1969-07-07

PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A point of order was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in respect of a notice of motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) dealing with proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of the house. Other hon. members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) supported the contention that the minister's motion should not be accepted by the Chair for purposes of transfer to government orders pursuant to Standing Order 21. The President of the Privy Council argued in support of the government's position. At the conclusion of the procedural debate I undertook to study the arguments advanced in the course of the discussion and to make an early ruling.
Stated briefly, the problem is whether the government can set down a motion that follows substantially the terms of a committee report presented to the house, but the concurrence of which has not yet been moved by the committee chairman. I must remind hon. members that the Speaker can only rule on points of order and questions of procedure. The decision to be made at this time is whether it is procedurally in order to transfer the minister's motion for debate. During the discussion yesterday serious questions of principle were raised by hon. members who questioned the propriety of a government motion which, if proceeded with, might in effect block the discussion of a motion to concur in the report of a standing committee.
It has been suggested that the government's motion as it now stands is in contempt of the house; and that the Chair, on its own initiative, should determine that the house will consider the proposed rules changes within the framework of the committee report rather than under the heading of the proposed motion. 1 am not convinced that the question
terms.
Generally speaking, hon. members who have taken part in the procedural argument in opposition to the government, have based their objections on the rule of anticipation. It is of interest to note that while the British practice in reference to this rule is sufficiently clear, the same cannot be said about Canadian precedents where attempts have been made to apply the rule to our own Canadian practice. The difficulty stems from the fact that the British Commons' standing orders include a specific rule on this subject. Standing Order 11 of the British House of Commons is as follows:
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
In our own house, we have attempted over the years to develop a practice which has no support in our own standing order and where British precedents are not always relevant. If hon. members will study May's definition of the rule, they will see that the rule relates to discussion or debate of a matter already set down, and not to the setting down itself of an item of business on the order paper.
Campion's third edition, at page 180, indicates that the anticipation rule applies to the discussion by anticipation of an order already set down by the house. But, there is nothing in our rules and no precedent in Canadian parliamentary practice to prevent the setting down of more than one bill or motion dealing with the same subject. No precedents have been quoted by hon. members who took part in yesterday's procedural debate that could support the contention that the minister's motion cannot appear on the order paper along with a notice of motion to be moved in similar terms by a committee chairman.
What we are concerned with at the moment is whether the minister's notice of motion can be transferred for debate under government orders. Standing Order 21 is perfectly clear on this point. The rule is as follows:
When any other government notice of motion is called from the Chair, it shall be deemed to have been forthwith transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders in the same or at the next sitting of the House.


External Affairs
Once the motion has been transferred for debate under government orders it becomes the government's decision and the government's responsibility to decide whether it will proceed with its motion. It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the minister's motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) has been at liberty for several days to proceed with his motion. Indeed, he could move it later this day if he wishes to do so.
On the other hand, that notice of motion cannot be used to "block" consideration of the government's notice of motion. It is suggested that the question of priority should not be confused with the rule of anticipation.
At this time the notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has priority because of its present position on the order paper. If the hon. member has not moved his motion when it is called later today, the Chair will have no alternative, at the appropriate moment in our proceedings, but to order that the notice of motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council, be transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 21.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in French and English a number of international agreements which have recently been signed by Canada, subject to ratification or have entered into force in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton? Stands.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gatineau? Stands.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions: June 26, 1969-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Orders of the house be amended by adding the following new Standing Orders immediately after Standing Order 75:
75a. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the house, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
75b. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the house, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties, including that of the government, have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
75c. A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the house at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the house or in any committee and has given notice at that sitting of his intention so to do may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 21 (2) this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later today or at the next sitting of the house.
July 3, 1969	COMMONS



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he will assure the house that the National Indian Brotherhood or some other representative of the Indian body will be fully consulted about the terms of reference and the identity of the commissioner proposed to be appointed, in place of a full claims commission?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I met with the members of this National Indian Brotherhood last Thursday and I discussed the problem with them. I told them that finally the appointment of a commissioner was the responsibility of the government but that I was open to their suggestions regarding possible applicants and that if they did not make any, I would advise them of the appointee selected by the government.


Mr. Stanfield:: When will the commissioner be appointed and under what authority? In other words, will he be appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, some other statute or some other authority?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner will be appointed as soon as possible, I hope, and the appointment will come under the federal Inquiries Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it that means under the Public Inquiries Act. Is it a fair summary of the proposed duties of the commissioner that he will decide whether or not there is to be a claims commission and, if so, what claims would be permitted to go before that commission?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's duties will be announced upon his appointment, and we will table a copy of the order in council in the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he would consult with his colleagues in the government to determine whether he might be prepared to consider his basic premise in respect of the operation of the commissioner, so that the commissioner might be an agent of the Indian people rather than an agent of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner will be nobody's agent but a man appointed by the government of Canada to represent all Canadians, including parliament and the Indians themselves.



GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Could he tell us if his offer to transfer the administration of Indian affairs to the provinces has been accepted by all Canadian provinces?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is not a short term policy. We shall enter upon numerous negotiations with the Indians and the provincial authorities. In fact, I intend, beginning this week, to visit the various provincial capitals in order to meet the leaders of Indian organizations and of provincial governments.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the house and the country that all proper complaints which the Indian people may have as to breaches of treaty of one kind or another will be the subject of consideration by the commissioner and by the parliament of Canada in due course?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the terms of reference, it will be established of course that the government intends to abide by the treaties and any claim from the Indian people as regards treaties shall certainly be considered by the commissioner.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the

Inquiries of the Ministry intention of the government to continue making the treaty payments, or will this be a matter for negotiation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend now to discontinue the payments we are making to the Indian people under the treaties.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the terms of reference under which the commissioner will operate be discussed in detail with the Indians before the commissioner is appointed and given his duties to perform?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Indians and their claims, we have been discussing such matters with them for a year. However, the final decision always rests with the government which must assume responsibility for the decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Temiscamingue wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


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



SUBMISSIONS BY CAUGHNAWAGA IROQUOIS- REPRESENTATION ON COMMISSION

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
Could he tell us first of all-my question is twofold-whether the Caughnawaga Iroquois have made representations asking to come under either the federal government or the provincial government?
Secondly, have the Caughnawaga Indians asked to be represented on the commission with a view to submitting claims to or dealing with the federal government? Finally, and this is vital, do they wish to come under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we intend to have discussions with all Indians in every province, including the province of Quebec. When we go to the province of Quebec to negotiate, we will meet with the leaders of the Quebec Brotherhood of Indians and those of the provincial government.



REQUEST FOR OUTLINE OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMISSION-RIGHTS OF ST. REGIS RESERVE INDIANS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker. If the minister is not prepared to give the house an idea of the terms of reference of the commission, is he not prepared to give the house a brief description of the function and task the commissioner is to perform?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had taken the trouble to read the government's statement on its policy concerning Indian affairs, he would have found there some most useful information.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the government's new policy on Indian affairs, can the minister give his assurance that nothing will be done to limit the existing rights and privileges of Indians residing on the Canadian side at the St. Regis reserve and working in plants on the United States side?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since the matter of customs duties and the free crossing of the border by Indians come under the Minister of National Revenue, I think the question should be put to him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of clarification. In connection with the situation where a reservation straddles the international boundary, could the minister make a statement on motions or persuade his colleague the Minister of National Revenue to make a statement that will clarify the matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that matter is the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue. I will inform him of the hon. member's representations.



RESEARCH


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It arises out of the report on chemical and biological weapons


prepared by a committee of 14 at the request of the General Assembly of the United Nations and released by the Secretary General of that organization. In view of the terrible consequences of the use of such weaponry as indicated in the report, would the Prime Minister consider ceasing immediately the defence research activities in this field now carried on at Shirleys Bay and Suffield, Alberta?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It might be well to remind the house that any use of this research would be merely for the purpose of defence. This being said, however,
I should like to state that a few weeks ago I reported to the house that I asked that this question be reviewed by the government, so that we may have a better understanding of what is going on in this area in Canada. This review is not yet completed.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the report of this committee of experts on the research into the alleged defensive measures is not likely to be very useful, and in view of the appeal of the Secretary General of the United Nations for a treaty banning the use of such weaponry, would the Prime Minister be prepared today to state the government's intention to support that appeal and to support any initiatives taken to arrive at an agreement on the use of these weapons.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Under the Geneva protocol these questions are already being discussed. There is a difference of opinion among the countries concerning the meaning of biological and bacteriological warfare and whether or not bacteriological warfare includes biological warfare. This is the point of contention among the signatories to the protocol. However, Canada's position has been, as the hon. member suggests, to favour a greater restriction of the use of such weaponry, and our representatives on the disarmament committee have been instructed to proceed accordingly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Lewis: Inquiries of the Ministry there and how they were transported from one point in Canada to another, if that is where the material comes from, or from the United States to these points in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not
remember exactly when the hon. member asked the question. My recollection, however, is that I had thought, at least to myself, that that question might be placed on the order paper.


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister said at that time that he would inquire into the matter. In fact, he said that he would have to take the question as notice. Perhaps he has some information which he can give us, without doing violence to the rules.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer I have is very simple, and that is that the Minister of National Defence will answer the question tomorrow.


David Lewis: That is passing the germ.



WATER RESOURCES


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house if he intends to introduce at the next session a bill on Canada's water policy? If so, does he intend to consult the provinces on that matter before hand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that it is in order to ask the Prime Minister for information on the bills which may be introduced at the next session. I fear that if we allow this kind of question, we will unduly prolong the question period. Moreover, if the hon. member feels there is any urgency to his question, it might be considered at the time of adjournment.


Gérard Laprise: Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
I will have to inquire about that, Mr. Speaker, but as far as I know, the Canadian government was not represented at a conference held in Banff last week.



BOX CAR DISTRIBUTION-EXTENSION OF CROP YEAR

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement by Mr. E. K. Turner of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that a shortage of boxcars was holding up the flow of grain to space in the terminals at the Lakehead and Vancouver, can the minister report to the house on the action being taken to alleviate this condition?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I think the best thing I could do to answer this question would be to read the message sent on this subject by the chief commissioner of the Wheat Board to the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. In his telegram the chief commissioner says:
Would advise that railways have been concentrating on provision of box cars to lowest quota points and will continue to do so until end of crop year ... Would further advise that both railways currently have a very substantial number of cars under load to lakehead and Pacific coast and are spotting cars for additional loads each week to the full unload capacity of the terminals .. . With a heavy export movement out of Pacific coast for the next few weeks and a good volume of grain to be moved from the Lakehead east, we are still hopeful that adequate terminal space will be available to accommodate the five bushel quota and that this target will be reached by August 1.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Bearing in mind what the minister has just said about the situation at the terminals, will he tell the house whether he has given favourable consideration to the request to extend the present crop year until such time as a five bushel quota can be delivered? This question has been asked before, but I put it to the minister again because of the special circumstances prevailing in the current crop year. This is a matter for special consideration.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, you would say that the question is hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: So is the transport of a lot of the grain.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: Will the minister tell the house specifically what action is being taken by the Wheat Board or through his department to require the railways to provide sufficient cars to fill the space in the Saskatchewan Pool terminals at the Lakehead and in Vancouver? The minister's statement is in direct variance from that of the president of the Saskatchewan Pool. Is the minister misleading the house, or is his information not sufficiently up to date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my job is to impress the importance of these matters upon all concerned. We have questioned the railway companies and I am told-I am informed-that the position is as stated. As to the Wheat Board, we are in touch with them all the time. If the hon. member wants to deny that my information is right, it is up to him to do so, but to my knowledge a maximum effort is being made at the present time by all concerned.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: May I ask
whether the minister is still acting as coordinator and controller of the movement of grain in western Canada, as he indicated he was doing earlier this year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry; I was answering a comment I overheard from the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Horner:: Important place, Crowfoot.


Albert B. Douglas: I will repeat my question, then. Is the minister still acting as co-ordinator and controller of the movement of grain in western Canada, as he indicated earlier?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do that every day. I intend to be in Winnipeg on Monday next, performing this function.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Dean Gundlock (Lethbridge):: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Is he being informed, or is he being told?
WHEAT-U.S. DISREGARD OF I.G.A. MINIMUM______



WASHINGTON MEETING

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: In
view of reports that the United States, following subsidized sales of French wheat, is considering suspending certain clauses of the International Grains Arrangement, or even disregarding the minimum price provisions of that agreement, can the Minister of Industry,


Trade and Commerce inform the house whether the United States is keeping the Canadian government informed of any new approaches it may be making with regard to the International Grains Arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the cooperation we are receiving from that country is very good. Largely as a result of this I am in a position to say that a meeting will be held next week in Washington at the ministerial level, attended by Canada, Australia, Argentina the European economic community and the United States. The purpose of the meeting is to review the world wheat marketing situation and to see what can be done about strengthening co-operation among wheat exporters to resolve the problems that have arisen in regard to wheat prices.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question. Might I ask the minister again whether he or the government would give consideration to establishing a floor price for wheat at the International Grains Arrangement minimum in order to protect the grain farmer from the effects of undercutting the prices presently established, and from other possibilities that may be envisaged as a result of the United States statement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this idea and many others are being examined by the government.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister who will represent Canada at the proposed meeting in Washington next week to discuss the whole question of the International Grains Arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will be, accompanied by members of the Wheat Board and Canadian government officials.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, again in respect of wheat.
Since a socialist majority has been elected in Manitoba, are the prospects for the sale of wheat any better, especially in the socialist countries of the world?
Inquiries of the Ministry



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is it the intention of the minister to intervene constructively in the serious and disruptive dispute between the British Columbia Telephone Company and its employees?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this strike is unfortunate inasmuch as this is the first time in almost 50 years that there has been a strike in this particular industry in British Columbia. Both parties are aware that mediation services are available and when they feel it necessary to ask the Department of Labour for assistance they will probably do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot on a supplementary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding another labour condition on the west coast.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question does not appear to be supplementary and I will return to the hon. member in a moment.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to compliment the minister of health on his courageous and successful stand against the dangers of cigarette smoking. I should like also to ask the minister about other dangers in our environment, and specifically to ask him what steps he is taking to prod his laggard colleagues into compelling filtration of harmful exhaust fumes emitted by road vehicles.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a statement of a general nature that should normally be made on motions.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions, before the house adjourns for a recess, in order to bring the house up to date on the situation

Inquiries of the Ministry concerning summer employment tor students?
I ask this question because it has been asked before in the house, and also in view of the fact that during the last few days the problem has been greatly aggravated by grade 13 students being put on the labour market. Would the minister bring the house up to date on this question by making a statement on motions, and would he also give us details of any emergency plan that he has for employing these students?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider making a statement next week. I will consider the matter very carefully.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that on May 23 last the minister spoke to the Canadian Vocational Association and talked of a plan prepared by his department as a result of the work of a special task force, will he outline to the house at the same time what this plan is, so the house may be fully aware of what plans, if any, the government has with respect to summer employment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the statement is made I will be happy to include every relevant consideration in the statement.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I understand that yesterday the veterans affairs committee agreed to consider the Woods report in September, prior to the house resuming. I wonder whether the minister will give us an assurance that all veterans affairs organizations that wish to be heard will be heard by the committee at that time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member that this question relates to the internal management of the committee, and the question may not be asked in those terms at this time.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Then would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to ask the chairman of the committee whether the organizations that wish to be heard in regard to veterans affairs could be heard at that time when the committee sits?

DEBATES	July 3, 1989


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oiiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it was the recommendation of the committee that an invitation be extended to all interested veterans organizations to appear before it.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises out of the minister's meeting yesterday with officials of Canairelief. I am wondering whether he is able to announce any positive conclusions which might have been reached at that meeting.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had a very useful discussion with Dr. Johnson and the other gentleman who came with him from Canairelief. Dr. Johnson made certain suggestions to us about ways in which we might work together in order to try to get relief supplies resumed to Biafra, and we are studying these suggestions. Altogether I think it was a constructive meeting and I am hopeful that there will be some results.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in dealing with this question the minister said on a couple of occasions that there were still elements of uncertainty that needed to be clarified by the government before it could determine its future policy on matters, and specifically in regard to relief. Can the minister indicate to the house the nature of these uncertainties and when they might become clarified so that some very important action can be taken in this desperate situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important uncertainties, for example, is the role that the international committee of the Red Cross will play in the provision of relief in Nigeria and Biafra. So far the International Red Cross has been carrying on in the Nigerian territory-that is, the federally controlled territory-and I am still hopeful, and I think that all hon. members will share my hope, that an arrangement can be made for the resumption of relief by air.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when the situation does clarify itself, whether he would consider, if the house is still in


session, making a statement on motions in view of the very great interest in this matter both in this house and in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following upon my reading of some of the minister's statements I should like to ask him whether he can advise if the government is now giving consideration to the suggestion I made last September, namely that Canada as a member of the United Nations take an initiative in having inscribed upon the provisional agenda of the General Assembly the whole question of Nigeria-Biafra, which situation seems to be deteriorating before our eyes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman and the house know, we have been discouraged from taking any initiative in the United Nations upon the advice of the Secretary General. However as a result of the most recent stoppage of relief in that area a new situation arises, and I certainly would not rule out any type of action that might be useful being taken.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is necessary that relief efforts to Biafra-Nigeria be resumed, has the government considered following the suggestion Senator Kennedy made a couple of weeks ago. He suggested that the United Nations might convene a relief conference in Geneva, perhaps, at which the disputants and other interested third parties might agree on regulations governing some relief program.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that might turn out to be a useful method of proceeding. Nonetheless I would think it would be much more useful if those countries providing the relief were to get together. They could put the most effective pressures on both sides in this conflict.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday I asked him if he would look into rising prices of natural gas in the west. It seems that demand in the United States for Canadian gas is forcing the price of our gas up, and making it too expensive for Canadian consumers. Has the minister had a chance to look at the

Inquiries of the Ministry report I alluded to? If so, what action will he take on behalf of the consumers of Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to find the report the hon. member referred to. I believe my office has asked him to supply me with a copy of the report he referred to yesterday. I understand that the National Energy Board expects to hold hearings this fall on applications for additional export licences. At such hearings the board is bound to take into account the need to ensure adequate supply for Canadian consumers. It would of course take into account the effect on Canadian prices.
If the hon. member will supply me with a copy of the report he mentioned I will be glad to refer it to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, who has jurisdiction over the National Energy Board.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious situation that will prevail in Canada as a result of increased gas prices, is he contemplating taking with respect to natural gas an action similar to that taken with respect to the price of copper, when copper prices were going up in international markets? On that occasion he indicated that he would take effective steps to make sure that the price of copper did not rise excessively, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.



FARM MACHINERY


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he advise whether the long awaited report of the Barber Commission on the price of farm machinery will be tabled in the house before it adjourns for the summer recess?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have this report in my hands yet. After I receive it I shall go through the customary procedure of considering whether it is to be tabled in the house.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise us when we may expect to get this long awaited report?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend talks of a long awaited report I wish to say that in March and April several aspects of the inquiry were reported on by way of interim reports. There has been therefore no undue delay. Dr. Barber's commission has reported on certain aspects that were inquired about in this house earlier this year.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who reports to this house for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Is it the intention of the corporation to expand its holdings in Cape Breton through the purchase of Four Star Colliery? Are negotiations in progress towards that end? If the minister does not have the answer at the moment perhaps he can take my question as notice and reply on Monday.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice and reply later.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Prime Minister's office will be putting out an itinerary of his western visit. I ask this question to enable us to prepare a friendly reception for him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley James Korchinski: It will be a friendly reception even though it may not be too elaborate. We do not have too much money out there.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. Since the hon. member as chairman of the committee was instructed by a majority vote to seek the concurrence of the house in the third report of that committee, may I ask if he is going to carry out that instruction?

DEBATES	juiy 3, iggg


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of common knowledge that the report made by this committee has been attacked from the very moment of its tabling as a report from one side of the house only. I have already commented on this, and at an earlier stage indicated that in my opinion this is an unfair attack. As to the action which should or can be taken, in the light of all that has developed I must say now that one will have to await the outcome of events.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I say to my hon. friend that if he will continue to sit with us in the house he will find out what action shall be taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member does not intend to carry out the instruction of the committee will he call another meeting of the committee, so that we can decide what course we should take?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NATIONAL PARKS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are having difficulty in obtaining straight answers from the government.


An hon. Member:: Let's have some straight questions from the opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Keep it up. Keep it up. May
I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In negotiations or discussions going on with respect to additional parklands in Nova-Scotia, is the minister prepared to accept a 99 year lease from Nova Scotia, the lease to be entered into under terms similar to those prevailing with respect to the Gaspe park agreement recently entered into?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question similar to one which was asked on another occasion, at which time the Chair was prompted to suggest that the question might be placed on the order paper.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is related to a clash last week between the native Indian people of Sept lies, Quebec, and the R.C.M.P., provincial police, wardens and others. Will he take steps to preserve and protect the native Indian people of this area and make sure that they retain their right to hunt and fish?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this problem arose between the Indians of Sept lies and the provincial authorities about the administration of justice. I have asked the officials of my department for a report on this situation in order to get better acquainted with the facts.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since many reports indicate that these flair-ups are likely to continue and grow in future, may I ask the minister to ask his colleagues to take steps in order to preserve law and order in the area on behalf of the native people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the administration of justice within provincial boundaries is the responsibility of the provincial government.
f English]



COMBINES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he yet received the report of the Economic Council of Canada on combines and competition. If not, and if he receives the report before parliament adjourns, will he assure the house that he will make a statement on it here?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, so far I have not received the report although I had hoped to receive it in June. The hon. member is waiting for it with just as much interest as

Inquiries of the Ministry I am. All we can do is hope the council reports as quickly as possible. If the house is sitting when I receive the report, then naturally I will be making a statement as soon as I receive it.


