROUGH VANCOUVER HARBOUR

Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, the other afternoon I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) regarding the matter of possible coal dust air pollution emanating from a projected expansion of Neptune Terminals on National Harbours Board property in the Burrard Inlet area of the lower mainland of British Columbia. I asked the minister to assure the house that coal dust pollution from this planned operation would not be tolerated.
May 27, 1989	COMMONS
First of all, on behalf of my constituents I want to thank the minister most sincerely for his prompt action the other day in directing National Harbours Board officials to end their open burning of refuse in the area. This is action in the right direction. But there is continuous, serious concern and alarm that at least one company in the area, Neptune Terminals, are equipping themselves to handle the bulk shipment of coal but that the engineers may have made insufficient allowances for pollution control techniques. I hope that the fears of many are completely unfounded. Nobody wants to restrict a good enterprise which is attempting to establish itself in this country. But I hope that assurances can be given in this regard.
It must be the paradox of the age that technology can carry men to the moon while back here on good old earth we are in the process of making the environment unliveable because of air and other types of pollution. Modern technology can mine coal with equipment handling 200 tons a minute, carry it by efficient unit trains to the coast and load it aboard 150,000 ton super ships, but apparently that same technology can provide no firm guarantees that the loading and unloading operations of coal and other commodities will be clean and pollution-free. Apparently, these kind of guarantees are impossible to obtain. The technology which creates pollution in Canada must be matched by the technology which controls pollution. Surely, we have reached the point where adequate pollution control must be regarded as essential in respect of enterprises doing business whether it be in British Columbia or Newfoundland.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Wherever the federal government has power and jurisdiction, only one rule should apply to industry-clean up or shut down. If possible, we should move to enact legislation which will specifically empower the federal government to enforce clean air, clean soil and clean water standards in all areas under federal jurisdiction. We have seen encouraging progress made by the federal government during this session in these areas.
In saying this, I am aware of the difficulties which may exist in the matter of regulating air pollution in the absence of any single authority empowered to set and to enforce standards. In the area under question, which I know so well, the city of Vancouver has recently passed a very strict by-law but this of
DEBATES	9145
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion course, is not effective outside city boundaries, and pollution does not respect boundaries.
The by-laws of the three North Shore municipalities are either inadequate or nonexistent. The regional district does not have pollution controls as one of its functions, and the provincial pollution control board has not addressed itself completely to the problem.
I ask the federal government to seek practical solutions for itself and its agencies whereby they can clean up operations on land controlled by them. It is to be hoped that local governments on the lower mainland will take action through their regional district. The federal government could give strength to this concept by indicating that its agencies will co-operate in the setting of standards and the enforcement of them by the regional district and will comply with any regulatory bylaws, even though not technically bound by them.
It may be that tonight the minister can provide solid assurances that coal-dust pollution will not in fact take place in the projected Neptune Terminal operation. Beyond this, however, lies the question whether, particularly in an expanding, growing area like the lower mainland, chronically pollution prone industries should be permitted close to major population centres unless they clean up. We must ask ourselves whether, from a pollution standpoint in the years to come or from an aesthetic standpoint, pollution prone industries will even be tolerable near populated areas.
The other day, in what can only be described as a traumatic experience, I surveyed the lower mainland of British Columbia from the air in a light aircraft on a weekday morning. It was a shock to see one of the world's most beautiful vistas lying under an ominous yellow cloud of pollution. It is no solace whatsoever to console oneself with the thought that several other Canadian communities are in far worse shape, such as Toronto or Montreal to name just two centres.
Experiences like this should strengthen the resolve of members of all parties in this house to advance every effort in the war against pollution and the polluters of Canada's environment. It is to be hoped that the government will ensure that full air pollution control equipment measures be clearly and completely shown in the Neptune project and
9146	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that assurances be given that the control processes and procedures will be maintained and policed.
Finally, the National Harbours Board should enunciate a policy prohibiting pollutant causing industries from establishing in highly populated areas like the lower mainland harbour area of British Columbia. In the world of 1969 the cost of business should include the cost of protecting our environment from pollution in all of its forms, and the credo applied to industry should be "clean up, or shut down".