Gerald William Baldwin: In Vancouver, no doubt.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch LaSalle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to thank the Prime Minister for his visit to the Joliette constituency last Monday evening, when he attended a play starring the lovely Louise Marleau.
In view of the agreement signed yesterday between the government of Quebec and that of Gabon concerning a university centre for sciences and health, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that agreement acceptable by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked can hardly be considered in order. The hon. member might wish to rephrase it.


Roch La Salle: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like the Prime Minister to indicate to the house whether the Quebec government was free to sign the agreement yesterday, or if it should have asked Ottawa for permission to sign it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will perhaps agree that he is asking the Prime Minister to express an opinion on a constitutional matter, and I think the question is out of order.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the honourable and learned Minister of Communications. It is in reference to the minister's announcement re the Name-the-Satellite-Contest, replete with misspellings, which indicates that he is sending posters to the 8,000 post offices still left in the country. Can he advise how he is publicizing this intriguing contest to those many thousands of Canadians who have already lost their post offices?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Business of the House GRAIN


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which is the result of earlier exchanges. In view of the fact that there is some 10 million bushels of space available at wheat pool terminals at the Lakehead as of yesterday, that the terminal at Vancouver is half full, and that there is no backlog of cars at those facilities, will the minister advise what action is being taken by the railroads or by his department to double the allocation of railway rolling stock for those terminals?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will investigate the two situations described by my hon. friend.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is it true that an important sale of wheat has recently been made to a South American country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to advise the hon. member that it is not in order to ask the minister to confirm or deny allegations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be found that there is agreement to take at this point the four deferred votes on amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 5 which are to be found on the notice paper, page iii, with respect to the official languages bill. If this is agreeable it could be made an order of the house, with the prospect of completing the report stage of the bill this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council. At the same time it will be recalled that the Chair had indicated to hon. members that these deferred votes would be taken after all the motions had been considered by the house. In view of the suggestion made in previous debate, on which some hon. members might rely, I think we should proceed with the new suggestion of the President of the Privy Council only with the unanimous agreement of the house. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Macquarrie.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 2, consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now revert on the taking of deferred divisions on motions Nos, 2, 3, 6 and 5, standing on the deferred divisions paper, in that order.
The question is on motion No. 2, Mr. McQuaid:
That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by deleting subclause (1) of clause 14 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(1) As soon as possible following the completion of each decennial census, or, in the case of the decennial census taken in the year 1951, forthwith after the coming into force of this act, the Dominion Statistician shall prepare and send to the Clerk of the Privy Council a return certified by him showing the population of each of the provinces and census districts in Canada, categorized according to the official languages spoken as a mother tongue by presons resident therein as ascertained by that census, and as soon as possible thereafter the Governor in Council shall, pursuant to Part 1 of the Inquiries Act, appoint not less than twelve persons, being representative of residents of the several provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as commissioners to constitute a Bilingual Districts Advisory Board for the purpose of conducting an inquiry as described in section 15."


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against the amendment because I am opposed to the principle of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on
motion No. 3, Mr. McQuaid:
That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by deleting clauses 28, 29, and 30 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"28. (1) An investigation by the Commissioner under this act shall be conducted in private except as otherwise provided for in subsection (3).
(2)	It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing but he may allow any person or any department or other institution concerned in an investigation, and shall allow any person or any department or other institution complained against in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
(3)	The Commissioner shall not make a report or recommendation in respect of any person, department or other institution so complained against until that person, department or other institution, as the case may be, has been given reasonable notice of the complaint and has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in public or in private as that person, department or other institution may elect.
(4)	Parliament may,
(a)	of its own volition, or
(b)	upon the recommendation of the Governor in Council, regulate the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in the exercise of his powers and duties.
(5)	The Commissioner may direct that information relating to any investigation under this act be received or obtained, in whole or in part, by any officer of the Commissioner appointed as provided in section 21 and such officer shall, subject to such restrictions or limitations as the Commissioner may specify, have all the powers and duties of the Commissioner under this act in relation to the receiving or obtaining of such information.
(6)	The Commissioner shall require every person employed in his office who is directed by him to receive or obtain information relating to any investigation under this act to comply with any security requirements applicable to, and to take


Division
any oath of secrecy required to be taken by, persons employed In any department or other institution concerned in the matter of the investigation.
(7) The Commissioner has in relation to the carrying out of any investigation under this act,
(a)	the powers of a Commissioner under Part I >f the Inquiries Act; and
(b)	the power, subject to such limitations as the Governor in Council in the interests of defence or security may prescribe, to enter any premises occupied by any department or other institution of the parliament or government of Canada and carry out therein such inquiries within his authority under this act as he sees fit."


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to proceed with this division without the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against the amendment because I oppose the principle of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 6, Mr. Baldwin:
That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by


Division
deleting clause 33 thereof and substituting the following:
"38. (1) The right to speak a language other than either of the two official languages shall not be restrained or restricted in its natural development in any way.
(2) The Governor in Council may by Order in Council enter into an agreement with the government of any province which has been authorized by legislation so to do, for the purpose of encouraging natural development of any such minority language especially as regards the use of such language in matters of education."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to proceed with this division without the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against the amendment as I oppose the principle of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on motion No. 5, Mr. Woolliams:
That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by


Division
inserting therein, next following clause 34 thereof, the following new clause:
"34a. Where an individual, department or institution is aggrieved by a report or recommendation of the Commissioner, or by a decision made by him or other person or authority acting upon his report or recommendation, the individual, department or institution may appeal in respect of such report, or recommendation or decision on a finding of fact, a question of law or a matter of the merits to a superior court of record within thirty days after the individual, department or institution is first informed of the report, or recommendation or decision; the court may proceed by way of hearing or review and shall make such order therein as the court deems just and such order shall be final."


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to proceed with this division without the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against the amendment as I oppose the principle of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will sit down when I want to. You can't make me.


Official Languages



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS	Some hon. Members: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether we might have consent to revert to motions for the purpose of putting forward a proposal with regard to income tax reform.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certain discussions have taken place with respect to the possibility of a joint parliamentary committee on income tax reform being established. If the house is generally agreeable, perhaps the following could be made an order of the house:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, to be known as the joint parliamentary committee on income tax reform, be appointed to consider government proposals for the reform of the income tax, with powers to report its observations and opinions thereon from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit during sittings and adjournments of the house, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee, seven of whom shall be required for a quorum;
That when a quorum is not present, the chairman of the said committee be authorized to proceed with meetings for the purpose of receiving and printing evidence; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps a word is necessary by way of explanation. Why are we to have a committee on income tax, when earlier statements from the government were to the effect that they were concerned with tax reform in general?


Mr. Benson:: The white paper will deal with the subject of corporate and personal income tax.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to raise a point of order with reference to this announcement. The minister is saying, in effect, that it does not matter whether or not there is a quorum, that if one little Liberal is present the government will get its decisions. That is the philosophy behind the announcement. The committees are nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the motion is to be put. Is there no agreement, or is there agreement? There is no unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan) moved:: That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by deleting subclause (4) of clause 40 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(4) In relation to the appointment and advancement in employment of personnel the duties of whose positions include duties relating to the provision of services by authorities to members of the public, it is the duty
(a)	of the Public Service Commission, in cases where it has the authority to make appointments,
(b)	of the authority respectively concerned in the cases of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and
(c)	of the authority concerned in all other cases, to ensure that, in the exercise and performance of the powers, duties and functions conferred or imposed upon it by law, due account is taken of the purposes and provisions of this Act, subject always to the maintenance of the principle of selection of personnel according to merit as required by the Public Service Employment Act or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada respectively applicable to the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the authority concerned in all other cases."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a plainly worded and easily understood amendment, and I do not propose to take much of the time of the house in presenting it. It is submitted largely to clear up ambiguities which we contend exist in the bill as now drafied, as well as in the amendment submitted to the committee and to the house some time ago.
If we refer to the original Bill C-120, the bill which received first reading on October 17, 1968, we find that clause 9 was apparently considered to cover all the services which the

Official Languages
government had in mind. The clause at that time said that every department and agency of the government of Canada and every judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body or Crown corporation established by or pursuant to an act of the Parliament of Canada had the duty to ensure that the services provided by them were provided in the two languages in areas where this was necessary.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For some unexplained reason the minister saw fit to bring in an amendment of his own. Strangely enough, he amended the interpretation clause of the bill. Naturally we wonder why this provision was not included in the interpretation section when the bill was originally drafted. The interpretation section of a statute is, of course, a very important section, and ordinarily the draftsman of a bill is very careful to include in the interpretation section an expansion of all of the words in the bill that he thinks require explanation.
However, clause 36 was amended by the minister in order to bring the members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the provisions of the bill. I have wondered why clause 9 of the original bill was not considered wide enough to include members of the R.C.M.P. and the Canadian forces. Clause 9 provided:
Every department and agency of the government of Canada and every judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body or crown corporation

And so on. They were the bodies originally included in clause 9, but in its wisdom the government apparently felt that an additional clause had to be brought in to make sure that members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were included in the provisions of the bill, and therefore were subject to the provisions of every clause in the bill. Since the government saw fit to take this step, I do not think we can take objection to it.
The government also decided to amend clause 40 by adding an additional subclause 4. Subclause 4 provides:
In relation to the appointment and advancement in employment of personnel the duties of whose positions include duties relating to the provision of services by authorities to members of the public, it is the duty
(a)	of the Public Service Commission, in cases where it has the authority to make appointments,
(b)	of the authority concerned, in all other cases, to ensure that, in the exercise and performance of the powers, duties and functions conferred or imposed upon it by law, due account is taken of the purposes and provisions of this Act-

These are the important words.
-subject always to the maintenance of the principle of selection of personnel according to merit as required by the Public Service Employment Act.
That clause was designed to establish and to protect-and I think it effectively does so-the merit principle, and to make it applicable to those who fall within the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act. However, I hasten to point out that members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not fall within the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act, at least in most respects. The Public Service Employment Act, which is chapter 71 of the 1966-67 Statutes of Canada, provides in section 2 (2):
For the purpose of being eligible to enter competitions and for the purposes of sections 11 and 13, the following persons shall be deemed to be persons employed in the Public Service, namely:
(a)	members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;
(b)	members of the Canadian forces;-
I ask the house to note that these members of the R.C.M.P. and the Canadian forces are deemed to be employed by the public service only for the purpose of being eligible to enter competitions and for the purposes of sections 11 and 13. Section 11 of that act provides:
Appointments shall be made from within the Public Service except where, in the opinion of the Commission, it is not in the best interests of the Public Service to do so.
That section has nothing to do with merit. If the members also examine section 13 they will find it has nothing to do with appointment according to merit. The section of the Public Service Employment Act that deals with merit is section 10, and specifically by that act members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the armed forces are excluded from the provisions of that section. The only sections of the act that do apply to members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are sections 11 and 13.
Our contention, Mr. Speaker, is that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the armed forces should be afforded the protection given other public servants under the Public Service Employment Act. Since they are going to be governed by the provisions of the official languages bill, the principle of merit so far as promotion is concerned should certainly be made applicable to them. All we are asking the house to do is to clarify the terms of the bill so there is no shadow of


doubt that the members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have the same protection as that afforded to members of the public service under the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act.
During the deliberations of the special committee the government draftsmen themselves agreed that the Public Service Employment Act does not apply to members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Thorson, an employee of the Department of Justice who I understand did much of the drafting of the bill, when speaking to a very similar amendment introduced in the committee which dealt with the same point, had this to say as reported at page 248 of committee report No. 3:
The reservation at the end-
That is the reservation in regard to merit, as required by the Public Service Employment Act.
-ensures that the principle of selection according to merit is maintained in those circumstances-
I ask the house to note these words.
-where it now applies by law.
The principle of merit does not apply by law to members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act. Mr. Thorson continued:
To take an illustration, Air Canada, a Crown corporation makes its own appointments and promotions, and does not come under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act.
The principle of selection according to merit, which is found in the Public Service Employment Act, simply does not extend to Air Canada, and indeed parliament itself has never considered it appropriate to attempt to extend the merit principle to all of the bodies to which this law would apply. Examples of this are the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the many Crown corporations.
The only reason I submit this amendment for the consideration of the house is to protect those members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. who cannot come here to protect themselves. We feel it is our responsibility to see to it that the principle of merit applies to these men as well as to other public servants, and I am sure the government will agree that this is our responsibility. This is all the amendment is seeking. I realize the government considers the amendment unnecessary in that these men are already protected; the minister will probably reply that the words in subclause (4) of clause 40, "of the authority concerned, in all other cases", meet this point.
Official Languages
We say that it is not absolutely clear. We say that there is some doubt about the meaning of the following words of clause 40(4):
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
-subject... to the maintenance of the principle of selection of personnel according to merit as required by the Public Service Employment Act.
If we were sure that members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. came within the Public Service Employment Act, we would be satisfied. As matters now stand we suggest seriously that the wording of the clause is ambiguous. For the life of me I cannot see why the government refuses to accept an amendment which will clarify that ambiguity. If the government accepts the amendment, those who sit on this side of the house will be much more satisfied. I am equally certain that members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P., who could be adversely affected by the present wording of the clause, would also be satisfied.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the original amendment which was accepted by the special committee to clause 40 of the bill, that part now being clause 40(4), was to satisfy those people, particularly in western Canada and in the Atlantic provinces whose views were reflected by their provincial governments, that nothing in this bill as it is will change the principle of nation-wide recruitment to and promotion in the federal public service and the federal agencies of government. One of the concerns I encountered when discussing the bill with the Attorneys General of the four western provinces and with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia was that this bill would effectively exclude from the Public Service of Canada young men and women from those parts of the country where English was the dominant language and where there was little opportunity for them to learn or practise French. They feared that this bill would exclude from the Public Service of Canada English speaking candidates from the western and Atlantic provinces.
We have added clause 40(4) to make it quite clear that the principle of merit now found and contained in section 12 of the Public Service Employment Act is in no way over-ridden, repealed, or affected by the passage of this bill, and that merit as defined in


Official Languages
the Public Service Employment Act will continue to govern the recruitment and promotion of public servants in Canada. That is the purpose of the clause.


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker,-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows me well enough to be sure that I will entertain all questions at the conclusion of what I have to say. Certainly I have made it clear in speeches in the national capital, western Canada and elsewhere that I will not hold office in a government that adopts legislation which in any way limits recruitment to the Public Service of Canada to one or two provinces because there happen to be in those provinces facilities to help one learn and speak a second language.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In that case you had better resign now.


John Napier Turner: I am
satisfied, and I introduced figures at the second reading stage of the bill to illustrate this quite conclusively, that since 1965-66, since the policy of bilingualism in the public service was adopted by the former Pearson administration, the number of recruits from English speaking provinces not only has not decreased but has increased in great measure.


Mr. Nowlan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would not want the minister to mislead the house. I think he should check his records. I think he will see that what was referred to previously was the number of applications from each area. I do not think the house has been told how many of those were accepted. There is a great difference between those who apply and those who are accepted. The difference between applications and recruits is the difference between black and white.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, not only am I prepared to stand by the figures as to the number of applications that were received and accepted, but I am also willing to produce those figures. The figures hear me out not only as to the number of applications made but also as to the number of applications accepted from western Canada and the Atlantic provinces. They bear me out quite conclusively.
Surely for the sake of national unity we want a public service that reflects in its make-up every region and province of this country. The Public Service Commission is

sensitively aware of this problem and intends to continue to administer public service promotion and recruitment to the public service in such a way as to ensure that the public service properly represents all regions of Canada.
The hon. member referred to clause 36(3) of the bill and the amendment which was proposed by the government at the committee stage. That amendment was accepted. That amendment said that any reference to any of the institutions of the government or Parliament of Canada shall be deemed to include the Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In other words, the word "institutions" shall be deemed to cover those bodies. We said at that time that we believed that "institutions" as found in clause 2, the declaratory clause of the bill, and in other clauses is clear enough but that in order to satisfy doubts we were quite willing to have it spelled out. In the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, at any rate, nothing in clause 36(3) which was added to clause 36 in committee changes the purport or intent of the bill.
Having laid down a little background, Mr. Speaker, I now want to analyse the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). As I divine his object, and I am basing my opinion on what he said this afternoon in the house and what he said earlier before the special committee, he wishes to spell out in the bill a requirement that the definition of merit not be supplanted in the selection of personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces, the R.C.M.P. and federal agencies by any addition to the definition already inserted in the Public Service Employment Act covering those employees to whom that act applies. In other words he is saying, "You have a merit principle which applies to those agencies and departments that are covered by the Public Service Employment Act. Section 12 of the act applies to them. But you have not covered those agencies of the federal government to which that act does not apply."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is quite right.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Cardigan is saying, and I hope I am putting his words fairly, that "we want to ensure that the merit principle applies to other agencies, namely the armed forces and the R.C.M.P."
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The amendment which was proposed by the government at the committee stage in relation


to clause 40(4) was a clarifying amendment in the sense that we wanted to make it perfectly clear that the fact that the official languages bill was a later bill in terms of time to the Public Service Employment Act could not be interpreted by the government, or by anybody looking at this bill, as an implication that anything in the Public Service Employment Act had been amended or rescinded. In other words, we merely continued and restated the merit principle as it appears in an earlier statute, the Public Service Employment Act, to ensure that nothing in this bill will derogate from it.
There is no amendment made to the Public Service Employment Act by reason of the official languages bill. The purpose of clause 40(4) is merely to protect the merit principle as beyond the scope of this bill and to ensure that nothing in this bill can be construed as an amendment to the earlier act. It does not change the merit principle in the Public Service Employment Act, nor does it extend the merit principle to the other public agencies of government not covered by the Public Service Employment Act. Therefore the existing clause 40(4) is a saving clause and it does nothing more.
In so far as it preserves the present legal/ situation it will ensure that the merit principle, where it applies, remains. There are several areas of the government service where the merit principle does not apply, where parliament in its wisdom to date has said that the merit principle shall not apply within the definition of section 12 of the Public Service Employment Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
cabinet, for example.


John Napier Turner: I will take that riposte as being well meant.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Present company excepted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And only at the present time.


John Napier Turner: It is a fairly fluid situation, as my hon. friend says.
As the hon. member for Cardigan knows, this subject was discussed at some length in the special committee and it was pointed out that there is no special requirement as to merit for the Canadian forces, the R.C.M.P. and those other agencies that do not presently come under the Public Service Employment Act. Parliament has not extended that requirement specifically to them.
Official Languages
Not all bodies apply the same standards as are imposed upon the Public Service Commission by the Public Service Employment Act. The armed forces have their own selection standards, and I will not go into the nature of them at the moment. Air Canada has its own standards, and the R.C.M.P. has its standards. They may not correspond to "merit" as currently defined in section 12 of the Public Service Employment Act, and it is not the purpose of this bill either to extend or restrict the merit principle. The purpose of this bill is not to interfere with the merit principle as presently found in the statutes of Canada. This is merely a saving clause.
Where merit applies today under the Public Service Employment Act it will not be interfered with by this bill. Where it does not apply, then of course it is up to parliament when reviewing the statutes relating to the armed forces, the R.C.M.P., Air Canada, the C.N.R. and other agencies of government not currently covered by the Public Service Employment Act to decide in its good judgment whether that merit principle ought to apply.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since the purpose of this bill is not germane either to restricting or extending the merit principle but only to ensuring by way of clarification, and by way of a saving clause, that the merit principle so far as it now applies in the statutes of Canada will not be interfered with, we recommend to the house at this report stage that the amendment be rejected. I suggest that it is ill-conceived and that it would convert clause 40(4) into more than a saving provision. It would not clarify. It might well confuse the whole issue as to whether or not, to use the words of the hon. member for Cardigan, we were extending the merit principle by indirection into other statutes regarding other institutions of government that are currently not covered by the Public Service Employment Act.
If parliament in its good judgment in the days and years ahead wishes to analyse the recruiting, hiring and promoting practices of these other agencies of government, parliament should directly set its attention to it and not do it indirectly by way of a provision that would confuse the statutes of Canada. That is the reason we suggest to the house that this amendment be rejected.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister's argument with great interest he has left me with the impression that this clause really does nothing. If so,

Official Languages
why have the clause in the bill at all? Why not just leave it silent?


John Napier Turner: Because a lot of concern was expressed in western Canada and the Atlantic provinces that the merit system was in some way being derogated from by this bill, we wanted to make it perfectly clear that where the merit principle applied nothing in this bill derogated from the provisions of section 12 of the Public Service Employment Act where that act applied.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during his remarks the minister indicated that he would answer a question that the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) was going to put to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not see the hon. member for Cardigan rising, and I have recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is agreeable we could probably recognize the hon. member for Cardigan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: agree gladly.


Melvin James McQuaid: In his speech the minister repeatedly said, and1 I copied down what he said and have it here word for word, "merit as currently defined in the Public Service Employment Act." Where does he find merit defined in the Public Service Employment Act? Nowhere is merit defined in that act that I can see.


John Napier Turner: I will try to find it for the hon. member. So far as I can recall it is defined in section 12.


Melvin James McQuaid: I have the act here and all section 12 says is:
The Commission may, in determining pursuant to section 10 the basis ol assessment of merit-
It speaks about merit but does not define it.
in relation to any position or class of positions, prescribe selection standards as to education, knowledge, experience, language, age, residence or any other matters that, in the opinion of the Commission, are necessary or desirable having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed, but any such selection standards shall not be inconsistent with any classification standard prescribed pursuant to the Financial Administration Act for that position or any position in that class.
[Mr. Woolliams.l

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that does not define merit. This is what bothers me. Where are we going to find the definition of merit?
I now come to my second question. On May 20, as reported at pages 8840 and 8841 of Hansard, the minister gave figures showing the total number of university candidates who applied for positions with the Public Service Commission of Canada for the years 1966 and 1969. Of those who applied in those particular years, how many were accepted into the public service and from what areas did they come?


John Napier Turner: I am looking for the appropriate document because I made that inquiry myself. I am perfectly willing to table it at the third reading stage if the house would be good enough to allow me to intervene when I get the document.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to appeal to the minister to give further consideration to the proposal made by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) in the motion that is now before the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I knew the hon. member would support it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) says he knew I would support this motion. I suppose he probably relies on the fact that I frequently have something to say about retired civil servants, and almost every time I do I mention retired members of the R.C.M.P. and retired members of the armed forces. I do so because I have learned in my studies in that field having to do with the pensions of these various groups that it is not enough just to say retired civil servants and assume that this includes the rest. If one wants these other groups included one has to say so. I believe, therefore, that that principle applies in this instance.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Even though the Minister of Justice, I thought, argued that subclause 4 of clause 40 really was not necessary, I congratulate him for having it included in the bill when the bill was in the hands of the special committee. It seems to me the other clauses that have been quoted today do leave some ambiguity, and that it is a good idea to make it clear in this bill that the merit principle in the federal public service will not be interfered with because of the operation of this


legislation. Therefore it seems to me it is simple and elementary logic, if one is to take that position with regard to those in the public service, and inasmuch as clause 36(3) of the bill says that the institutions of Canada include in addition to the federal public service, the R.C.M.P. and the armed forces, that protection for these other groups ought to be included in clause 40(4). If the saving clause is necessary at all-there is some doubt about it but I rather think it is necessary-I suggest it ought to be applied to all three groups that have been mentioned in clause 36(3).
Another argument the minister has against the motion of the hon. member for Cardigan is that in his view it would make new law rather than simply write in a saving provision. I find it difficult to follow that argument because all the hon. member for Cardigan asks is that these other personnel, those in the R.C.M.P. and the armed forces, be given the pro tec.ion of the merit principle as required by the Public Service Employment Act or any other act of the parliament of Canada respectively applicable to the Canadian forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and so on. Surely that is clear. The hon. member for Cardigan is not writing new law. He is not writing a new merit principle. He is not saying there shall be for the R.C.M.P. or the armed forces a merit principle they do not now have. He is saying that in so far as they have the protection of the merit principle under some of the sections of the Public Service Employment Act or any other act of the parliament of Canada that is on the books, that protection shall be guaranteed to them under the provisions of this bill.
As I say, in this case we are not arguing with the minister over something that he is dead against. As a matter of fact, as he himself said it was he on behalf of the government who brought in the amendment to the bill which resulted in new subclause 4. If my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) had not had to leave, I am sure he would be standing on his feet saying he had something to say about urging it to be brought in.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. I had considerable co-operation from the hon. member for York South, for which I am grateful, but this amendment was introduced by me and my colleagues as a result of the representations I received while I was in western Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: will let the hon. member for York South
Official Languages
speak for himself when he returns. It may be with regard to some related clause that he was active, as I am sure he was. At any rate, this is a principle which the minister has accepted. He is the father of the amendment which put subclause 4 into clause 40. Since he was prepared to agree that it should be there for the sake of those in the public service generally, I believe the same protection ought to be provided to those other two groups that are referred to as being included in the institutions of the parliament or government of Canada in clause 36(3).
As I say, we are not arguing with the minister over something to which he is violently opposed. We are discussing a matter of detail in an area where there is a wide measure of agreement. We know what we are seeking. I think the minister ought to consider this matter and should be willing to accept the amendment now before us in the name of the hon. member for Cardigan.


Mr. Rene Maiie (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as far as this motion is concerned, I should like first to clear up a few things which, I think, are tremendously important.
In my opinion the amendment contains certain assumptions which we precisely want to get rid of, in this country, because they seem to convey the feeling that French Canadians are unable to assume certain functions, particularly in the Canadian Armed Forces and in the R.C.M.P. In fact, one would believe that within these two organizations, Frenchspeaking Canadians should not be granted too generous a share.
If we analyze the reasons which brought about the introduction of a bill on official languages, we notice that it is precisely because it has never been agreed that Frenchspeaking Canadians should have their fair share in the country's administration.
And when we seriously consider what this bill stands for, we feel that it is quite useless.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Occasionally, competence in a given field makes an individual bilingual. I should like to illustrate this by giving a few examples.
In a bilingual district, in an area where the great majority is either French-speaking or English-speaking, if the head of the R.C.M.P. cannot understand the other language he is an incompetent. This amendment, just as the original clause of the bill, seems to minimize the importance of this. Is there anything more


Official Languages
annoying, than having to deal with policemen, with detectives who cannot understand you?
Early in the session one of my colleagues was arrested by the Ottawa police, as always English unilingual.
I say it is inadmissible that, in the capital of a country where at least 40 per cent of the population speaks French, one should not be arrested in his own tongue at least.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not recognize bilingualism as an element of competence in bilingual districts, this bill is absolutely worthless. It will change nothing and bring nothing new to this country. Even now, this is roughly what we hear in Quebec. Of course, at this stage in the province of Quebec, the situation is well understood and people smile at our quibbling, at our hesitations about a problem which should have been settled not in 1969, but in 1867. We are already 102 years late and we still have doubts about the importance and necessity of establishing bilingualism in the public service of our country.
Mr. Speaker, even that bill was not required to take those steps. Instead of bringing about divisions, instead of trying to convince Canadians that the problems of the country were being settled through a bill on official languages, the government should merely have enforced section 133 of the constitution. To establish bilingualism wherever it is required in the public service, that bill was not required at all. It is obvious that steps should have been taken a long time ago.
If in a municipality, like, say Maillardville, in Brilish Columbia, there are 5,000 or 10,000 French-speaking post office users, obviously the postmaster there should understand and speak French. And if there is a member of the R.C.M.P. on duty there, again it is obvious that he must understand those who come under his authority. All that could have been accomplished without introducing a bill. They want, with the help of a bill, to create in the province of Quebec the impression that Canada is becoming bilingual. It is not true. There are still many reservations. This will not be a step forward but backward.
Therefore, I agree with the minister's statement that there is no need to define anything as that constitutes a kind of insult to the French Canadians. Some people are afraid that French Canadians might become members of such organizations, afraid that they might be appointed to certain positions because they have a better knowledge of both languages and, with an amendment like 
this one, those people would like to prevent such a thing. I would hate to suspect the motives of the hon. member who is introducing this amendment, but when you have taken the trouble to study the problems of the country as well as the development of the French fact in Canada, you are able to guess pretty well the motives behind this proposition.
The aim is to maintain at all costs this situation thanks to which those who only speak English have always precedence over those who are bilingual. That is aberrant! The question of proficiency is only a face-saving device. Of course, French Canadians will never match the proficiency of their counterpart if the yardstick is the majority of the country.
Our laws are democratically conceived for the country as a whole according to its general frame of mind. It is therefore always difficult for those whose mother tongue is not English to display the same proficiency as that of their English-speaking countrymen since they have a different mentality. The problem is not there.
I shall go as far as to say that the problem of national unity will not be solved by such a bill. On the contrary. It will only breed dissension without fostering in the least the unity of the country. The French Canadians, and the Quebecers in particular, will not feel happy until they have a share in the management of the country. In other words, the bill should not be a bill on the official languages but a bill concerning the participation of the Quebecers, of the French Canadians in the management of public affairs. They should assume at least one third of the administration of the whole country. This is what the French Canadians want and they will not back out as long as they do not get it.
Mr. Speaker, however harsh these few remarks may sound, they are true because what will have been changed by the official languages bill in a few years since nobody will be transferred. For the time being, the government does not want to create fear. Nobody will be transferred. Everything will remain as it is and in a few years there will be bilingual employees whose mother tongue will be English. Then, the French Canadians, the Quebecers, will be excluded or almost so from the administration.
If we take into consideration all the Crown corporations or the government departments, everything that is related to the federal administration, the participation of the


Official Languages
French Canadians as such is about from zero to 2 or 3 per cent at the most.
One needs only to review the questions put on the order paper by my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), to ascertain the truth of such statements. And that is what the French Canadian wants to change. He no longer wants to have a 2 per cent participation in the administration of this country when he makes up one third of the population.
The bill before us, with all the reservations it contains and amendments that clarify them, instead of fostering unity, is causing a final division. When Quebecers understand the uselessness, the futility of this legislation, they will say: We knew that there was nothing to be done.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand that some members of this house fail to grasp the true problem that now exists in Canada, that one can insult part of the population with such amendments. I read between the lines, and I see that the competence of the French Canadian is questioned. That is one of the purposes of this amendment.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it may happen that the major criterion of competence is precisely and exactly that a person is bilingual. So, if the enforcement of this legislation is not seen in its proper light, we might end in a blind alley.
Having sat on the special committee on official languages, I have heard with my own ears what the hon. member who moved the amendment had to say and he even stated categorically that French Canadians in provinces other than Quebec were against this bill.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Melvin James McQuaid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, do I understand the hon. member correctly, that I said in committee that our party does not want any part of this bill? Is that what he said?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Matte:: I did not say that the party was against this bill but that, according to you, the French-speaking minority outside Quebec was not interested in bilingualism and, consequently, was not interested in giving approval to this bill concerning the official languages.
I could refer to the proceedings-


Melvin James McQuaid: Again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny ever having made such a statement in committee or anywhere else.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or this party.


Melvin James McQuaid: I would ask the hon. member to point out specifically where I made such a statement. If he cannot point it out, I would ask him to withdraw the remark.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, if I had in hand the report of the committee, I could read what the hon. member said then. It is, I believe, in Proceedings and Evidence No. 4. I recall that the hon. member for Matane (Mr. de Bane) flared up at that statement of the hon. member.
Anyhow, we are faced with an actual situation, and we are trying to answer the problem by means of solutions likely to foster national unity. Since this is one of the ostensible purposes of this official languages bill, in order to be logical, we must act accordingly, that is make sure that this bill really promotes bilingualism in the civil service. Furthermore, we must avoid including so many reservations in the implementation of that principle, because sooner or later the consequences of this bill, which will foster division instead of unity, will be realized.
If those possibilities are seriously taken into consideration, we must be deeply convinced of the need to turn down those amendments, which imply no more and no less that French-Canadians are unqualified in some areas, and consequently, that care should be taken so that competence takes precedence over bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, there will always be plenty of reasons for claiming that French Canadians are incompetent. The creation of bilingual districts for the specific purpose of providing adequate services for minorities does not matter. However gifted and intelligent an individual may be, Mr. Speaker, if he is unable to make himself understood by those he must work with, then he is incompetent.
If the purpose is to fight discrimination, it is important not to jeopardize, by this policy of reservations, an effect which in the long run could prove beneficial, if only the government would move forward and forget its fears. It is too late to be afraid. If that is our aim, let us simply establish bilingualism in


Official Languages
the entire federal public service. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it could have been done without introducing an official language bill because it was not necessary to establish bilingualism.
Under the constitution, even if it is a little out of date, the federal government should have preserved the rights, prerogatives and privileges of the minorities in provinces other than Quebec, but it never did.
In the present framework of the constitution, the only thing to do was to take our responsibilities, and there would have been no problem. The introduction of such a bill succeeded in scaring a major part of the country and it is now up to the minister and the government to patch things up.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have the consent of the house to reply now to the question put to me just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member asked me whether I would produce figures to complement those I introduced on May 20 at second reading stage, which are found at pages 8839, 8840 and 8841 of Hansard. At that time I produced figures to show the comparison in the number of applications from university students to the public service of Canada in the years 1966 and 1969. I said they had doubled and that in 1965-66 there were 4,000 applications from university students of Canada and this year there had been 9,000. As will be found on pages 8840 and 8841, I listed the number of applications by universities.
I am prepared to table the figures for the year 1968-69 of the number of applications, the number appointed and the number of those appointed who were, in the opinion of the commission, bilingual, and to break those down in the form in which they appear at pages 8840 and 8841 of Hansard, by universities. Before doing that, in reply to the question asked I think I would be entitled to recite some of the more significant figures and let the rest of the table speak for itself.
The total number of applications as a result of the university recruitment programs in 
1968-69 was 8,719. Of that number 410 were appointed, and of that number 140 were bilingual. These figures are broken down in this way: administrative trainee group, number of applications 4,013, number appointed 135, number of bilinguals 62. Foreign affairs group: number of applications, 1,746; number appointed, 54; number of bilinguals, 21. Social-economic groups: number of applications, 776; number appointed, 63; number of bilinguals, 19. Biophysical groups: number of applications, 1,440; number appointed, 126; number of bilinguals, 30. Applied science groups: number of applications, 744; number appointed, 32; number of bilinguals, 8. The total of all groups: number of applications, 8,719; number appointed, 410; number of bilinguals, 140.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The university breakdown speaks for itself. The total number of graduates appointed was 410 in 1969, and 140 were bilingual. This is broken down university by university in the same order in which I tabled it on May 20.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills without any amendment: Bill C-194, an act to amend the Patent Act, and Bill C-207, an act to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic region.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Income Tax-exemption increases in budgetary proposals; the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault)-Fisheries- dogfish-discussions between Canadian and Japanese officials; the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Fisheries-St. John's, Newfoundland-licensing of foreign vessels.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill, and motion No. 7, Mr. McQuaid.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in supporting this amendment, and taking into consideration what the minister said, I think it may be well to refer briefly to what the Public Service Employment Act really says. I should like to read three of the sections. Section 10 reads as follows:
Appointments to or from within the Public Service shall be based on selection according to merit-
In that regard I think the minister was right.
-as determined by the Commission, and shall be made by the Commission, at the request of the deputy head concerned, by competition or by such other process of personnel selection designed to establish the merit of candidates as the Commission considers is in the best interests of the Public Service.
Section 11 reads:
Appointments shall be made from within the Public Service except where, in the opinion of the Commission, it is not in the best interests of the Public Service to do so.
Section 12 emphasizes this and reads as follows:
The Commission may, in determining pursuant to section 10 the basis of assessment of merit in relation to any position or class of positions, prescribe selection standards as to education, knowledge, experience, language, age, residence or any other matters that, in the opinion of the Commission, are necessary or desirable-
For promotion.
All we are asking here is that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of the R.C.M.P. be protected in the same way because, as I understand the wording in the Public Service Employment Act, they are not included and do not have the same protection as those in the public service. Surely that is not too much to ask. I have spoken to members of the R.C.M.P. across the nation and have found there is real fear that there will
Official Languages
be some discrimination with regard to promotion, particularly of those who have not had the opportunity to learn and to become fluent in both official languages.
I agree with the last speaker who said that everyone should have the right to be arrested in his own language. I think there is some merit in that. I believe it would be very difficult for a member of the R.C.M.P. from the province of Quebec who spoke only French if he were sent to Banff for the summer, just as it would be very difficult for an English speaking member of the R.C.M.P. to be sent to the province of Quebec.


Mr. Pelletier:: No, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) disagrees. I like to have his attention because he will not speak on this bill. He wants the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to be his mouthpiece. Be that as it may, I will proceed with what I am saying. I think it would be very difficult.
When my good friend says that my party is against bilingualism, I would remind the house that before the Secretary of State had even been heard of the late R. B. Bennett was the first prime minister to put the English and French languages on the dollar bills of Canada and, flowing from that decision, all the doments that came from all departments of government were printed in both the languages. So I think we have to get some of the history straight. Second, a former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), brought in simultaneous translation in the House of Commons. Before that time those of us who were not totally bilingual had to guess what was said. Some hon. members shake their heads, but that was before they left other parties to join the Liberal ranks and take advantage of that great opportunity.
When someone suggests that men such as myself who believe in Conservative principles may be against bilingualism, they are historically incorrect and incorrect in so far as our philosophy is concerned. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has stated over and over again where he stands on the bill.


An hon. Member:: What about Diefenbaker?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Every Member of Parliament has a right to his own views. I know that people from different regions hold different views. I listen to my good friends, the French Canadians, I like to hear them speak
10806


Official Languages
and I learn a lot about their province and their philosophy. I do not always agree with them, and I am sure they do not always agree with the westerners, but all we ask of them is that they show the same tolerance toward the west as the west shows them. My city of Calgary, for instance, encourages this relationship through the chamber of commerce by being the twin city of the city of Quebec. However, I do not wish to go off on a tangent; all I wanted to do was to set the record straight.


David Orlikow: What a record!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You should not talk about records. You did not even stand up and vote; you left the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to get into an argument with my friends. All I can say is that I was here until ten minutes to six last night and I would be the last one to make a personal attack on any member of the hon. member's party.


Frank Howard: That was after you left, Eldon. Be honest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was not here when the attack was made on me.


Frank Howard: That is your own fault.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He did it deliberately.


Frank Howard: I think one might call that a lie.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills. However, before proceeding I understand the hon. member for Champlain wishes to speak to a point of order.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, in order to be fair to the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) whom I seemed to attack a while ago, if you will allow me, I might quote the statement he made in the official languages committee, which is as follows:
We must realize that there are some areas in Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but this

hardly constitutes a point of order. If there is a point of order or a question of privilege, it lies with the hon. member for Cardigan to raise it.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Speaker, there is agreement on this side of the house to waive private members' hour and to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-120. I suggest that this might be done if there is unanimous agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I digress for a
moment, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy in making that suggestion so I could continue my remarks.
All we ask is that members of the armed forces and members of the R.C.M.P. be accorded the same protection that is given to people employed in the public service. As I was saying, there is a real fear among members of the R.C.M.P. and members of the armed services that the fact that they are not totally bilingual may affect their promotions.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The greatest skill that is necessary is scientific knowledge. The Public Service Employment Act says that the commission may, in determining assessment of merit in relation to any position or class of positions, prescribe selection standards as to education, knowledge, experience, language, age, and so on. Knowledge is certainly of great importance so far as those who serve in the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. are concerned. Experience is certainly of great importance. If a person has the necessary knowledge and has served in the R.C.M.P. or in the services for 15 or 20 years, and there is a certain type of promotion open for which he is suited, then surely he has the necessary qualifications. All the amendment is asking is that the position of those who have been omitted should be safeguarded. I agree that language would be important, depending upon where the service is to be carried out.
The minister's main argument seems to be that clause 40 really added nothing by way of rights but simply spelled out what the rights were. Clause 40(4) says:
In relation to the appointment and advancement in employment of personnel the duties of whose positions include duties relating to the provision


of services by authorities to members of the public, it is the duty
(a)	of the Public Service Commisson. . . and
(b)	of the authority concerned, in all other cases, to ensure that, in the exercise and performance
of the powers, duties and functions conferred or imposed upon it by law, due account is taken of the purposes and provisions of this Act, subject always to the maintenance of the principle of selection of personnel according to merit-
All we are saying is that the two classes of persons to whom we have referred should not have been omitted. Acceptance of the motion would give them the psychological security that those in the R.C.M.P. and in the Canadian Armed Forces need. Why not give them the same protection as is spelled out in the Public Service Employment Act?
The minister tells us the amendment would not really change the law. But I feel that if there were a disposition to include this provision for the safeguarding of those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the R.C.M.P., no one would oppose it.
It seems to me, though, that under the new rules every opposition amendment, regardless of its merits, is voted down unless it has had the prior approval of the government or of the standing committee. We saw this happen this afternoon and we shall see it again with regard to the amendment now before us. What we are really doing in the House of Commons nowadays is playing games. Can the taxpayers afford to keep us here playing games when what we do has no effect? The government is saying: We shall run the country and we shall not listen to any suggestions put forward whether they have merit or not; we shall ram our legislation through, and we shall bring in further new rules so as to stop the opposition getting across to the people what is really going on in this country.


An hon. Member:: Stop playing games.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) I should like to second almost all what the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) said earlier about a situation that has been going on in Canada for quite some time.
I also wish to say that I agree with him that it is highly frustrating to be arrested by a constable or to be admonished by a unilingual peace officer in a city such as Ottawa which, of course, should be bilingual. The hon. member for Champlain will nevertheless agree that there is some progress in this field 29180-683a
Official Languages
and that we should give enough time to the new generation of public servants to acquire a reasonable knowledge of the second language, which they never had the opportunity to learn.
I would say to the hon. member for Charm plain that bilingualism applies even to federal members of Parliament, because they must serve the whole Canadian population. I would hope that the hon. member for Champlain and all his colleagues who are not yet bilingual, who are as yet unable to understand the observations directed at them by peace officers, will themselves take courses in English as soon as possible, to set the example and to become truly bilingual.
In order to really prove to the hon. member for Champlain that I am not prejudiced about it, I would like to quote what he wanted to quote a while ago but could not because he was not allowed to do so, when he attributed to the hon. member for Cardigan words he would have said during a meeting of the special committee on official languages.
I draw it from page 231 of report No. 2. I checked with the hon. member for Champlain to see whether these were the words he alluded to, and he said yes. Here is the text which I will read in the hon. member's tongue to assure the house that I change nothing.
Someone had said that in Canada, everyone might not be in favour of bilingual districts, and the hon. member said this:


Melvin James McQuaid: May I be permitted to answer that? I think we have to recognize that there are areas in Canada particularly in western Canada Mr. Pelletier-


An hon. Member:: And in Quebec.


Melvin James McQuaid: -and probably in Quebec too- but I am referring now particularly to the west- where 10 per cent of the people are French speaking. Now, these people are violently opposed to having a bilingual district established in their particular area. They feel that they are progressing satisfactorily among themselves the way they are, and are not anxious to have a bilingual district established. Surely such people have a right to be heard-or, at least, have their expressions and views put forward to the advisory board. There is nothing wrong with that, is there?