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am in complete sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault), all the more so because I have a personal knowledge of the area in question having visited it just last weekend. I want to thank the hon. member for his kind words with regard to the decision taken following that visit by the National Harbours Board at my instigation to cease the burning of so-called harbour cleanings in the north Vancouver area. I think this is a pretty clearcut indication that, where the authority is vested completely in the federal government, we are more than prepared, and certainly I give my full support to the best possible anti-pollution devices.
As for the question of the coal deposits at the Neptune pier, I suppose the hon. member would probably be inclined to agree with me that this is one of those issues where it is rather difficult to measure the advantages of industry and development against some of the possible disadvantages. But I agree with him fully that there is no good reason why, under all of the circumstances that exist today and the techniques that are available, the entry of a new bulk loading industry into North Vancouver, into that general and quite impressive industrial area, should create either a hazard or a pollution nuisance for the residents of that region.
The fact of the matter is that in cases like this-and I am thinking specifically of the Neptune pier-the National Harbours Board has followed the same procedures as it adopts with regard to all these facilities throughout Canada. Any lessee or user is required to abide by all the civic by-laws which apply in the area. I need not point out to the hon. member that regulations of this nature fall within the municipal or, perhaps, within the provincial field, but to ensure there is no flagrant disregard of pollution devices or

DEBATES	May 27, 1969
regulations the Harbours Board does insist that these local regulations be adhered to. This has been the position in the case of Neptune. It was so during the whole of the construction period as far as I am aware, and the Neptune company was so advised, as was the city council concerned. They worked in concert during that period and to my knowledge no major objections were raised at that time.
However, I appreciate that all this may be regarded as constituting an evasion of the actual facts of the case. There is no point trying to tell residents who are threatened by pollution that it is all being done in the proper constitutional manner. I am well aware of this and I want to assure the hon. member that as far as the Harbours Board is concerned we shall ensure that the local by-laws are adhered to. Moreover, when some of the residents of that community who are concerned about this matter are in Ottawa, as they will be I believe on June 4, arrangements have been made for them to meet with representatives of the National Harbours Board so that they may get all the information which is available concerning this problem.
On the specific point, to conclude-