That is the text alluded to by the hon. member for Champlain, and I am one of those who think that bilingual districts may not be the best formula. It should not be inferred though that English-speaking Canadians living in Western Canada, are opposed to the principle of official bilingualism. If they have restrictions concerning


Official Languages
bilingual districts, it would not be proper to infer that they are opposed to the principle of official bilingualism. I think that, on the contrary, if a poll were taken, it would be seen that the great majority are in favour of official bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to note that a bill on official languages which answers an aspiration as basic as that of national unity as well as that of a group of people as large as the French-Canadian group, who want to live on an equal footing with Englishspeaking Canadians, should be the subject of so many precautions.
I am happy to note that, for the most part, my colleagues in this house are in favour of the principle of this bill. They have said so openly. However, although there is no direct objection to the principle, the discussion drags on and many precautions are taken, a great number of distinctions are made and an infinite number of constitutional concerns are put forward. And many subtle definitions, complaints and restrictions are made; in short, we are trying by all sorts of means to put so many buffers that, for all practical purposes, the bill finally becomes inoperative. No one dares attack it directly.
Some civil servants might suffer injustices on account of this legislation. Compulsion certainly exists since some people will have to learn French. In some quarters, some even say: You should not get carried away, you, the Quebec people; you are still the inhabitants of a conquered province. Since constitutional matters are added to that, let us settle them before we pass any legislation on official languages.
We are also told: Other ethnic groups are entitled to their own language. Large ethnic groups will have to be treated on the same footing as the French-speaking Canadians.
It is being said also: For all practical purposes, the Commissioner of Languages will become some kind of dictator in this field. All sorts of things are being said, Mr. Speaker, with an almost machiavellian subtlety which barely hides the desire to neutralize this bill.
Mr. Speaker, if somebody talks about injustice in the public service, I should like to remind those who are against this bill that French-speaking Canadians have been suffering injustice and discrimination for 200 years in the public service.
If anybody says that employees of the public service are compelled to learn French, I shall point out that for 200 years we have 
been compelled to learn English and we have learned it.
To those who remind us that we are a conquered nation, I say that this is an incident in an insignificant war and that no people endowed with a modicum of feelings and of pride will reconcile itself to centuries of subjection without sporadic outbursts, such as those which are happening at present in the province of Quebec and in the rest of this country, in order to obtain full equality with all other Canadians. In my opinion, this is not a serious argument; it is an insult to Frenchspeaking Canadians.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
To those who put forward the constitutional red tape, I say, Mr. Speaker, that men are not made to serve the law but that the law is made to serve men.
When it comes to fulfilling as basic a need as that concerning respect for a given language or religion, for instance, no constitutional red tape can ever be more important than this essential need, the existence of which must be urgently recognized.
Other ethnic groups also have rights, Mr. Speaker. We know that and we treat them well. We have welcomed them to Canada and given them all the rights enjoyed by Canadian people. When they came to this country, they knew they would have to choose between two official languages, French and English. They are allowed in addition to keep their own mother tongue in their schools, and no law prevents them from continuing to use it in their relations, with the members of their family or ethnic group.
Finally, all the other objections that are put forth are, to my mind, fictitious, and seem to have no other purpose but to confuse the issue, to throw dust in people's eyes and to keep the Canadian public from understanding well the reasons for this legislation.
A while ago I heard the member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asking hon. members, in particular the French-speaking group, to be tolerant and to understand the aspirations of Canadians of foreign or English origin who live in Western Canada. For 200 years now, we, in Quebec, have set the example of respect for English-speaking citizens; we have given them their schools, we have heard them in their own tongue in our courts, in our municipal assemblies, in our provincial legislature.
We have proved our tolerance and what we want now is not tolerance but justice. We are


one of the founding peoples and we want to be treated, throughout the country, throughout the ten provinces, like other Canadians and, in particular, like the English-speaking Canadians whose equals we want to be.
We have been tolerant, but at this time the young people of my province and even the middle-aged and the older people protest against that kind of prejudice which excluded from the civil service our French-speaking people because they had an inadequate knowledge of the English language, and prevented them from being promoted. Now those times are gone by. We have taken the trouble to learn English and we want to have access to those promotions. We demand that all the others do as we did. Let them learn the second language if they want to be paid with the money collected from our taxes. We have been thinking about it for a hundred years.
We have been persecuted and not more than 25 years ago we were still scornfully urged to "Speak White"! We have borne that for 200 years, Mr. Speaker.
When our number was sufficient in some provinces, when, after Canada was ceded to England, we were promised that our sacred rights would be respected, we had to finance our schools with our own money after paying taxes for the English schools which were closed to us.
For 200 years, we were kept outside the public service which was financed with the taxes we were paying. We were forced to learn English and we did learn it.
None the less we have dealt well by the English Canadians. We have served in the wars fought by Canada in which many of our sons gave their life.
If at the present time separatism is prevailing in Quebec, the fault lies with some fanatics who oppose this bill, as they opposed the adoption of the Canadian flag, who object to French Canadians being put on an equal footing with all other citizens. They are the agitators and the fomenters of separatism in this country. We are trying to get across to them that the young people will not be treated as colonists, slaves or second class citizens. And those who refuse to understand it might bear the responsibility of seeing the fabric of confederation being torn apart and this country divided into several factions.
When I see them rise and protest against the excesses of our separatists, against the
Official Languages
excesses of those who, in our country, are showing prejudice-there are some everywhere-and who demand integral unilin-gualism, or who do not want equal treatment for English-speaking and French-speaking students in the Quebec schools, I feel that they should be the last ones to denounce such a situation, because they are responsible for it or because they are the sons of those who are responsible.
We, in the province of Quebec, who are federalists, who are not afraid to show our convictions and our principles anywhere in Canada, who have for many generations respected all the Canadians living in our country but who did not speak our language, we, in Quebec, who forced ourselves to learn English, even in areas where we did not need to, have the right today to ask the remainder of the country to respect us and to follow the example which we have given for 200 years.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I object to all those amendements which are mere window-dressing to try to prevent the passage of that bill which is quite relevant but perhaps somewhat late, as stated by the hon. member for Champlain.
And when I hear the hon. member laughing and lightly discussing the matter, say that it is because of such narrowmindness that we will continue to see those divisions in Canada.
If Quebec ever separated from the rest of the country, the hon. member and all those who are like him would be held responsible and would have to account for their actions to the rest of the country.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words at this time partly as a result of the interjection made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). The hon. member suggested that because I was not here when the vote on second reading of the bill took place I was afraid to put my position on the record. For the information of the hon. member may I tell him I was not here because the premier of the Conservative government of Manitoba saw fit to call an election, and as a citizen of Manitoba I thought I ought to play a small part in that election.
I spoke on this bill on May 26, and at that time I made my position very clear. I want to quote one paragraph-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are supposed to be speaking to the amendment.


Official Languages


David Orlikow: The hon. member says that I am supposed to be speaking to the amendment. I can assure him that I will be no more out of order than he and his colleague from Calgary North have been repeatedly out of order during the last couple of days. On that occasion I said, as reported at page 9071 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill, I realize that contained in it is one of the most important principles which the people of this country must face up to and resolve if our country is to survive. The deputy leader of our party, speaking on second reading of the bill some days ago, put the position of our party very clearly as one of support for the bill. I shall support this bill.
My hon. friend and colleague, the former member for Selkirk, who will be premier of Manitoba in a few days, in speaking on the principle of the bill on October 17 of last year, as reported at page 1498 of Hansard had this to say:
I find the resolution easy to support in spirit, intent and in purpose. I find it laudable. The only thing I would add is that what we are being asked to do by this resolution we should have done years ago.
It seems to me that in this debate some hon. members have attempted to re-enact the fight that took place during the election campaign in June, 1968. By opposing this bill some hon. members think they are mobilizing the support of those who harbour anti-French and anti-Quebec sentiments. I suggest to those hon. members, particularly to those hon. members from Manitoba who voted against the bill at second reading, that it is best to forget about the election of June 25, 1968.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Aiken:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, neither the hon. member now speaking nor the hon. member who preceded him have mentioned the amendment, other than in passing. I suggest that this is not a general debate on the official languages bill. We are considering a specific motion to amend. Unless hon. member's remarks are confined to the relevant points at issue, we shall be here until Christmas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I agree with the hon. member. Hon. members ought to confine their remarks to the amendment being discussed. I know that great latitude has been given to hon. members this afternoon in the debate on the amendment, but I hope that from now on hon. members will

kindly confine their remarks to the amendment before us.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read the amendment. It might help you to think.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the last person in this house I am likely to take advice from is the hon. member for Crowfoot. I suggest that he has strayed from the matter being discussed more often than anyone else. I do not question your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I intend to confine my remarks to the amendment. However, since Your Honour has, so to speak, pulled me up after other hon. members have enjoyed some latitude, I cannot help being a little resentful. I will take the opportunity on another occasion to say what I want to say about this bill and about the feelings of the people of Manitoba in regard to it. May I say that I shall join my colleagues in supporting this amendment, it being one of the few moved by members of the official opposition that does not negate the spirit of the bill. In clear form it spells out the basic intent of the bill. No doubt the hon. member for Crowfoot will range far and wide in speaking in support of the amendment. If I do as he does, I hope I may be in order. I conclude by saying that I shall support this amendment.


Mr. Givens:: Mr. Speaker, I request permission to revert to routine business for a moment.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have been acting as house leader for my party and I have been given no notice of any amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with an amendment. The hon. member wishes to present the report of the special committee with respect to certain private bills which we hope can be dealt with tomorrow. I hope the house will permit us to revert to routine proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member be permitted to move any motion the committee instructed him to
move?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wishes to present certain reports.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Givens.
[Editor's note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceeedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill, and motion No. 7 (Mr. McQuaid).
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Is the
house ready for the question?
Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than jive members having risen: [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands reserved.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-120, An Act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by adding to clause 40. the following subclause 5:
Official Languages
"(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this Act, provided that the applicant has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other official language."
[DOT] (5:30 pun.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the beginning of my remarks that I intend to do what Your Honour instructed the hon. member who preceded me to do. I shall confine my remarks to the subject matter of this motion. If anyone cares to check the record he will find that the speech I made yesterday on another amendment was short, succinct, entirely in order, and dealt specifically with that amendment. This being the last of a series of seven amendments I think it should receive serious consideration by the house, particularly in view of the remarks made earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and in view of the information which he tabled. He assured us that clause 40 will not change the merit principle, but will only ensure that that principle will stand as it is already written into the Public Service Employment Act. On the basis of that statement, and on the basis of the information he tabled about the hiring of university students, the numbers of them who were bilingual and the numbers who were not, I do not think he can have any real objection to this amendment.
My amendment clearly states:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this act, provided that the applicant-
And I underline these words.
-has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other official language.
I can see no reason for any unilingual French speaking member of parliament, or French speaking Canadian seeking employment or promotion in the federal civil service objecting to this amendment.
Many of the suspicions and fears about this bill are based on its possible effects within the civil service. An article in the Calgary Albertan of Wednesday, July 2 headed, "Civil Servants Perturbed-Languages Hit Morale" points out how badly the morale of the civil service has been affected by this bill. Adoption of this amendment would assure applicants for jobs in the civil service that they would be treated with equality and fairness.


Official Languages
An article in today's Ottawa Journal is headed, "Multi-Million Dollar Federal Plan to Aid Teaching of French," and in effect it supports the purposes of this amendment. Many people fear the scope of this bill. Clause 9 spells out its scope fairly clearly when it refers to:
Every department and agency of the Government of Canada and every judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body or Crown corporation established by or pursuant to an act of the Parliament of Canada-
That covers a lot of ground. Clause 10 states:
Every department and agency of the Government of Canada and every Crown corporation established by or pursuant to an act of the Parliament of Canada has the duty to ensure that, at any office, location or facility in Canada or elsewhere at which any services to the travelling public are provided or made available by it, or by any other person pursuant to a contract for the provision of such services entered into by it or on its behalf after the coming into force of this act, such services can be provided or made available in both official languages.
Even contracts with the federal government fall within the scope of this bill. What does all this mean? The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spelled it out very clearly as recorded in volume No. 1 of the Special Committee proceedings, at page 18, and I quote:
As I read clause 9, and the same thing applies to clause 10, these requirements about service in both languages are placed upon Crown corporations only. That is, when they are placed upon corporations, they are placed upon Crown corporations only. I leave out the civil service and the agencies.
What this means in practice is that, to take three examples, this requirement is placed upon the Canadian National Railways but not the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is placed upon Air Canada but not on Canadian Pacific Airlines or any small air line. It is placed upon the C.B.C. but not on the private television networks. It is obvious that the provision of services at the national capital or anywhere else involves an additional expense-
In that same paragraph, he pointed out that Crown corporations will be put to great expense that will not have to be met by private corporations with which they are in competition. He asked the minister was this fair, and why not encompass all corporations dealing with the federal government or having a federal charter. As recorded at page 20 of the committee proceedings, the Minister of Justice said:
Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee I want to make it clear to the hon. member that we are not relying on any constitutional argument in failing to move beyond the limits already set in

the bill. I tend to agree with the hon. member that we would probably have legislative jurisdiction.
There are two points that I would like to make, probably by way of reiteration. The first is that the policy decision was to be limited to federal public institutions and agencies; if we were to take it into private enterprise we would have had the problem of deciding where to draw the line; should it merely be that part of private enterprise that competes with public enterprise as in the railways or in the public broadcasting system, or do we go into those other areas in which we have clear jurisdiction, banks, pipe lines, even companies having a federal charter? That is why the decision on policy was taken the way it was.
As recorded at page 19 of the proceedings, the minister said:
We hope that the influence of this bill will go beyond the strict legal limits, and the hon. member is right in assessing those strict legal limits.
Let us not kid ourselves. This bill will have an influence on a wide range of activities. It will affect the hiring and the promotion of many, many Canadians. To understand this, one has only to consider the interjection made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) this afternoon when the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was speaking. At that time the minister said, "Why shouldn't a person have the right to be arrested or given a traffic ticket in his mother tongue"? This gives us some idea of the scope envisioned for this bill.


Gérard Pelletier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any remarks about traffic tickets or anything of that kind. I think the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) mistook somebody else for me and did not recognize my voice, which is something I would never do to him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, I am not going to argue with the Secretary of State on that point. Hansard will prove whether I am right or wrong. But the Secretary of State was reported in this article in the Albertan as saying:
We should realize bilingualism is one of the necessities and wake up to the requirements.
Is this really true? Do all applicants for jobs in the civil service have to be bilingual? I do not think so, particularly in view of the information tabled this afternoon by the Minister of Justice.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Again, Mr. Speaker, we do not really know who will be responsible for seeing that the provisions of this legislation are carried out. We note that the Minister of Justice is being used to pilot the bill through the house. But will his fairmindedness be used in the


application of this bill? We have some suspicions in that regard. We see the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) sitting ever-watchful. It is common belief that the administration of this bill will come under his jurisdiction, that it will be he who will appoint the commissioner and that it will be to him the commissioner will report. So, we have these fears. I believe the amendment I am proposing is a very good one. I hope the Secretary of State can support it, because I think it brings about that degree of security which the Minister of Justice wanted to ensure. He stated that this bill would really ensure that the merit system would be upheld. There is not much point in my reading clause 12 of the Public Service Employment Act. It was read earlier this afternoon and spells out the merit system very clearly. In his speech earlier in this debate I believe the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) spelled out quite clearly what I believe should have been done. I believe this paragraph should be emphasized. As reported at page 9111 of Hansard he said:
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.
I agree with that statement, but here we have the situation in respect of a commissioner and bilingual districts. Along with that there is a great deal of fear among the members of the public service and applicants for employment in the public service because of the question in their minds concerning whether they must become bilingual. The Secretary of State said, "Certainly; wake up to the fact that bilingualism is going to be or should be a necessity". Then, we have the Minister of Justice saying that bilingualism is not quite a necessity yet. He tabled facts this afternoon supporting the argument that a unilingual person could be hired by the federal government. Today's Ottawa Journal indicates quite clearly that the government is prepared to spend millions of dollars teaching, I imagine,
Official Languages
the official languages to civil servants and Canadians all across Canada. The objection I have to that, of course, is that this money might be spent only in the bilingual districts. If one does not live in a bilingual district he may not reap the benefit of that expenditure.
I do not intend to speak any longer on the amendment. I think it is self-explanatory. I believe it spells out quite clearly what most people have been concerned about. I know I mentioned it earlier in a speech I made on this subject on October 17. At that time I said that western Canada has a growing fear that it is being left out of the policy decisions of parliament. Western Canada also has a growing fear that it is being left out of the administrative decisions of the federal government. That fear will only be strengthened and increased twofold if this amendment is voted down. If this amendment is supported, western Canadians and Canadians from the provice of Quebec or from any other part of Canada whether or not they are bilingual, will be able to feel secure in the knowledge that they may apply for a position if they meet the qualifications for that position and provided they express a willingness to learn the other language. This to me does not seem to cloud the issue. Rather, it would seem to clarify it.
The minister said that in this bill there is the intention to ensure that the merit system as laid down in the Public Service Employment Act shall be followed. I seriously ask the Minister of Justice to persuade his colleagues to accept this amendment. I understand the vote on the amendment is to be deferred until this evening. I hope that during the supper hour he and his colleagues can find time to discuss this amendment and find a way to support it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I just propose to state in a few words the reasons I cannot support this amendment, although it is very attractive in form and has been presented very moderately and excellently by the hon. member. The reason we cannot support it is really that we think it is totally inconsistent with the principle of the whole bill. It cuts out the guts of the bill. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) has risen in this house a number of times during the debate to say that he is against the other amendments and because he is against the other amendments is against the whole bill. So far as I am concerned, however, there is more than one way to skin a cat. One way is to be against


Official Languages
the principle of the bill and the other way is to remove the principle from the bill. I suggest that is what is being done here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You give me too much credit.


Francis Andrew Brewin: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was doing a good job. I believe the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner)-and I respect his right to have this view-is one of those who voted against the bill on second reading. I believe this amendment is very sweeping. It reads:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this Act, provided that the applicant has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other official language.
There must be very many occasions on which the knowledge of one or the other of the official languages is absolutely essential to the performance of a function, and therefore I do not believe it would be appropriate to say that no person shall be refused employment or promotion because of his inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages. It seems to me this would be carrying the thing very far.
I am sure there are situations in the public service where it is essential that someone know both official languages and not just one because he would be unable to handle the job without that particular knowledge. This bill is full of safeguards. Clause 40 contains many of these safeguards, such as the postponement of early application and matters of that sort, which would be difficult to bring about and which would prejudice the interests of the public. If this amendment should pass, all a person would have to do to make the act completely dead would be to declare his intention and willingness to learn the official language. I have declared my intention and willingness to learn the other official language, although I must say I am finding the actual task of doing so considerably more difficult than my expression of intention to do so. I would not hesitate to say there are many jobs in the pulbic service to which it would be totally wrong to appoint a person with my inadequate acquaintance with one of the official languages. Yet, this amendment says that notwithstanding anything in this act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this act, provided that the applicant 
has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other official language.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
All a person need do is make that declaration. As I say, I believe the bill contains many safeguards which would protect persons from being wrongfully dismissed in cases where a knowledge of the two languages is not essential. Subsection (4) of Section 40 of the act provides for the maintenance of the principle of selection of personnel according to merit. This is required by the Public Service Employment Act and that basic principle is preserved.
This measure will have to be worked out in a reasonable manner so as not to deprive people of the right to effective maintenance of this principle of the act. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) spoke of the fears of many people in the west. I can understand why there would be such fears, but I think it is the task of those of us in this house to diminish any fears there may be.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Diminish them by our actions.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, that is right, diminish them by our actions. That does not mean we should adopt amendments that would destroy the effective working of the act, and for this reason we are opposed to the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are nit-picking.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I shall say only a few words on the amendment that has just been presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). While I listened to the hon. member making his point, and since he had already said he was against the principle of the bill, I find his amendment is logical, because he has confirmed-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member suggests that I stated in this house I was against the principle of this bill. I do not recall ever stating that. I said the legislation was poor.


An hon. Member:: You voted against it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I voted against it on second reading because I wanted the committee to change it during committee consideration.


Mr. Deachman:: Are you opposed to the principle of the bill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ask me that sometime when I have the floor, and I will answer it.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot has just demonstrated his inconsistency when he said that he voted against the principle of the bill on second reading, and he would not state that he is actually against the principle of the bill. So he claims to be in favour of the bill, but in fact he is against it.
For 200 years, we have been witnessing those demonstrations of intentions and good will. Today, we are against that because we wish to live according to reality. It is for that reason that I commend the minister who introduced this bill so that once and for all everything will be done openly and the English-speaking group who are asking themselves what Quebec wants will have to take a stand.
What Quebec wants, we know it, is justice pure and simple. Quebec wants implementation of the policy it has been applying in favour of minorities for the past 200 years.
I feel the bill precisely confirms this policy and that is why I certainly cannot approve the amendment moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who states that it can result in discrimination against unilingu-als within the Public Service. For instance, when he says: "If I were a French-speaking unilingual", I can give him an immediate reply: "If you were a French-speaking unilingual, you would never become a public servant because, in the past 200 years, non-bilingual French Canadians have never been admitted to the Public Service." That is the reply.
It is suggested today that by means of this bill that irregular situation prevailing through Canada must be corrected. I am not speaking of a small area even located in the province of Quebec. Let us see what goes on in the remotest areas. In my riding, where there only 2 per cent English-speaking people, all official publications are issued in both languages. The same cannot be said about the western provinces and that is why we want bilingualism to be respected throughout Canada. The amendment reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this act-
If we were to accept this amendment, we might just as well totally reject the bill,
Official Languages
because by accepting the amendment you destroy all the effect of the bill.
I go on quoting:
-provided that the applicant has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other official language-
Imagine the terrific joke of the hon. member for Crowfoot! We have been living on good intentions for the past 200 years. We are told that the English-speaking Canadians are well-meaning. Possibly, but they have never shown any good will. They are well-meaning but they have never made up their minds.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question? In respect of his belief as to the principle of the bill, does he feel that a person has to be bilingual before he can get a job or a promotion in the civil service?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: In the future, Mr. Speaker, when the bill has been passed, it will be absolutely necessary for an individual to be bilingual. This has been going on for a hundred years. An individual will have to be bilingual to enter the public service.
I think this is not asking too much because it has been asked of us for 200 years-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I ask the hon. member another question on that very point? After listening to the debate does he think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) agrees with the principle he has just enunciated?
Mr. Turner (Oliawa-Carlelon) Oh, come on, Jack!


Mr. Gauihier:: I refer to the bilingual districts. I know that there are small Englishspeaking villages where there is not one French Canadian, but I refer to the public service here in Ottawa and to all the bilingual districts. We must use our judgment and I think that if the member for Crowfoot had used his, he would not have presented such an argumentative amendment. May I point out that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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.
Official Languages AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-202, an act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment, without any amendment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill, and motion No. 8 (Mr. Horner).
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I was saying just before recess that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) was not acceptable to this house because it goes against the principles of the bill, and renders void the purpose of clause 40. In fact, it says that the languages bill should be amended by adding subclause 5 to clause 40.
Clause 40, which already has four subclauses, proves that the minister and the government are very tolerant, because first there is the power to postpone, or to defer in some cases, the implementation of the act. This is what the bill says:
40. (1) Where upon the submission of any Minister it is established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that the immediate application of any provision of this Act to any department or other institution of the Parliament or Government of Canada (hereinafter in this section called an "authority") or in respect of any service provided or made available by it
(a)	would unduly prejudice the interests of the public served by the authority, or
(b)	would be seriously detrimental to the good government of the authority, employer and employee relations or the effective management of its affairs, the Governor in Council may by order defer or suspend the application of any such
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]

provision to the authority or in respect of any such service for such period, not exceeding sixty months from the coming into force of this Act, as the Governor in Council deems necessary or expedient.
I think that if the hon. member had very carefully read clause 40 of the bill, he would not have even thought of moving this amendment.
And, in the following paragraph, we can read the following under the terms of order and directions to ensure an early application.
(2) Any order made under this section may contain such directions and be subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council deems appropriate to ensure the earliest possible application of any deferred or suspended provision provided for in the order, and in addition may prescribe different periods, not exceeding in any case the maximum period provided for under subsection (1), for different operations carried on or services performed or made available by the authority, to or in respect of which the application of any such provision is deferred or suspended.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in all regions throughout Canada, the legislator has provided for all the exceptional cases which might arise to afford that advantage, for instance, to a constituency without a single French Canadian, in the same way as we might do in the province of Quebec, in parishes and in ridings where not a single English Canadian is to be found. Nevertheless, we publish all court judgments in French and in English, even if the English provinces have never done so and have never adjusted to that full bilingualism.
We find the law very permissive because- as I said this afternoon-it establishes once and for all that bilingualism must be respected all across Canada.
The hon. member says in his amendment that on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages, an applicant for employment in the Public Service cannot be denied employment provided that he has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other language.
Those are the very intentions we want to exclude from the legislation. We are living in the century of realities and the period of good intentions has gone by. We have endured the good inlentions of the other group for two hundred years, and I think that now is the time, more than ever, to come back to today's realities in Canada, that is to bilingualism as is now required by conditions prevailing in Canada.
I now want to congratulate all the groups in this house who have made progress in that direction these last years, because the vote on

this motion will indicate to all Canadians that all sincere people in Canada want Canadian unity, that is full bilingualism in Canada. After this vote, Mr. Speaker, there will be some twenty opponents, but I think that by pitching into them the idea that they also must become Canadians, and stop being unilingual, we will make them understand that the salvation of Canada rests upon bilingualism.
If the question is finally put tonight with respect to this motion, I think the Canadian people will realize that government members are determined to recognize once and for all the bilingual nature of Canada, not only in theory, but also in practice.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we listened with great care to the speech made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) this afternoon just before we rose for the adjournment at six o'clock. I gave careful and sympathetic consideration to the amendment which he proposes. Before dealing with it in specific terms, I think it is perhaps necessary to give the house some background material in order that members may understand fully the significance of the proposal made by the hon. member for Crowfoot in the light of the impact which it would have on the long standing traditional practices in the public service of Canada.
In the early 1930's, parliament amended the Civil Service Act of 1918 in such a way as to direct the Civil Service Commission to ensure, in making an appointment to a local office-that is to say a position not in the headquarters establishment-that the candidate to be appointed be proficient in English or French, whichever of these languages was used by the majority of the members of the community in which he was to be posted and which the local office served. Thus was established the principle that a prerequisite to appointment was a sufficient knowledge of either his first or his second language to enable the public servant to provide services to members of the community in the language used by the majority of those members.
I am told by the chairman of the Public Service Commission that the records of the commission show that in the 1930's it required on an administrative basis, certain linguistic skills to serve the minority linguistic group throughout the period preceding
Official Languages
and succeeding the amendment to the Civil Service Act of 1918 to which I just referred. In 1961, when the legislation governing appointments and promotions in the public service was under review by the parliament of the day under the administration of the then prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), parliament decided, and in my view quite rightly, both to extend the principle to which I just referred and at the same time to provide in the statutes an explicit direction to the Civil Service Commission to the effect that in making appointments or in promoting prospective candidates care should be given to ensuring that the candidates be sufficiently proficient in English or French or both so that service to the public may be effective.
Again in 1967 when parliament endorsed the Public Service Employment Act, this extension of the basic principle to which I just referred was incorporated in section 20 of the act. I should like to read the section. It is part of the law of Canada. It reads:
Employees appointed to serve in any department or other portion of the Public Service, or part thereof, shall be qualified in the knowledge and use of the English or French language or both, to the extent that the Commission deems necessary in order that the functions of such department, portion or part can be performed adequately and effective service can be provided to the public.
I believe this is a brief review of the history of the practice and traditions of the public service of this country for the past 30 years or more. To an increasing degree, as is evident in the policies of succeeding governments representing both the party to which I belong and the party of the official opposition, we have recognized the need to insist, in cases where in fact there is a need, that the possession of the appropriate linguistic skills, either by way of a first or second language, must be an element in the administration of the principle of merit. This proposition was made explicit by the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, in his statement to this house on April 6, 1966, when he said the following:
The achievement of bilingualism is in itself a desirable objective for any Canadian citizen. Where the need for bilingualism clearly exists in practice, above all in the National Capital, it should be recognized as an element of merit in selection for civil service positions.
As the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) said this afternoon in referring to section 12 in the assessment of merit, although it may not be a direct definition certainly it sets the guidelines or standards


Official Languages
by which merit is to be judged, that is general proficiency, the intellectual formation and education, knowledge of the language of the community, and the other factors: mentioned in that section which are deemed to be relevant.
The hon. member for Crowfoot, in proposing this amendment, has two objectives in mind I am sure. First, he wants to ensure as far as possible that any public servant is not subjected unnecessarily to the selection standards which would be a barrier to the development of his own personal career, either in his opportunities to achieve recruitment-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not my own personal career.


John Napier Turner: He was
speaking on behalf of his party. As I said, either by way of recruitment to the public service or, once having obtained admission to the service of Canada, in his promotional opportunities.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Second, I believe the amendment seeks to ensure as far as possible that entry into the public service is not unnecessarily barred to one who through no fault of his own has found himself unable to acquire appropriate skill in the second language. To this end, the hon. member has suggested-and I use the words of his amendment-that willingness to learn the other language should be a sufficient qualification. In this connection, we have reviewed the possibility of exploiting language training resources in such a way as to meet the objectives of the hon. member without prejudice to the principles which have been established in the management of the Public Service of Canada over the past 30 years.
I might suggest to hon. members that we in this house are obliged to consider two aspects of the administrative problem. First, I have been informed by the Public Service Commission that 75 per cent of the men and women who work for the people of Canada as employees in the public service never leave the town or locality in which they are recruited. The likelihood of new language requirements from persons recruited in unilingual localities is therefore remote. I have in mind areas such as those represented by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) or by several hon. members from the Province of Quebec-Rimouski and Chicoutimi, for instance. Thus, if the amendment is designed tt protect the person who has never had an oppoetunity

to learn the second language, it would really have only a limited application. Second, if one places the extensive language training facilities available, presently 5,000 places-the number is soon to be increased to 7,000 and ultimately to 9,000-against the potential demand-and the global figure today is 370,000 public servants, excluding members of the Armed Forces-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. gentleman is not including the Crown corporations.


John Napier Turner: I am including them, but not the employees of the C.N.R. As I was saying, if one places the facilities available against the potential demand it is easily seen that while the requirements for language training might, in the ordinary course of things, be easily met, periods could arise in which this would not be possible because of an unusually high demand. We feel, therefore, that it would not be appropriate to tie the public service into a legislative strait jacket in connection with language training which might well frustrate its development in certain unusual circumstances.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Crowfoot knows me well. I am at his disposition, but I wonder whether he will allow me to finish my expose. His memory is very good at this time of the evening and I am sure he will be able to return to the question later when I have finished what I have to say.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My memory is good at any time of the day.


John Napier Turner: Further, it is estimated that of the total of 370,000 mentioned, barely one sixth, or 50,000, will need any bilingual capability, and of that number one-half, or 25,000, are already bilingual. This is the size of the problem we have to deal with. The question I put to the hon. member for Crowfoot and to the house in general is: In these circumstances should we tie ourselves to the rigid concept of a statutory requirement such as the amendment envisages?
The position of the government in relation to the proposed amendment must now be obvious to members of the house. There are, however, one or two smaller points which perhaps should be made with regard to the administration of such a proposal. For


Official Languages
to this bill. Others, equally competent are of the opinion that there is. That is something which may be decided in the future by some court, if the matter is brought to court. However, I suggest that is not something on which the house should spend very much time.
Our problem is to deal with this bill in terms of the objectives it seeks to accomplish for greater unity and greater understanding among Canadians. Our purpose is to see to it that the bill is implemented in a way which will promote greater unity and understanding and not implement it in a way which may cause even more divisiveness in the future than we have had in the past. I submit that these are the purposes to which our attention should be directed, and they are the purposes to which our attention has been directed. A good many of the amendments moved by members of the official opposition and by some of us have been directed to making the bill better from the point of view of the objective of national unity and national understanding. That should be our purpose in this parliament, not a rather arid legal argument.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about the amendment.
Since the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has asked me what stand I would take if this bill meant to abolish the French language in Canada-it seems that he wants to imply that the bill under consideration tends to abolish the use of the English language in Canada-I shall answer him that it is not at all the purpose of this bill.
The amendment is intended to refer the bill to the supreme court or to a court authorized to decide upon its constitutionality.
Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member from Nova Scotia compare the situation which prevails now in his province, where there are conflicts with regard to the French language, with that which is found in Quebec.
Was it necessary to appeal to the Canadian constitution to have both official languages respected in the province of Quebec? If somebody attempted to abolish one of the two languages in the province of Quebec-the English language for instance-the hon. member would be the first to say we are mentally retarded and that we do not understand the importance of national unity.

Does this concept of unity, Mr. Speaker, apply to the sole province of Quebec? In that case, I would be the first to object to discontinuing the teaching of English in Quebec. In my opinion, and from the point of view of constitutionality, the province of Quebec should follow the example of Nova Scotia where they abolished in 1864 the use of the French language at school.
In 1871, French was abolished in the New Brunswick schools. In 1890, it was abolished, as an official language, in Manitoba. In 1915, French was abolished, for all practical purposes, in Ontario schools. Was the constitution invoked at that time?
If, in Quebec, an attempt had been made at that time to abolish the English language, would the hon. member not have risen against the fact that the English were being discriminated against? He would not have cared a hoot about the constitution.
But, at this time when the leader of the Progressive Conservative party accepts the principle of the two official languages, we still find some mentally retarded in the Conservative party who would prevent national unity at any cost, by launching a useless debate here in the house which once again will incite the English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians to tear each other apart, while the problem in Canada is not one of languages but one of economics.
Even if the right to two official languages throughout Canada were to be recognized, the retarded member for Cumberland-Colchester North would not be obliged to learn French. I hope he never learns it because he does not deserve to know two languages.
Mr. Speaker, there are limits to being spoken to in this way. The Progressive Conservative party cannot even agree on that matter. Why not? Because there are people who are trying to play politics with the question of the official languages.
Mr. Speaker, national unity must not be tampered with. The basic principle of national unity, that people be tolerant of one another, must be respected. But we find in the Progressive Conservative party disunity which spreads to or is felt in all the Canadian provinces.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservative member is a stupid amendment, which is going to widen the gap existing at present between two ethnic groups in this country. And that is why


member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) nods his head.
Hon. gentlemen are trying to get parliament to say at this stage that the bill is not within our constitutional competence. I respectfully suggest that this is an impossible position for members to take. We gave the bill second reading and referred it to a committee of the house. We have, in fact, said that the bill is within our competence. To ask us now to say it is not within our competence seems to me to be something parliament cannot do at this stage.
Second, I disagree with the hon. member when he suggests that unless the government refers the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision before it is passed there can never be any settling of the constitutional point, if there is such a point. I shall suggest in a moment that in my view there is no constitutional problem. However, surely the hon. gentleman is wrong in that respect. I know that the province of Ontario has an act which enables it to refer a constitutional matter to the appropriate court. To my knowledge most of the provinces of Canada have such legislation. It would certainly be possible for any individual affected by the operations of this act, if he has occasion to take the matter to court, to raise the constitutional validity of any section of the act that is related to his particular situation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Coates:: Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of the fact that the hon. member sat through the debate in the special committee that was set up for the purpose of considering the bill, would he give me an example of how a Canadian citizen may be able to challenge its constitutionality before the courts?


David Lewis: Let us assume for a moment that someone is adversely affected by the operation of this act and thinks he has a case which he can take to court on a motion for an injunction to stop the deputy minister from doing something to him as the result of a report of the commissioner, or any such set of circumstances, and that citizen of Canada went to court; he could challenge the validity of a particular section or the whole act which has affected him adversely. There are all sorts of ways in which this matter could come to court for a constitutional decision if the occasion arose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is how lawyers make their living.
29180-690S
Official Languages


David Lewis: Unfortunately that is so. I do not claim to be a constitutional expert but I simply cannot accept the argument that this bill is in any way contrary to section 133 of the B.N.A. Act or to section 91(1) of the same act. It seems to me that the bill in no way impinges on the provisions of those sections and is limited strictly to operations within the federal departments and within the federal sphere of constitutional competence.
As a lawyer I do not share the fears that some people have expressed about the constitutionality of the bill that is before us. In any case, since when has parliament had to make such a decision at the stage of a bill at which we are now? That decision was made by the government on the basis of the opinion received from the law officers of the Crown and whatever other opinions they sought. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) travelled across the country and met with the Attorneys General of the provinces, as a result of which certain amendments were proposed to the special committee, and later adopted, to meet some of the objections that were raised. I repeat that since parliament has already passed this bill on second reading and therefore said that it is within its competence to deal with this measure, it seems to me illogical for parliament to say now that we should reverse ourselves on that point, which is what the amendment in effect means. I can understand the present amendment being one way of attacking the bill if one is opposed to it, as some hon. members are, but the majority which supported the bill in principle on second reading cannot, it seems to me, accept such an approach.
I want to add that in my view the injection into this discussion and into the discussion across the country of the legal point of whether or not there may be constitutional objections to this bill does not do a service either to the law which we are attempting to put through the house or to the objectives which we are attempting to achieve, assuming that those objectives are achieved by the bill which is now before us. I do not think it serves the purpose of Canadian unity or Canadian understanding to insist that parliament deal with this measure, not on the basis of the principles involved in the measure, not on the basis of the means provided in the measure to deal with the question of language rights in this country, but on the basis of an argument about whether or not the bill is constitutional. Some of us, who are perhaps as competent as others, are firmly of the opinion that there is no constitutional obstacle


Official Languages
assumed that if there had been any attempt to make French an official language in the legislature or the courts of Ontario, George Brown would have left the coalition government of the province of Canada, with the result that Confederation would have been set back or would never have been accomplished at all. Similarly it may fairly be assumed that if any attempt had been made to make French an official language in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick it would have been strenuously opposed by Charles Tupper and Leonard Tilley. There is support for this assumption in the views expressed by Professor D. G. Creighton, our most distinguished Canadian historian.
I believe I can also say that if the Fathers of Confederation could have looked in on parliament discussing this bill within the confines of what they conceived to be our constitution, they would not have appreciated that it was the same constitution or the same British North America Act.
I realize that times are changing and that In times of change people arrive at a different appreciation of what words in the constitution mean. I appreciate that the Supreme Court of Canada might today very well give a broad rather than a narrow interpretation to sections 133 and 91 (1) of the British North America Act. That is possible. But that is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about a bill that, as far as I am concerned, is completely ultra vires the parliament of Canada until it has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision secured as to its constitutionality. If the government were as certain of the constitutionality of the bill as it indicates it is, there would be no hesitancy in referring it to the Supreme Court of Canada. It has not been referred to that court because there is real concern about its constitutionality.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has a smile on his face. I say to him that Mr. Justice Thorson was a former minister in a Liberal administration who was appointed by a Liberal government to the second highest judicial office in the land, and I think his attitude and opinion should be given very serious consideration by a Liberal or any other government. Further, his appointment came about only after an illustrious legal career during which he was Dean of the Manitoba Law School.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This matter is not as simple as the government would have the public believe. It is serious because I believe this institution is not competent to consider the legislation without first having its constitutionality clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada. I

believe the amendment we are considering should have been proposed as soon as the bill was introduced. If the bill had been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and the decision of that court had been that the government had the competence to act, there would be no dissenters in this house and Canadians would believe, rightfully so, that the government could legislate as it intends to legislate. But because the bill has not been referred to that court and there are grave fears in the minds of many Canadians as to its result, I have no hesitation in opposing it. Indeed, my conscience would not allow me to do otherwise.
I appreciate the words of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I realize that his amendment will be defeated, but I shall support it. I am pleased the amendment is before the house because at least future generations of Canadians will appreciate that every attempt was made to secure clarification of the constitutional aspect of the bill. Some people may be misguided into thinking that an attempt may be made by an individual to challenge before the Supreme Court of Canada the constitutionality of the bill. The government is well aware that this cannot be done. As far as I know, only the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have enabling legislation with which to attack the constitutionality of the bill. No individual Canadian can do this before the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore we will be placed in the position where there will never be a clarification of the constitutionality of the bill. There will always be a cloud hanging over the bill because Canadians were not allowed to be informed by the Supreme Court of Canada since this government would not act in the interest of all Canadians and be certain of its rights. As a result, I shall support the amendment. Although I anticipate it will be defeated, I hope it will pass.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise for just two or three minutes to say that we cannot support the amendment, and to give very briefly our reasons for taking this position. First of all, it is clear from the speeches in favour of the amendment that hon. gentlemen are trying to persuade parliament to express doubts about the constitutionality of the bill that is before us. In other words, if the amendment were passed parliament would be saying that we do not really believe the bill is within the competence of parliament to pass. I notice that the hon.


him again. Perhaps I am imposing by interrupting his trend of thought a second time. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has been put to the house. It seems that hon. members should confine their remarks to the limited scope of that amendment, at least until the amendment has been disposed of in one way or another. If there is to be any kind of order to our debates we must apply as much as possible the rule of relevancy. Inasmuch as this rule still exists in respect of our debates it should apply to the extent that hon. members should limit their speeches to the subject matter of the amendment before the house. After the amendment is put to the house and disposed of in one way or another members will then be in a position to make a contribution of a more general nature, having reference more directly to the bill itself.