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



WATER RESOURCES-PLACENTIA BAY, NFLD.- ATTEND AN CE OF MINISTER AT MEETING TO DISCUSS POLLUTION

Walter C. Carter: The
story of the pollution of Long Harbour is common knowledge in this house. I am sure all hon. members are well aware of what has been happening there in the last few months. I am afraid the same cannot be said about the severe hardship faced by those directly affected by this pollution, or the uncertainty which has crept into their lives especially as the waters in which they and their forefathers have fished for generations have been closed by the Department of Fisheries.
On January 29 of this year I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) as follows:
I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he can inform the house what steps are being taken to investigate evidence of a serious pollution problem in waters around Long Harbour, Newfoundland, where a quantity of dead fish have been found floating near the beaches.
May 27, 1969	COMMONS
Later, I asked the minister what steps had been taken by his department to prevent this serious situation from recurring. In Your Honour's wisdom or otherwise, my question was ruled out of order. This matter has been brought before the house by myself, as member for St. John's West, and by others on this side. It is extremely serious because, in effect, it has destroyed the means of livelihood of a large segment of the population of Canada's tenth province in the area of Placentia Bay.
The Minister of Fisheries has made several announcements on the subject. His most recent was made last Friday in reply to a question which I put to him. He stated then he had been informed by his scientists, his officials, that the cause of the pollution had been determined-that it was effluent from the Long Harbour Electric Reduction plant. To be fair to the minister, let me say I realize that under existing legislation he can only go so far. He is restricted in the action he can take to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I realize that under present legislation he can take punitive measures but very few preventive measures.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I contend that this problem has been in the forefront, as it were, in that particular area of Newfoundland, and indeed in this house, since the end of 1968, and certainly since the beginning of the present year. I also submit that the Department of Fisheries failed to take the necessary action to find the cause of this pollution, which as I have already said has resulted in the destruction of the way of life of a large number of people.
I believe it was only in the latter part of April, perhaps the first week of May, that a really concerted effort, at least in my opinion, was made by the department to find the cause of this problem and thus eventually close the plant. The bay to which I refer, Placentia Bay, was closed to fishermen in the latter part of April, I believe, and as a result close to 500 fishermen were prevented from earning a living.
Again, I do not wish to be too critical of the minister. I have great respect for him and I admire some of the steps he has taken to improve the lot of the fishermen in eastern Canada. But in view of the fact that this problem did come to the fore in the latter part of December, or certainly in January, why did it take so long for corrective measures to be taken?
DEBATES	9147
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Had this problem been pinpointed when it first became apparent in December or January, I am sure that a large part of the pollution could have been prevented and the plant closed. In all fairness, I do not think there was really any doubt in the minds of anybody connected with the fisheries in that area-I suspect the Minister of Fisheries had strong suspicions even at that time-that this Long Harbour phosphorous plant was the cause of the pollution.
I am compelled to debate this issue tonight in view of the action that has been taken in recent days in Newfoundland. A few weeks ago the Minister of Fisheries announced a program of assistance for those fishermen affected by this problem. Again, I realize that under existing legislation the minister was restricted as to what he could do and how far he could go in the matter of offering compensation. However, the government announced that it would make loans available to fishermen whose livelihood had been cut off by this problem.
These loans were made, and I believe the first cheques were delivered either on Monday or on Friday of last week. The amounts forwarded by the federal government were an insult to the fishermen affected. I have proof that in many instances people who received these cheques would have received more money had they gone on welfare; but being a very proud people with a great reluctance to accept welfare-


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


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, two matters were raised by the hon. member. First the delay, as he called it, on the part of the federal Department of Fisheries in recognizing the cause of pollution in Long Harbour. The hon. member says there was no doubt as to the cause of the pollution there in the months up to April. We had a team of scientists in Long Harbour monitoring the effluent from the plant and sampling the waters of the bay as early as January. They worked continuously, and these excellent people enjoy a high reputation.
Divers did not discover dead fish on the bottom until April. The cause was thought to be spill which was reported and acknowledged by the company in December. Most people thought this was a once and only spill, and would not occur again. Something occurred in April which was more extensive.
May 27, 1969
9148	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion To give you an idea of the problem of those doing this research, even today there are cages of cod at different levels of the bay which are perfectly healthy and they were perfectly healthy when the plant was running full blast. It is now known, that there is a particularly high content of phosphorous in the mud at the bottom, but that was not discovered until April. They found it there in large quantities. There was some doubt, therefore, as to the cause of all this.
We have not in a general way paid compensation to fishermen whose immediate vicinity was affected by closures. Normally, closures are undertaken for conservation reasons, but this is an exceptional case and we are making payment to fishermen. The payments are averaged over their normal fishing year, which may be three months to

eight months. The payments do not include the costs which the fishermen might otherwise have incurred; I am speaking of purchases of fuel, and so on. Otherwise, though, the payments are designed to give the fishermen up to their normal income. That, at any rate, is the nature of the calculation that we are using.
The first cheques were delivered yesterday and some fishermen are concerned, thinking this is the only payment. That is not our intention. Payments will continue until the bay is open again for fishing. I hope within the next week or two we shall open certain portions of Placentia Bay but we do not know how long it will take to open the entire bay.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10:30 p.m.



END OF VOLUME VIII


[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 28, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in French and in English-Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]