Mr. Peiers:: Question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to speak specifically on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh). It is the lack of reference to the Supreme Court that has created my greatest problem regarding this bill. Had the government taken steps to make such a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of the constitutionality of the bill, or had it indicated there was agreement by all the provinces to amend the British North America Act, requiring action to obtain passage of an act by the parliament of the United Kingdom, I might have been willing to support the bill.
A great many Canadians are bound to feel that the government is embarking upon something it has no right to embark upon. Many Canadians may well be deprived of certain rights they now possess. The leader of the Ralliement Creditiste referred to this aspect which is of such concern to me. He spoke of the constitutionality of the bill and asked why parliament did not have the right to legislate on the basis of the principle embodied in this bill. It was very obvious that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste had not read the British North America Act and certainly had not studied section 91(1), which was brought about by the St. Laurent administration.
Let me ask the leader of that party whether he would feel the same about the government if it proposed a bill to eliminate completely the rights of French speaking Canadians as contained in the constitution, particularly in 29180-690
Official Languages
section 133? If the government did that there would certainly be great alarm immediately in the province of Quebec regarding those rights they have considered theirs since the British North America Act was conceived.
The St. Laurent administration brought in an amendment to the British North America Act. That government was told by many constitutional experts in this nation that it was putting a constitutional strait jacket on the nation by amending the act and placing section 91(1) in it. I must assume that at that time Prime Minister St. Laurent had more concern about the diminution of French speaking rights than about their extension. As a result of that concern he proposed an amendment which was adopted and is today part of the constitution.
To leave the impression with the public that there is no concern about the constitutionality of this bill is to deceive the public. When a jurist of the stature of J. T. Thorson places before the Canadian people his concern about the constitutionality of the bill, I would think the government would be quick to make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify this aspect in the minds of all Canadians. There could have been no great objection to this bill had such a reference been made to the Supreme Court of Canada and that body had found the bill to be constitutional. Let me read from a speech delivered by Mr. Justice Thorson in Edmonton, Alberta, on June 2, 1969. He said:
There is no provision in section 133, or in any other section, or in any law, that makes French an official language throughout Canada or gives it the status of equality with English as an official language across Canada.
Later he stated:
It must be accepted also, that, except as provided by section 133 and perhaps in New Brunswick by reason of its recent legislation, the only official language in Canada is English.
It is clear, beyond even a shadow of doubt, that this was intended by the Fathers of Confederation. The section guaranteed to the new province of Quebec, formerly lower Canada, equality of status of the French and English languages in the legislature and in the courts of Quebec and it guaranteed similar equality of status in the new parliament of Canada and in the federal courts.
This guarantee was gladly accepted by the French speaking Fathers of Confederation. It is significant that this equality was not extended to the provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There is no justification for assuming that the Fathers of Confederation intended any such extension. On the contrary, it is clear that they intended that it should not extend to them. This intention w"s riolih':'rete. Indeed, it may fairly be


Official Languages
Although this is a good citation and one which certainly ought to be kept in mind at all times, I doubt that it applies to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. It seems to me that the hon. member is not suggesting that the bill be set aside on the basis of a proposition which the bill omits. He only proposes that certain action should be taken by the government before the bill is accepted by parliament. In other words, his amendment, to my way of thinking, is essentially a reasoned amendment. He indicates his view, in the terms of a reasoned amendment, why the proposed bill should not be proceeded with further.
There may be a slight difficulty in connection with the wording of the amendment itself. We have accepted in recent months a series of reasoned amendments, either on second or third reading, following closely enough the wording of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek but which had four additional words, and these would make this amendment read as follows:
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be resolved that the government of Canada take such steps-
In order to facilitate future procedure I
wonder whether the hon. member might be allowed to include these four words which would make this proposed amendment conform with the procedure which has been followed in the past, so that the amendment would read:
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be resolved that the Government of Canada take such steps as may be necessary to have the Supreme Court of Canada provide a decision with respect to the constitutionality of the provisions of the said bill.
I assume that hon. members would have no objection to having the amendment amended in this regard so that this would be the way in which it would formally be put to the house.
I have to add that I had also considered the point of view raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Certainly some of the citations which appear now in May, Beau-chesne or in some of our other authorities, Canadian, British or other, are not entirely relevant to our rules which have been changed fundamentally. The relative importance and significance of second reading and third reading have changed materially, and in this way I would think that citations which previously might have been relevant when
[Mr. Speaker.1
dealing with amendments on third reading are no longer valid. Taking all this into account I would think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek should be accepted as a reasoned amendment and should be put to the house at the present time. Mr. McIntosh, seconded by Mr. Gundlock moves:
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be resolved that the Government of Canada take such steps as may be necessary to have the Supreme Court of Canada provide a decision with respect to the constitutionality of the provisions of the said bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that the amendment was going to be accepted but I had not realized it would be in exactly this form. However, I am still of the opinion that we have gone so far through this linguistic mess in Canada that we should not go backward now that we have reached this stage.
I have always been interested in hearing the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) when he speaks on this and other national subjects, and have been surprised at the similarity of view expressed by the two areas, the riding of Timiskaming in Ontario and the riding of Temiscamingue in Quebec. There is a great similarity between these ridings, and the hon. member for Temiscamingue represents about the same percentage of English speaking people as I represent of French speaking people. Further, over the years there has been a great similarity in the way the minorities in both ridings have been treated.
When I was a child going to school a number of French Canadians attended the same school, and no English was spoken in their homes at all. They learned their second language at the public school. Similarly, I know of many people in the province of Quebec, particularly in the Noranda area, who did not know French until they learned it at school, and then grew up to become totally bilingual. There has not been any particular difficulty in either of these areas, with the French minority in Timiskaming, Ontario, or the English minority in Temiscamingue, Quebec.
It is of interest to note the methods through which these people have been given a great deal of equality and, for a period of years, a great degree of assistance in developing their ability in their own language and in a second language.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to interrupt


I read the words "a third time".
The same rule applies to the question for the Speaker's leaving the Chair or going into Committee of Supply.
I now refer to 202(13):
13. An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a proposition with the opposite conclusion, is not an expanded negative and may be moved.
I will now read citation 203(5):
5. An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
I submit this would then qualify the amendment as well. Finally, and this is usually a basket argument, there is the rule of relevancy. An amendment must be relevant and cannot raise a new issue. The amendment sought to be admitted by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek raises a new issue. It raises the constitutionality of the bill. It does not deal with the contents of the bill as such.
For these reasons, I urge that Your Honour hold this amendment to be irrelevant and inadmissible and not pertinent for debate at the third reading stage.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not I had not intended to take part in this debate, but some of the things the Minister of Justice has said prompt me to say just a word, and the word I offer has to do only with the procedural aspect of the amendment. In my view the course suggested by the amendment is not necessary but it seems to me there is a case to be made for the hon. member's right to move it.
The one point I should like Your Honour to consider arises out of the fact that when the Special Committee on Procedure of the House presented its third report on Friday, December 6, 1968, it included in that report paragraphs of comment concerning second reading and third reading. The paragraphs are a bit lengthy, so I do not think it is necessary for me to read them all, but the first of those comments was the view of the committee that the significance of the second reading stage had been exaggerated in the past and that the decisive stage should occur later in a bill's passage after it has emerged from a committee.
Then in the comment on third reading-I am looking at page 433 of Votes and Proceed-
Official Languages
ings for the date I have indicated-there are these words:
At present the third reading is seldom debated and has become almost a formal stage. Your committee does not envisage that a debate should necessarily take place at the third reading, but it attaches great importance to the preservation of the opportunity for debate at this stage.
Perhaps I should have commenced this quotation by reading the sentence before that which says:
This wording would indicate clearly and unambiguously that the final and most crucial decision relating to the passage of a bill would be taken at the third reading.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I think some of the citations that are in the authorities have to be looked at again in the light of the changes we have made in our legislative process. In the old days there were citations that said that some of the things that could be done at second reading could not be done at third reading and there were certain precise limits on the third reading stage. But if we have decided as a parliament that third reading is a more important stage, a more crucial stage, and if in practice we debate it more than we used to do, then it seems to me there is a case for providing an opportunity at this stage to raise an issue of importance to the bill.
I do not see that the hon. member has introduced something new into the bill itself. He is simply asking for a delay in order that something might be done before we vote on this third and final reading. I think I made it clear at the outset that I do not look favourably upon the substance of the amendment. Indeed, I do not think it is necessary, but I have pleasure in defending the hon. member's right to move it.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice and counsel in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. Essentially the argument advanced by the Minister of Justice is based on citations in May's 17th edition, which of course have to be taken very seriously, and I think that the Minister of Justice was quite right in bringing this particular difficulty to the attention of the Chair. The argument of the minister is that this kind of amendment cannot be moved on third reading if it goes beyond the scope of the bill itself or, to use the words of May as quoted at page 417:
-a reasoned amendment should not urge the rejection of the bill on the ground of what it omits.


Official Languages
and invite hon. members to indicate to the Chair their views regarding the acceptability of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I would be pleased to hear these opinions, after which I will be in a position to give a ruling in the light of this wise advice and counsel.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather unusual amendment challenging at the third reading stage the constitutionality of the proceedings on a bill which has proceeded through virtually all stages before the House of Commons. I have not had the opportunity to do as much research on the authorities as I should have, but I offer for what they are worth some submissions on the admissibility of the amendment. At page 417, of May, 17th edition, it is observed that the debate on third reading is limited to the contents of the bill and a reasoned amendment should not urge the rejection of the bill on the ground of what it omits or, I assume, any failings that may attach to it. The effect of moving an amendment of this type would restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on the question.
1 think it is the practice in this house, though it is difficult to substantiate it, Your Honour, because I doubt that it has very often been questioned, that a bill is presumed to be constitutional when before parliament and within the power of parliament to enact unless and until its constitutionality is challenged and successfully attacked before the courts. To use the issue of constitutionality at this stage to impede the progress of the bill seems to be dilatory and tardy, and if undertaken in a regular manner in the house would tend to render our proceedings null and void. It also brings up the question of whether the house can proceed with the matter once it has been submitted before the courts and become sub judice.
I also want to refer Your Honour to page 419 of May, 17th edition, where it is stated that at certain stages of debate, among which are listed the second and third reading stages only certain recognized forms of amendment are permissible. We are then referred to pages 526 and 527 of May's 17th edition. I am now dealing with what has been called a reasoned amendment, Your Honour, and I quote:
It is also competent for a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill-

When I refer to second reading, I think there are sufficient authorities to apply this to third reading as well.
I now refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 418, page 288:
When a motion is made "that the bill be now read a third time", the same kind of amendments are permissible as on the second reading-
The three or six months hoist is then referred to. I take it, Your Honour, that my argument, if it applies to the second reading, would also apply to the third reading stage. I quote from pages 527 and 527 of May's 17th edition:
It is also competent for a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill-*
I assume this also applies to third reading on a bill.
-to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment." This amendment is to leave out all the words in the main question after the word "that" and to add other words; and the question proposed upon the amendment is, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.
1.	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
I submit to Your Honour that the amendment in this case does not fall within that category. It declares no principle adverse to the bill.
2.	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
I fail to see, Your Honour, how the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek can qualify under that heading.
3.	It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence.
That is the head which gives the precedent for delaying third reading and referring it back to a committee for further information. Of course, the hon. member has not sought that type of remedy. Those are the prime arguments, Your Honour.
I now wish to refer to some citations in Beauchesne's fourth edition which may be helpful to your judgment. I wish to refer to citation 202(10) at page 170:
10. An amendment cannot be made, by the addition of words, to the question for reading a bill a second time.


each group (women, aged, children who don't work) and calculates the per capita revenue of each ethnic group, one finds the French Canadians are even poorer.
The French Canadian population being younger, it makes up the majority of children and young workers; its level of work is the lowest in Quebec.
Education is one of the most important factors in the determination of salary. The various ethnic groups have quite different levels of education. The French Canadians, with an average of 7.08 years of study, come just ahead of the Italians, with 6.05 years.
Jews lead with 10.05 years and the English have 9.43. The economists point out that the English in Quebec are better educated than the English in any other province except British Columbia.
If the advantages of education are analysed, one concludes that "French Canadians derive the least from education." When a French Canadian passes from elementary school to university, he profits less, financially, than Canadians from other groups.
Studying ethnic groups according to occupation, the report concludes; "The respective status of English Canadians and French Canadians is absolutely systematic in all provinces. If occupations are divided into ten categories, one finds that the English Canadians are over-represented in the first (and wealthiest) four categories and under-represented in the four lowest (and poorest). French Canadians are the diametric opposite: under-represented in the first four, over-represented in the poorest categories."
Is the situation getting any better?
On the contrary. "Since 1941, while the English, Jewish and 'other' groups have been progressing strongly on the occupation scale, the Italian and French have been dropping just as dramatically. In the case of Italian Canadians, the reason for this disparity is unquestionably their recent immigration (new arrivals generally have the least money) but in the case of French Canadians, the drop cannot be explained away."
Beyond that, for equal work, the salaries of French speaking people are again lower than those of the English, and the gap increases with time, so that the French Canadians appear clearly handicapped in their ability to advance in their careers.
One might have believed that bilingualism would be profitable at least in Quebec. According to the economists, "the answer is overwhelmingly negative. Unilingual English Canadians earn as much as bilingual English Canadians while French Canadians who speak only English (the assimilated) earn considerably more than bilingual French Canadians. And bilingual French Canadians earn considerably less than unilingual English."
In total.. . unilingual English Canadians earn $5,502 while bilingual persons earn $4,772. In short, it isn't the knowledge of two languages that is beneficial to the French Canadian in Quebec, but rather the knowledge of one language-English.
"In Quebec," the authors add, "as in the rest of the country, it is better to be a unilingual English Canadian than a bilingual French Canadian."
And they conclude the survey: "English Canadians have very little reason to become bilingual, even in Quebec, while for French Canadians,
Official Languages
bilingualism is a prerequisite to income. And even if bilingual, French Canadians cannot hope to equal the salaries of unilingual English."
I apologize for taking up so much of the time of the house in reading the article but I think it is important for hon. members to realize that when we say this country must plunge headlong into bilingualism we shall be enacting legislation that will help mainly French Canadians who learn English.
Another factor so far as the economics of the language bill are concerned which must be considered, this factor having been unceremoniously sloughed off by the Prime Minister several times when he was questioned on it, is what this two language splurge will cost the Canadian taxpayer. The cost will be fabulous, Mr. Speaker. Only last Friday the Ottawa Journal carried the following headline: "Multi-million Dollar Federal Plan To Aid Teaching of French." Goodness knows how much the entire program will cost once the provinces kick in their contributions. The cost of the program in terms of duplication alone will be almost inestimable. It is just another economic millstone around Canada's neck and a penalty we cannot afford.
We as Canadians are striving day by day to compete in this fast moving world. Already we have economic problems stemming from our living in perpetuity alongside our great neighbour to the south with ten times our population. Climatic factors weigh heavily in favour of the United States. Since we live on the northern half of this continent we shall never have the net income on an individual basis of our United States friends. I base that assertion on climatic factors alone. Why, then, should we saddle ourselves with another economic millstone as unproductive as a two language binge? These are serious questions, Mr. Speaker. For these reasons I implore the government and its supporters to look again at where they are taking us. These, too, are some reasons why I cannot support this bill.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: It is not
my intention to speak very long, Mr. Speaker. I oppose the amendment for a very simple reason. It seems that the government and the people of Canada have gone far enough now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member that to the best of my knowledge the amendment is not actually before the house. This might be a good moment to interrupt the proceedings


Official Languages
thing out of joint, that bilingualism was really not feasible. He explained to me that the facility for learning a language was rather like the facility for learning music. He said only about 20 per cent of the population could be trained to be musicians, and only one-quarter of those would be good musicians. He thought that regardless how much time was devoted to the study of language, bilingualism was just not attainable, that all that would happen would be that we would bastardize the two languages.
This professor of languages thought that far more emphasis should be placed on helping people become articulate in one language. Those with special aptitudes could be trained to fill positions in the civil service such as in the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Trade and Commerce, and other departments requiring bilingual personnel, until such time as all Canadians were able to speak English. I thought this suggestion was rather interesting, because I have heard many stories about English being easier to learn than French. If you put a number of French speaking children with English speaking children and leave them together for some time you will not find that the English children learn French but that the French children will learn English. It seems that English is the easier and more reasonable language to learn.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
May I now refer to factors of geography and population. In the United States 210 million people speak English. In Canada 19 million people speak English or are bilingual; the remaining two million do not speak English. Let us see what the effect of this is on the Canadian in Quebec who speaks French only. In this connection may I refer to an article that appeared in February, 1969, in a Canadian magazine. It is entitled, "The High Cost of Speaking French", the reference obviously being to French Canadians who speak French, and goes on to say immediately beneath the heading:
The first volume of the full report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism contains the following survey, which traces the relationship between ethnic origin and socio-economic position in Canada. The English press took no notice of it, but Le Magazine Maclean published the following summary in October, 1968.
The writer of the article also cited statistics put out by the Dominion Bureau of
IMr. Southam.l
Statistics. I wish to read certain of the statistics into the record because they are enlightening. I cannot understand why they did not enlighten Messrs. Dunton and Lau-rendeau who headed the B and B Commission. That commission speaks of a crisis in Canada; the truth is that it ought to be speaking of the crisis in Quebec. Statistics indicate that in Quebec there are 14 different ethnic groups. It is interesting to note that French Canadians who speak French only come third from the bottom of the list so far as income is concerned, immigrant Italians and native Indians being the only lower groups. This is a most serious situation. I apologize to hon. members if the article I am about to read proves to be monotonous, but I feel constrained to read it into the record. It reads as follows:
The salaries of French Canadians-non-agricul-tural, male-are 80 per cent of those made by Canadians of British origin, in Canada as a whole.
The salaries of French Canadians in Quebec are 65 per cent of those of English Canadians in Quebec.
Also, in the matter of occupations, French Canadians are found at the bottom of the list, immediately above Italians, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country.
We think French Canadians perceive the differences in income (and in standard of living) and in occupation that distinguish them from Canadians of British origin.
We think, equally, that such division of income along ethnic lines exercises a profound influence on the prevalent thinking about the future of Canada.
In these terms, three economists put their finger on the connections between the famous constitutional debate and "bread and butter" issues.
Why are French Canadians poorer? Is it education? Regional disparity? Discrimination? The answers will have a profound effect on the political and social positions of the communities in question.
In Canada, the factor which carries the most weight in explaining the unequal distribution of income is regional disparity. People are poorer in Abitibi and Newfoundland than in Montreal and Toronto.
But this doesn't explain the differences in salary between ethnic groups living side by side in the same economic region.
Above and beyond regional factors, ethnic characteristics remain very, very important. Canadians of British origin have incomes 10 per cent higher than the average in every province except Quebec, where they earn 40 per cent more than the average.
In Quebec, if one arranges ethnic groups in descending order by salary, one gets the table you see on this page, where it is found that French Canadians, Italians and native Indians are the only groups which earn less than the provincial average.
These statistics refer only to the labour force. If one takes account of demographic factors in


One group of civil servants that has protested is the Professional Institute of the Public Service. Without success, it appealed to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau late last year to remove "areas of apparent contradiction" between the policy enunciated by Mr. Pearson, with its emphasis on safeguards, and current government administrative practice.
Leslie Barnes, director of the institute, in a recent interview said: "What we object to is the arbitrary whitewash of the entire civil service, not the policy announced in the Pearson formula. If there are no abuses why are they so afraid of safeguards? If there are safeguards, we would know we had nothing to worry about. But until they do something about this situation, the suspicion will always remain that the government, under the guise of bilingualism, is promoting an ethnic policy.
"We know there are abuses. We know that some people are being promoted because they are French or have a French name. But because there are no safeguards, no right of appeal, there is nothing we can do about it.
"For many of our people, learning German or Russian would be a more useful undertaking for these are now the languages of science. But we can't interest the government in educational leaves to upgrade or update the qualifications of scientists.
"For example, a scientist on an experimental farm in an area of Alberta, which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered bilingual, is going to be discriminated against.
"In the normal course of his promotion he will have to spend a period of time in Ottawa. Now, is he going to be denied his promotion because he doesn't know French, or if he gets here, spend two months out of every year learning French when it has nothing to do with his job. Ultimately, he would likely be promoted back to Alberta. It doesn't make sense."
That is the sort of thing one finds written about discrimination in the civil service in our newspapers these days.
Last October the Prime Minister made the now infamous statement that he would find jobs for English-speaking civil servants running elevators at the back of buildings if they did not learn to speak French. I also ask hon. members to read what the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) said on his tour of western Canada. If anybody wants further proof of the disunity that this bill is causing among Canadians, I ask them to read an article that appeared in the last issue of Maclean's magazine on the "Coming Showdown In The West". I fear that the Prime Minister will be in for a rough time on his forthcoming trip to western Canada in view of some of the statements he has already made.
I should now like to deal for a few moments with my third objection to this bill, namely, the effect it will have on our economy. Herein, in my opinion, lies the whole crux of the problem. I have many friends among Canadians of French origin. I have 3,500 of 29180-6894
Official Languages
them in my riding of Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, a great many of them support me. Many of them see the problem as I do. The problem is really one of an inferiority complex which is based on economic factors. To a large degree the matter is an emotional one, but in cases like this, it is essential that we let our heads rule our hearts and not, as do our separatists, let our hearts rule our heads.
In Quebec the cruel fact is that language is only one of the root causes of the problem. The educational system is another and very important factor, as is land tenure and the father patriarch approach which has resulted in thousands and thousands of small uneconomic farms being established. Another hurdle is the religious concept that one should not control the birth rate; and there is also the system of the French elite. These and other factors have combined over the years to keep the vast majority of our French speaking Canadians in Quebec at the bottom of the economic totem pole. No wonder there is unrest.
As a Canadian I am desperately sorry to see this situation. As a member of parliament I publicly plead with my Anglo-Saxon constituents and other ethnic groups to have patience, forbearance, sympathy and understanding for French Canadians in Quebec in the hope that, given time and proper leadership, the situation will change and the problem will be gradually rectified. However, proper leadership is very essential, and we are not getting that leadership from this government.
Coming back to the language factor and to the economic aspect to which I referred, the cold hard fact is that Canadians of French origin should be learning English as fast as they can, instead of the English learning French. I exclude from that statement the small percentage of English speaking Canadians that do have a special aptitude or facility for learning more than one language.
I had an interesting experience several months ago when returning home on a plane. During the journey I started to talk to a professor from the University of British Columbia. He did not know I was a politician, but during the course of conversation I casually asked him what he thought of the proposed language bill. This man was a professor of languages and I assumed he was a linguistic expert. His reply was that he thought the government had got the whole


Official Languages
constitution guarantees their equal status throughout the country. The assertion has been repeated so frequently and with such intensity of feeling that Canadians have been in grave danger of being brainwashed into the belief that it is true. The contention is not true, either as a matter of law or in fact. Indeed, the pretension is a false pretence.
Many other legal minds in Canada and elsewhere are of the same opinion as the Hon. J. T. Thorson, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), three times prime minister of this country.
Another instance which gives rise to suspicion in my mind about the legality of this whole issue has to do with a point raised by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert prior to the debate on second reading, when he questioned the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on the government's authority to bring in this legislation. The Minister of Justice quoted the law officers of the Crown, but when my right hon. friend requested that the documents substantiating this authority be tabled in the house for all to see, the Minister of Justice refused to do so. What goes on over there, Mr. Speaker? What political subterfuge is being used?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
My second reason for opposing this bill is the divisiveness of this obnoxious piece of legislation, the discrimination that could develop between the various ethnic groups of this great country if everybody started to assert language rights. How can Canada thrive, grow and become a leader among nations if we are going to balkanize ourselves? If one needs any evidence of what trying to force two languages on a people can do to break down unity and cause eternal strife, one has only to look at the wonderful little country of Belgium that has been torn apart for centuries over a parallel issue. Why look any further for warning of danger? How can there be peace and harmony in this country if our people of French origin want a special status, separate schools, two languages, two cultures, a separate pension plan, a separate medicare plan, and want to opt out of this and opt out of that? The very prefixes "bi" and "tri" have the connotation of division rather than unity.
Where is this government taking us? I ask hon. members to look at the discrimination that is already rearing its ugly head in our civil service. I have here an article written as recently as July 5 which appeared in the Globe and Mail. The writer of the article is
[Mr. Southam.l
William Morris and it is headed "Language lessons that are no joke". The article reads in part:
The New fie joke is out and the bilingual joke is in around here these days.
One joke tells of a man who swam beyond his depth, thought he was drowning and called for help. The lifeguard on shore shouted back: "I can't swim, I got my job because I was bilingual."
For many civil servants, bilingualism is no joke.
Rumours float around that technicians are hired, without proper qualifications, in preference to people who are competent, but can't speak French.
The word is passed that a French name will automatically give you an advantage in a civil service competition.
Civil servants write anonymously to newspapers complaining about a reign of terror. They don't speak out openly against its discriminatory practices, they say, because of fear.
"If a man speaks two languages, he is bilingual; if he speaks one language, he is English," a saying goes.


Mr. Sianbury:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Richard Russell Southam: Certainly.


Richard J. Stanbury: Would the hon. member read the next sentence in that article?


Richard Russell Southam: I would be glad to read the whole thing because it is very edifying. Mr. Carson says that many people-


Richard J. Stanbury: No-the next sentence,
please.


Richard Russell Southam: The heading is "Bearing The Brunt".


Richard J. Stanbury: I mean the sentence that begins with the words "Although it is".


Richard Russell Southam: Although it is the Trudeau government which is bearing the brunt of the jokes, the policy is one it inherited from the Diefenbaker and Pearson governments.


Richard J. Stanbury: Thank you.


Richard Russell Southam: This, of course, is the writer's way of trying to get Mr. Pearson and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) off the hook, but nevertheless they are the facts. Mr. Carson is a very knowledgeable man and cites the facts as they are today.


Richard J. Stanbury: Read the article as it is.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Carson, who is very knowledgeable about the civil service, has this to say, according to the article:
-many people are using bilingualism to hide their own inadequacies.


In my opinion, anybody from Quebec who learns both languages is enhancing his cultural knowledge, and people from the West would enhance theirs if they had the same attitude.
So, I cannot see why there is all this misunderstanding or lack of unity because we have to pass legislation to recognize two official languages in Canada, without affecting other languages.
Ukrainians, or Germans for that matter, who cannot speak or use their language in Rouyn, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg or elsewhere, should not complain, and we would be the first to protest if they were the victims of any discrimination, since we believe that they are as fully Canadians as we are, even though we call ourselves the founders of the country. On a recent trip to Manitoba, I noticed that those people are sincerely and deeply attached to their Canadian nationality but will not forget where they are from, would not brush aside what they have been.
There are top-notch Canadian citizens in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, far better than those who explode bombs in Montreal-and we had another one this morning-who perhaps are neither Ukrainians, Poles or former Germans. The bombings are the work of cocky little French Canadians. I think they could find another way of standing up and helping the cause of French-speaking Canadians.
At any rate, I have nothing more to add on this bill, but I feel that for the sake of a well-meant Canadianism, and not for reasons of sectarianism, we must set an example to the Canadian people by passing this bill which sanctions both French and English as the official languages of all Canadians.
fEnglish]


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to rise in my place at this time to make my views known on the third reading of Bill C-120, the official languages bill, a piece of legislation which in my opinion is not only controversial but unnecessary. I shall begin with a quotation:
A well organized minority in a democracy can easily impose its opinions upon an indifferent majority. These views, if unanswered and unopposed can, depending on the issue, cause serious trouble.
That statement was made by the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, former Governor General of Canada, in an address to the Canadian
'	29180-689
Official Languages
Club in Toronto, and it can be applied with startling relevance to the role Quebec is playing in the life of Canada today.
As is well known, I voted against this legislation on second reading, as did 16 others of my colleagues, and I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that by the time the history of another election is written in Canada many more members from all parties in this house will wish that they, too, had voted against this innocuous piece of legislation. In referring to the stand that 17 of us took on second reading 1 would like to say, if I may be excused for paraphrasing that great statesman, Sir Winston Churchill: "Never in Canadian history did so few have to speak for so many."
My reasons for opposing this bill are many but three important ones come to mind:
1.	The legality of the bill;
2.	The bill is divisive rather than unifying, and
3.	Economically it is disastrous.
Let us look at the legal aspect first. All four western provinces questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on this point at the February federal-provincial conference. Some even stated they would challenge the bill in the Supreme Court of Canada. I certainly hope they will. Even the province of Quebec is not too sure it wants this kind of legislation.
Nothing in the B.N.A. Act states that Canada has two official languages, nor is it stated that it should have. The present government is trying to bring in through the back door what it cannot do legally through the front door, at least not until there is an amendment to Canada's constitution, and members opposite know very well they are not likely to get an amendment along these lines.
The Hon. J. T. Thorson, one of Canada's foremost legal authorities, former chief justice of the Exchequer Court of Canada and a Liberal, no less, has publicly stated time and time again that this proposed language bill is not legal. His most recent public statement was made at a large meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, on June 2, 1969, and I would like to quote the following from Mr. Justice Thor-son's speech:
In spite of the facts of history, there have been intensive efforts, particularly since 1963, to give life to this concept of a dual Freneh-English nation on the alleged ground that its acceptance is essential to Canadian unity.
It has been asserted that Canada is a bilingual country in which French and English are the official languages throughout Canada and that our

Official Languages
the richer for it not the poorer. I am convinced that if the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek had learned French at the time I was learning English in Amos, Abitibi, where there were not two English-speaking citizens, perhaps he would understand better today the importance of national unity.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Where did I ever in any of my speeches say that the people of Canada will have to speak both languages? I have been one of those who said that this is not in the bill. My point is that the bill is unconstitutional. The hon. member should not put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself at any time. In particular, he should not attribute to me statements which I did not make.


David Réal Caouette: This is not a question, Mr. Speaker, but a statement by the hon. member. What I know is that you people are not trying to explain the bill. All you say is that the bill is unconstitutional.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You are the one who is making the argument now.


David Réal Caouette: You said it a moment ago.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I did not.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the hon. member has just said: Bill C-120 is not constitutional. On what does he base his allegation? He does not even know. He wishes to refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada so that a further six months or ten years will pass before everyone in Canada recognizes the importance of knowing two languages. It is very important that they be official.
The hon. member even gives another reason: it relates to immigrants from Germany, Poland, the Ukraine, etc. Yet, immigrants, before settling in Canada, are well aware that two languages are used here, namely English and French, and they are entirely free to learn either one or the other.
All such immigrants were welcome to Canada.
In Manitoba, the other day, I met people of German descent, who speak German generally at home. It is a pleasure to hear them. However, they have learned English. If they 

had settled in a French-speaking area, they would probably have learned French.
If, for some reason or other, the authorities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or any other province decided to have the second official language taught at school, I think that the mess which now appears likely to last in Canada would quickly disappear, probably in a matter of a few years only, and that would allow people to understand one another better.
Panic is now created by saying: No one has to do it, the constitution does not permit it. But parliament has the required power to pass such legislation. It is its responsibility. If someone wants to question the constitutionality of the bill before the Supreme Court he needs only to lay his grievances before the said court and to take proceedings against the governement if necessary.
To come back to the immigrants, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that bill C-120 is depriving them of anything whatsoever. I know some Ukrainians in Rouyn who continue to speak in their tongue at home and who use English frequently. However, their children express themselves in French just like me because they were taught so in school. This means that in my region Ukrainians, Poles and Germans are not protesting because the two official languages are recognized. No opposition is shown either in eastern or in Western Canada, so long as people are explained exactly what it is all about.
But here, we hear all kinds of statements. We hear people protesting against the use of French, because that language has never been acknowledged as an official language. It is probably a pity that step was not taken at the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1896, because the matter would be settled by now.
Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about political jingoism; I am not referring to the political beliefs of anyone, but, since the bill is under study, I suggest that we should recognize that both languages are official, not only in western Canada, but also in the East, in the province of Quebec, as elsewhere.
At a time when some people in Quebec claim that we must come back to the use of the French language in Quebec, we are of the opposite opinion. We believe that both languages are necessary, that we must use both languages for they facilitate self-fulfillment and above all the development of the human personality.


abstention on third reading stand as a clear indictment, one which I trust will be even more positive than a vote against this legislation.
With this clear understanding of my position I nevertheless move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock):
That the said bill be not now read the third time but that the government of Canada take such steps as may be necessary to have the Supreme Court of Canada provide a decision with respect to the constitutionality of the provisions of the said bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I
should like to refer the said amendment for a decision by the Chair.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that Your Honour is reserving judgment on the admissibility of the amendment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: That is what I said, that I was referring the amendment to Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: May I take it that at that time hon. members will be given an opportunity to make representations?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: That is correct.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-120, but having listened to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), I believe it is my duty to say a few words on the bill said to be unconstitut ional.
If, according to the hon. member, the constitution does not state that both English and French are official languages, did he find anything in the same constitution which would prevent the recognition of English and French as the official languages of Canada? I think parliament is absolutely free to take a decision which could affect the implementation of the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-120 was introduced, I personally thought, and I still do, that it was an error of judgment by the government creating or giving the impression that every Canadian had to know both official languages, that is English and French, while such is not the object of the bill.
Recently, I had the opportunity to visit Manitoba, where I met Canadians of German,
Official Languages
Ukrainian and Polish origin. Those people are somewhat afraid of Bill C-120, because the necessary explanations have not been provided. The government is responsible for that. People are under the impression that it absolutely wants to impose bilingualism throughout the country. This is surely not the object of the bill.
Moreover, the minister said the other day that the bill would change absolutely nothing in Canada, not even in the public service. So, if the bill changes nothing, why has it been introduced? Why not instead continue to get people to realize the importance of understanding both languages throughout the country?
Here is what I said in western Canada to representatives of the provincial governments, with regard to education: Treat the French minorities in your provinces as Quebec treats the English minority. I feel that such an opinion is better accepted than Bill C-120. Canada will not become a bilingual country within a few weeks or a few months. However, provincial governments, which have jurisdiction over education, should be led to teach both languages from the very first grade and, within five or six years, a whole new generation of Canadians will speak and have a working knowledge of both official languages.
The federal government or the minister will say that this is outside his field, that the bill does not say that, and as for the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, he will say that it is unconstitutional. In fact, he said earlier that this bill frightens the people in the western provinces. It can, if it is not explained. Not only does the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek not bother to explain it in his region, Saskatchewan, but he tells the people that they will have to learn French, which is not very nice of him. In that case, it is not the government that plays the game of those who spread division in the country, but the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.
The hon. member quotes Section 133 of the British North America Act, which does not provide that English or French must be learned, or that French must be regarded as an official language.
In the province of Quebec, we are free to accept the English language or to reject it. We have accepted it with pleasure. We have studied it, we have learned it because we think that one who knows two languages is

Official Languages
resent having to provide a service that is not needed and the demand for which is merely an expression of Quebec-based nationalist extremism.
This was his fifth point:
The languages bill cannot help but discriminate against those Canadians who came here as immigrants and who voluntarily submerged their national loyalties and cultures to become free and equal citizens of a new nation. Discrimination lies in the implication that, for example, Toronto's 300,000 Italians count for less with their federal government than the 50,000 French here, or that the Ukrainians on the prairies have no culture or language worth preserving.
His sixth and final point was:
Finally, the bill helps to encourage the rewriting of Canadian history and gives legitimacy to the squishy doctrine that in Canada, if nowhere else on earth or above it, a part can be equal to the whole-so long as it votes as a block at every federal election.
These axe frank statements by the press, but I believe them to be a fair representation of what many Canadians from east and west, including myself, feel about the bill. I could go on to elaborate these points, but I have become convinced that there is little hope of the government listening to the opinions of others.
1 would like to add briefly to my previous remarks about the questionable constitutional status of this legislation. I have mentioned that clause 2 of Bill C-120 effectively amends section 133 of the British North America Act, and that clause 2 and subsequent clauses constitute amendments to the British North America Act in defiance of specific restrictions set out in section 91(1) of that act as amended by the St. Laurent government in 1949.
It is interesting in this regard to note that not even the B and B Commission went nearly as far as does this legislation. In its report of October 8, 1967, the commission recommended that section 133 be amended to include the statement "English and French are the two official languages of Canada". I wish to emphasize that the British North America Act does not, and never did, state that the English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for any purpose, much less for all purposes of parliament; and by no implication can the provisions of section 133 include those languages as the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the government of Canada, or as clause 2 adds, "and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the parliament and government of Canada".

Although other changes were proposed, the commission went nowhere near as far as clause 2 of the legislation now before us. In fact, it went out of its way to point out that section 133 of the British North America Act is "firmly entrenched". It pointed out that the 1949 version of the act as amended in that year "specifically excluded from the operation of the new amending power the use of the English or French language and obviously thus excluded section 133". There is nothing new in this. I dealt with it in detail in my previous speech outlining the unconstitutionality of Bill C-120. I merely cite it now to try to convince advocates of the bill who also swear by the B and B Commission.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my suspicion that those in the government who are determined to have this legislation passed, in the full knowledge that clause 2 effectively amends section 133, do so hoping that later clause 2, then being law, may be cited in support of a move to officially amend or disregard altogether the British North America Act. Let me simply say that I deplore the whole manner in which this legislation has been brought forward. I deeply regret the damage that has already been done to national unity by discussion of the bill's intent and by the attitude of the government in forcing its passage. I stand against its principle and effect. Above all, I am unalterably opposed to Bill C-120 because I believe it to be unconstitutional and, as I have said, anticonstitutional. If I had the financial resources and the requisite legal assistance, I would personally challenge the legality of this bill in the highest court of our land.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Knowing the situation in the house, which is dictated by an arrogant majority government, I am under no illustion that my amendment will carry. Neither do I have any doubt that this bill will shortly thereafter be voted into law. In these circumstances I have no choice but to abstain from voting when final approval is sought. I have done my utmost to persuade the government that this measure is obviously and entirely unconstitutional. While any chance remained of making this view prevail and having the legislation withdrawn,
I have taken a full part in the proceedings. All attempts to condemn the bill as unconstitutional having been unavailing, I am not able to take any further part.
I will not lend myself in any manner whatever to what I believe to be a calculated and deliberate breach of the constitution. Let my


I have yet to hear from any government spokesman any good explanation of why this bill must be rushed through parliament without the reasonable preliminary of having its constitutionality approved by the Supreme Court of Canada. If the government is so sure that it is in fact constitutional, surely no harm can be done by having this attested by the nation's highest judicial authority.
The government's stubborn refusal to listen and its arrogant determination to jam this bill through can only lead to speculation that it is to them merely a political expedient, a device for deluding the people of French Canada into believing that something is being done to further their aspirations. I cannot believe that we will be doing the people of French Canada any favour by destroying their constitutional protection, the protection they welcomed and cherished at the time of confederation. The protection the French speaking people of Quebec received under the constitution was one of the main factors that brought about confederation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
From the first moment this legislation was announced by the government I have been struck by the undemocratic manner in which it has been advanced and supported. The whole debate, if we can call it a debate, has been tainted by pressure and propaganda tactics reminiscent of some of the more infamous totalitarian regimes of recent times. As was said by one of my colleagues on a former occasion, I also feel sure that Dr. Goebbels would feel quite at home in the atmosphere that has developed around the consideration of this bill.
I mentioned earlier the derision and ridicule that have been heaped upon anyone daring to question this measure. We who have dared to speak against it have been accused of malice and stupidity. This is the technique of the schoolyard, and is to my mind childish. No dialogue is possible in these circumstances. Instead, we have the monologue of the closed mind. In many recent intemperate outbursts there has been a distinct overtone of desperation. It now appears that the time has passed when conscience or principle can command any respect, or reasoned argument can carry any force in this house.
I noticed with regret that the bill's chief proponent, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), in a recent television appearance was so bankrupt of ideas and arguments that he could only attack with abuse critics of the bill. His favourite word was "nonsense";
Official Languages
everything anyone else said or believed was nonsense. It was a perfect example of the closed mind of the true fanatic. It brought a strong whiff of the inquisition and the witch hunts of Old Salem. Surely a measure as important as this is held to be deserved a better defence, a more reasoned argument.
Part of the campaign of derision and ridicule to which the supporters of the bill have resorted is reflected in the juvenile pursuit of name-calling and the derogatory remarks by the Secretary of State in respect of certain western members in his most recent speech in the house on this issue. Anyone can pick up Hansard and read what the Secretary of State has said. One of the favourite descriptions employed by members of the government and, unfortunately, their partisans in the communications media is that Canadians, especially western Canadians, who oppose this bill are "afraid". I would like to quote in this regard some words written by Dennis Braith-waite in the Toronto Telegram of June 11. He was speaking about westerners, in particular his red-necked Saskatchewan relatives. He made six points which I would like to record in Hansard. With regard to the first point he said:
We are not "afraid" of any aspect of the languages bill. We simply regard it as unnecessary, politically motivated, costly to implement, divisive and, as it affects the non-English, non-French third of the population, wholly discriminatory.
His second point was:
It is unnecessary because the status of French as an official language was spelled out in the British North America Act and has been sturdily upheld for 100 years. There is no threat to the French language except that posed by history, which is that it must inevitably give way to the dominant language of this country, this continent and the western world, English.
His third point was:
Institutional bilingualism, as the Prime Minister calls it, will be costly to maintain in the courts and government bureaux. As it continues to nudge our own provincial government along the road to a dual language society, without regard to real need, the thrust of federal bilingualism will impose a heavy burden on Ontario taxpayers for the provision of French secondary schools and universities.
This is already reflected in the increase in the Ottawa schools mill rate. Dennis Braith-waite's fourth point was as follows:
The language bill is divisive because it arouses more tensions and hostilities than it allays. French Canadians living outside of Quebec long ago were reconciled to having to use English in dealing with the institutions of the various provinces. Agitation for government services in French came from Quebec. English speaking Canadians naturally


Official Languages




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak for the second time against passage of this bill I have no apologies to make to anyone. I have no desire to prolong the debate unduly or to add to the bitterness and ill will that the introduction of this piece of legislation has already provoked across Canada. But I feel compelled, in conscience and on principle, to speak out against what I, together with many thousands of other Canadians, feel sincerely to be an iniquitous measure.
When I spoke on this bill on second reading I said I was aware that what I said would be twisted and misinterpreted to belittle me as a bigot and a reactionary. I realized that anyone who spoke against the bill, even with genuine sincerity and from honest conviction, would be ridiculed and derided. While I have been somewhat surprised at the source and nature of some of these attacks, I have been greatly heartened by the overwhelming support my stand has received from a wide representation of the Canadian people. Regardless of criticism or support, however, I intend to make this last attempt to persuade the house that this legislation should not now be proceeded with. My reasons for doing so are simple. I believe Bill C-120 to be not only unconstitutional but also anti-constitutional. Above and beyond that, I believe it to be undesirable and unnecessary.
When I spoke on this measure at an earlier time I explained in some detail just why I believed this legislation to be unconstitutional. There is little purpose in repeating those details at this time; they are all on record.
Any Canadian who reads section 133 and section 91(1) of the British North America Act in conjunction with the provisions of Bill C-120, particularly clause 2, can see at a glance that this measure is patently unconstitutional. Its unconstitutionality is so obvious, Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the government, with all the constitutional and legal perception represented in the cabinet, can

honestly hold it to be otherwise. I am therefore driven to the conclusion that this government, even while knowing its measure to be flagrantly unconstitutional, is still determined to ram it through parliament and make it law.
One can only speculate on the motive behind such a cynical misuse of the parliamentary process and such an arrogant perversion of accepted practice. But the motive is comparatively unimportant. What is of vital importance to parliament, to every Canadian, and most particularly to the people of the province of Quebec, is the precedent that passage of this legislation will create. If the parliament of Canada knowingly accepts an unconstitutional measure and enacts it into law, then we have destroyed our constitution. Perhaps this is the motivation-perhaps this is the purpose. No Canadian government will ever again feel any necessity to be bound by the provisions of the British North America Act which, despite whatever shortcomings we may consider it possesses, is our constitution.
Let us never forget that while the constitution may impose difficulties and delays upon the federal government in putting its legislative program and its social and economic theories into effect, it is also the only political rudder we possess, the only stabilizer we can rely on in the constitutional storms we periodically experience in this troubled confederation. The British North America Act provides the only jurisdictional blueprint for development of a nation with divided govern-menlal interests and responsibilities. The British North America Act provides the only protection for minority groups, for regional interests, for provincial rights. No province should be as aware of the British North America Act or cherish it more than the province of Quebec.
If we create a precedent of flouting our constitution by passage of the bill now before us, who or what can set a limit on the acts of any future Canadian government with the majority and determination to ram legislation through parliament as this government has done? It may sound far-fetched today, Mr. Speaker, but if the constitution is made simply another scrap of paper by consent of this parliament, who could argue against or stop a government which suddenly decided to legislate provincial boundaries out of existence? That is why I say this legislation is more than unconstitutional-it is anti-constitutional. Its passage will create a precedent that will emasculate our constitution.


view of the fact that two thirds of the delivery points in western Canada are still on a three or four bushel quota, can the minister tell the house what plans the government has in hand that will enable those points to reach the objective of a five bushel quota as of August 1?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression, without being an expert in these things, that this is a question which was asked during the last few days. If I am wrong I am sure the minister will want to ask the house to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement.



LEVEL OF INITIAL PAYMENTS

['Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed inquiries.']
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been a determination by the government to establish the initial payment on wheat, oats and barley at the same level or higher than that of last year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister now prepared to report to the house on the results of his investigation into the alleged involvement of the Greek embassy in a pro-junta group that was allegedly terrorizing members of the Greek community in Canada? I may add that this question was originally asked about a month ago.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been investigating these complaints. I should like to say that we have received a preliminary report, but it is rather inconclusive and I would hesitate to make a definitive statement at this time.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary question and is related to this general subject matter. Is the minister investigating the complaint of Canadian singer, Muriel Millard, that when she was arrested in Uruguay and sought help from the Canadian embassy our attache there
Inquiries of the Ministry said she "was lucky to find him because he was going to play golf", and that his only assistance was to send her a basket of fruit and some cigarettes to make her stay in prison more pleasant?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member would want to place that question on the order paper.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, about a week or so ago I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about allegations in respect of the torture of women political prisoners in Greece. He said he would look into that matter. Has he had an opportunity to do so, and what is the government going to do about this?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed inquiries.



INCOME TAX


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council asking him whether he has received a request from the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on behalf of its members for an explanation of the unilateral decision taken by the President of the Privy Council for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee on income tax reform without consultation with the committee and, if so, can he give a reply to this request or indicate whether an answer has been provided?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was, when I put the motion forward and furnished copies to the house leaders of other parties, that there had been consultation at the committee level. I found later that in fact there was not this consultation by the persons responsible and I can only apologize for having put it forward. I believed that consultation had taken place. I gather that further consultation is now going on in order to arrive at a harmonious compromise acceptable to members of the committee on both sides of the house.


Max Saltsman: Can the President of the Privy Council assure the house that this kind of action will not take place in the future?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if they are persistent reports as much as persistent rumours. We have investigated the rumours, but in the fairly complete investigation that we have made in the last couple of days we have found no evidence, of Americans coming into Canada to act as strike breakers in this particular dispute.



HOUSING


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister which I had wished to direct to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing. Can the Acting Prime Minister throw any light on whether that minister intends to make a statement this week with respect to urban renewal projec's throughout the nation? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because I understand that we were to hear from the minister prior to the time that the house adjourns for the summer recess, and it now appears that we are getting close to that time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the minister concerned will be in the house tomorrow, and since I do not expect that we will adjourn before tomorrow I will bring this question to his attention and urge him to take the necessary action, if he is in a position to make a statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources will be in the house tomorrow, or at least some time this week, to answer questions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to think he will not be here at his accustomed time.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can he indicate to the house when he intends to announce the growth centres as provided for under the Industrial Incentives Act?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to announce the growth centres. What we are going to announce are the designated regions.


John Edward Broadbent: As a supplementary question and with that change in terminology, when does the minister intend to announce the designated regions?


Jean Marchand: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. I hope before two or three weeks have elapsed.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, In view of the serious disruption to certain major industries in the area, would the minister take immediate steps to restore customs services at the port of In-gersoll, Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that this is the type of question which can always be debated with profit and advantage at the hour of adjournment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of reports of his intended trip to western Canada, is the Prime Minister planning to meet with the farm unions or other farm organizations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will put that question to the Prime Minister. I am sure that he would like to meet with all groups in western Canada to discuss the problems and the opportunities of that area.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON DELIVERY QUOTA

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In



HARBOURS


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works in reference to the harbour project in Chandler. When this project was changed from the original plan to the new plan, were the local authorities contacted, was there any consultation or exchange of ideas with them, or was the decision taken unilaterally by the officials of his department who feel that there is too much money being spent in the Gaspe peninsula?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will
appreciate that his question in its present form cannot be considered in order at this time, and should he wish to have it debated at the time of adjournment, I will gladly see to it that it receives the priority which it deserves.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to tell me with your usual good nature why my question is not in order.


Mr. Speaker:: We could discuss the matter when the orders of the day have been called.



EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is he now in a position to advise us when the rules of procedure of the Exchequer Court are to be published in good French?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the situation is just the same as it was the last time I replied to that question. However, I shall contact again the president of the Exchequer Court.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister says that the situation is the same, and I rise on a point of order.
The last time I asked that question, the minister said that his officials were doing everything possible, and if things are still at the same point, this means that they did not really work.
Since I have asked that question several time since the beginning of the session-and since I always get the same reply-may I ask
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Justice to do his utmost to make sure that the rules of procedure will be published before the end of the session, the summer recess seems a long way off.


John Napier Turner: This matter is as important for me as it can be for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In light of the elections now in progress to establish a permanent council of the Company of Young Canadians will the minister say whether anything is being done to alter the original intention or structure of the C.Y.C. before the permanent council has been elected and has met, and in particular will he report to the house upon the status of the program department of the C.Y.C.?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it is not contemplated to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, at least at this time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a supplementary
question will the minister say whether any of the members of the program department have submitted their resignations to the executive director, giving as their reasons dissatisfaction with a change in the program department?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question might be placed on the order paper.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this is really supplementary to a previous question asked about the telephone strike in British Columbia, and I direct it to the Minister of Labour. In view of the persistent reports that the B.C. Telephone Company is using American personnel as strike breakers in some of its operations, has the Department of Labour fully investigated this aspect of the strike and, if so, what type of investigation was carried out, and what were the findings?
Inquiries of the Ministry PENITENTIARIES



INCREASED SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS TO PREVENT ESCAPES

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct a question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker? In the interest of protecting the public, I ask the Solicitor General if immediate steps are being taken to increase the security arrangements for prisons and penitentiaries in view of the increasing number of escapes, culminating in three escaping yesterday from St. Vincent de Paul, two of whom are guilty of homicide?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: will be very glad to take the hon. member's suggestions under consideration.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: In the absence of the Minister of Transport, I wish to direct my question to the acting minister. In view of the extensive assistance being provided by Canada in relation to the test run of the Manhattan to determine the feasibility of year round navigation in the Arctic, will the minister also combine this to a comprehensive study in relation to an extended shipping season at Port Churchill?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


James Aloysius McGrath: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to relate any information to the house concerning the presence of Russian naval vessels off the east coast of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are some Soviet naval vessels, three destroyers and one submarine supply ship, in nonterritorial waters some 150 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, and proceeding southward. As is normal procedure, our maritime forces are carrying out a surveillance of this Soviet force.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In connection with the meetings that were held last week with Russian officials, did the minister tell the Russians about the plans which his government has to throttle opposition here in the Canadian parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the department will respond to questions tomorrow.
[ Translation]



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Was the minister told in advance of the decision to cancel some projects in eastern Quebec, and did he approve such a decision which constitutes a violation of a federal undertaking in respect of a development program for Eastern Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would agree to have the matter discussed with the others tonight at the time of adjournment.
[Mr. WooUiams.J



COMBINES


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of which I have given him notice. Can he indicate to the house whether the Combines Branch of his department is investigating the action taken by the Quebec College of Pharmacists ordering reductions in drug advertising by discount pharmacists, which has the effect of creating price monopoly in the sale of drugs to the consumers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to look into this matter on June 11 and it would appear that a valid regulation has been passed pursuant to section 5 of the Quebec Pharmacy Act, legislation which is totally within the control of the Quebec government.
July 7, 1369	COMMONS
member's question, I must say that we have no intention whatsoever of changing the postal rates.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary
question.
Mr. Speaker, we were not asking whether the government intended to change the postal rates, but whether the Post Office and Communications Departments would be ordered to make a study of the economic possibilities and the consequences of the new Post Office Act, for the information of hon. members.


Mr. Kierans:: Perhaps we could discuss the consequences of the postal rates when the estimates of my department are considered, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the very real danger of a longshoremen's strike this summer at the port of Vancouver? If so, what action is he taking to try to prevent it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am always aware of the possibility, since their collective agreement expires at the end of July. On the other hand, I am not as pessimistic as the hon. member. I think both parties appreciate the futility of a long and costly strike in that particular port this summer.



WHEAT-DESIRABILITY OF AVOIDING RESTRICTED MOVEMENT THROUGH STRIKE ACTION

Richard Russell Southam: In the absence of the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of today's Richardson's Grain Marketing Review stating that no offers of wheat were made this week to the Japanese food agency by the Canadian Wheat Board because of the distinct possibility of a strike in the very near future by the Vancouver port longshoremen, will the Prime Minister use his good offices to prevent this threatened strike, and thus avert making even more serious what is already recognized as a serious grain pile-up?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is very much aware of the desirability

Inquiries of the Ministry of continuing the shipment of grain and preventing any strikes. I am sure the Minister of Labour, who is one of the more effective negotiators we have had in our time, will do a good job.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, both ministers said they are aware of the danger of a strike. What really is being asked the ministers is what action or policy the government has to prevent such a hold-up at the ports, which would of course cause another deterioration in our grain market?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this government does not adopt the policy that there are two types of workers, those entitled to strike legitimately and those who are not. The longshoremen in British Columbia have a very legitimate right to strike, provided they meet the full requirements of the law as presently enunciated on the statute books. I am not quite sure whether the hon. member suggests we should order the companies to give the unions all they want, or order the unions to accept the terms that the companies think are valid in this time and age.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the opposition, I am not suggesting anything. I am asking the minister what his policy is. He says the labourers have rights: Surely the farmers have some rights. I ask him-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has already asked a question. I am not sure he is satisfied with the reply given by the minister, but he has already asked the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe I could rephrase it in a little more gracious manner, with your assistance, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering if the minister could give us any positive suggestions as to what he has in mind by way of keeping in balance his views on fair play and a due consideration of what is necessary for the economics of the country?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think I should answer graciously, Mr. Speaker, and assure the hon. member that the one thing we should not do at this moment is panic. This is the type of advice I can give to the hon. gentleman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One thing about this government, they never move until there is a crisis.
Inquiries of the Ministry there are in western Canada thousands of students who are looking for work, I wonder if the minister will look into the activities of some departments of government which are sending to western Canada thousands of students from parts of the country other than western Canada. Those students are taking up jobs which might be filled by western Canadian students seeking jobs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to look into that.



EXTERNAL AID


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister now tell the house about the results of the constructive meeting he had with Canairelief and Dr. Johnson, about which on Thursday he expressed hope, with respect to relieving the grim situation in Nigeria-Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Johnson put certain suggestions to us which might help in attaining some acceptable method of inspecting cargoes being flown into Biafra. These proposals are being pursued.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether Canada has joined with the government of Great Britain in suggesting specifically to the federal Nigerian government that night flights be resumed on a temporary basis in order to avoid imminent mass starvation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, some days ago, as I reported to the house, the government was in touch with the Nigerian authorities, urging them not to interfere with the provision of relief. That would include night flights. I repeat what I said before, that there would be a good deal less trouble, less danger for the pilots, and greater opportunity for provisioning of the people in Biafra if daylight flights were permitted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact there is imminent danger of starvation, can the Secretary of 

State for External Affairs indicate whether any further steps are being taken by the government of Canada to join with Britain or any other countries in bringing about the necessary measures to ensure that the relief will come to the people who are threatened with starvation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we should lose hope about the possibility of getting the International Red Cross to resume flights on conditions acceptable to both sides. We are working very hard on these objectives, which I am sure are shared by everyone.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not difficult to ask us to be hopeful about the International Red Cross, but can the minister expect to be hopeful about the Canadian government's efforts?


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether he has any information as to the report that foreign pilots, presumably Russian and British, are flying the new sophisticated aircraft that are blocking night flights as far as relief to that area is concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have only the reports I have seen in the press. From the knowledge I have I would say the reports I read in the paper are exaggerated.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


André-Gilles Fortin: I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
As regards the implementation of the new Post Office Act and postal rates, does the minister intend to have his officials study the implications of the disappearance of several magazines and publications and to issue a report on the matter for the information of hon. members?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter at length with the newspaper owners and all those affected by the increased postal rates and explained the difficulties involved in an eventual deficit of $130 million. To reply directly to the hon.

July 7, 1969	COMMONS



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence, perhaps: the Minister of Agriculture could answer it.
Since there is a joint and firmly established plan among egg producers in Quebec for the marketing of that product and since those people are having a hard time of it due to the importation of eggs, could the minister tell us whether the government has taken or will soon take steps to prevent the importation of eggs and to protect our Canadian producers?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would not agree with me that this important question could profitably be discussed at the time of adjournment this evening.


Mr. Lambert:: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



LABOUR RELATIONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour about the strike of telephone workers in British Columbia which has been going on for some time. Since Mr. J. Ernest Richardson, the president and chief executive officer of British Columbia Telephone Company, has refused to meet the officers of the union may I ask the minister if he intends to intervene in the strike in an endeavour to bring both parties together, so that free collective bargaining may take place.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the strike of the British Columbia Telephone Company is unfortunate. The hon. member knows that the services of the Department of Labour are available to both sides. There has been no request from the union for any assistance by the Department of Labour in a mediation role. Until one side or the other asks for such assistance the Department of Labour does not intend to interfere in a legitimate strike.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the chief executive officer of
Inquiries of the Ministry the British Columbia Telephone Company will not meet the officers of the union, does the minister not consider it incumbent on his department at least to bring the parties together in an endeavour to have them take up the process of collective bargaining?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the union went on strike of its own volition. It had the right to go on strike, just as the company had the right to lock workers out when legal delays expired after certain reports were tabled. If the union feels that Mr. Richardson's attitude is unfair, they can ask for the assistance of the Department of Labour. They need only to ask for it and we wifi then review the matter and make whatever contacts are needed with the company. In the meantime, until we are requested by either one side or the other to intervene, we have no intention of intervening.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the union were to ask the minister to try to bring the parties together, would he be willing to undertake this assignment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This further supplementary is hypothetical.



HARBOURS


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Since a member of the Liberal caucus has said that the people from the Gaspe peninsula are about to rebel because the federal government failed to keep its promise to build a new wharf in Chandler, will the minister now undertake to erect a new wharf as first promised?


Mr. Speaker:: I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that his question, as put, is out of order because it deals with a statement made outside the house.
[English\



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Lewis: Then I repeat my question, Mr. Speaker, which was whether or not the minister will revert to the procedures used prior to February 9 in view of the findings of the adjudicator.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the adjudicator has not asked us to make any change from the single mail processing system. The adjudicator has asked us simply to ensure that there be more consultation prior to issuing new directives, and with this I am heartily in accord. I agree with the spirit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Postmaster General have no knowledge of the contents of the report until he read the report when it was issued on July 4?


Eric William Kierans: Not a word, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour. On March 18, as reported at page 6742 of Hansard, the Postmaster General replied in the affirmative when he was asked whether "the services and the ability of his colleague, the Minister of Labour, are being used" in the handling of the postal dispute. My question is this: When does the minister intend to dissociate himself publicly from the arrogant and high-handed labour tactics of his colleague the Postmaster General?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Postmaster General mean to indicate that he had asked through the appropriate channels for this report before July 4, that he had failed to get a copy and that one was withheld from him until July 4?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of May I kept asking how long it would take to get the adjudicator's report. From then on I kept asking whether the adjudicator's report was in yet, and so on. That is exactly what I meant by my reply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. To whom did the minister direct his inquiries, and what reasons were given for the delay?


Eric William Kierans: I inquired of my officials, including the deputy minister, asking them to find out whether there was any information as to when the report would be forthcoming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made earlier by the Postmaster General, that the blame for the delay in getting these reports was to be placed on the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and in view of the fact that that board comes under the authority of the Privy Council, may I ask the President of the Privy Council whether he can give us the reason for the delay?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad, as the Acting Prime Minister has indicated, to make an investigation into this matter, and I will respond in due course.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of reactivating the task force on information to inquire into the secrecy and furtiveness practised by this government?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council? Now that it appears that the house itself will not have an opportunity to discuss this matter, will he take the initiative to have this newly revealed report, which must have been sent by mail, referred' to an appropriate standing committee before negotiations begin, so that the committee may look at the report?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I shall allow one more supplementary, after which we might go to another subject. Perhaps we may return to this matter in a few minutes For the time being I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to ask the Postmaster General if he can tell us on what date he received the two reports.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard a verbal report of the reports on Friday night. I studied the reports this morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: :
They must have been sent by mail.

report. I say that the privileges of the members of this house in particular have been affected, in that the house has had to deal with this particular question all along. May I say, with due respect to Your Honour's decision a moment ago, that this situation has arisen as a result of the unavailability of the report at the time of the discussion prior to today in the house.
Therefore I say that at the moment there is a question of privilege as to why the house and all those concerned have been denied this report. The question is whether the report has been delayed this long in order to relieve the minister involved from having to answer any question in the house on a point on which the ministry and its officials have been found to be guilty of dereliction in not living up to the standards laid down in labour relations.
I therefore put it to Your Honour that we just cannot be fobbed off continually, letting the question be avoided in one way or another. At this point in the session the whole matter should be dealt with.


Eric William Kierans: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, relating to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I wish to repeat that I have no knowledge at all of the reasons for which the reports were not released until just now. I have been as anxious as anyone else to obtain them. The implication in the statement of the hon. member for Edmonton West is that I have been afraid to face this house. Mr. Speaker, with an opposition like that, what is there to be afraid of?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We shall see.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Minister of Communications to be afraid of anything. I am asking him to be honest and straightforward with this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that one report of the adjudicator granted the grievances of five workers, and since other grievances may fall within the same realm of facts, and since this means additional pay for those workers, will the minister undertake that the five workers concerned and others in a like situation will receive that pay retroactive to May 15, the date of the award.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: I have already instructed the officials of the department to contact the leaders of the unions and of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to determine the best way of proceeding as a result of this report.


David Lewis: May I also ask this question: in view of the fact that the other report, dated April 30, found that government agencies- more the Treasury Board, perhaps, than the Post Office-had violated section 40 of the agreement by not consulting the union prior to making up their minds with respect to changes in working conditions, will the minister now revert to the conditions which obtained prior to February 9 and negotiate with the union as the agreement requires?


Eric William Kierans: I am glad the hon. member raised that question. There were three principal conclusions reached in the report. I should like to quote from the adjudicator: "The employer, under the collective bargaining agreement, had the right to implement single mail processing." Now comes point No. 2, and again I quote: "The error lay in the method of implementation." The third point is this: Both parties erred. I quote: "It is held as a fact that neither the representatives of the employer nor the union were mentally disposed to engage in meaningful consultation."
On May 15-and you have already referred to this, Mr. Speaker-I said something along the same lines in this house:
There has been on both sides perhaps a tendency to interpret that contract too literally: to look at the words than to treat it as a human document.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled in your judgment that the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough could not be entertained and that a debate should not take place at this time. I want to say that the Postmaster General has taken sentences out of context; that the adjudicator went further than to say that both parties were responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether I might interrupt the hon. member. I might say that prima facie the point raised by the hon. member is well taken. I did not know at what time to interrupt the Postmaster General. At the same time the question asked by the hon. member for York South in a way prompted the lengthy reply. I suggest to hon. members that there should not be debate at this time, that questions should be short and the answers equally brief.


Motion to Adjourn
attitude the Post Office should take in upcoming negotiations, it is vitally urgent that there be a full and comprehensive discussion of this matter in the House of Commons at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, a number of factors have to be taken into account in determining if the house is to be adjourned under Standing Order 26 as suggested by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). In particular, the Chair has to consider whether the situation proposed for immediate debate is in the nature of a sudden and new emergency. If the issue raised by the proposed motion is in effect a continuing grievance, then the motion cannot be allowed.
It should be mentioned at the outset that similar motions dealing essentially with the same matter were proposed on March 10 and March 11 last. This fact in itself shows that the situation of which the hon. member complains is more in the nature of a continuing grievance.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Even the new circumstances outlined by the hon. member for Hillsborough do not appear to constitute a sudden emergency nor do they suggest an impending crisis the progress of which might be influenced by an immediate parliamentary debate.
Hon. members will also recall that the general subject of postal services was considered at length last May 15 on a motion pursuant to Standing Order 58 which motion had been proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough and was resolved by division at the conclusion of the debate.
I think I should add one word in connection with the form of the notice given by the hon. member for Hillsborough. I have suggested to hon. members in the past that according to the terms of Standing Order 26 only a statement of the question to be debated should be indicated in the motion proposed for consideration by the Chair. The purpose of the new rule is to eliminate argument as to whether the matter should be debated urgently, and if hon. members as part of their notice are allowed to include argument on this subject, it would be only fair to allow argument by other members who may feel differently than does the mover of the proposed motion.
For this reason I have to insist again that the motions proposed by hon. members for the consideration of the Chair should be restricted as far as possible to a statement of the fact, and should not include argument. In

any event, on the substance of the proposal advanced by the hon. member for Hillsborough I must rule that the motion cannot be put to the house at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications and Postmaster General. Will he say for what reason the adjudication reports of the decisions made on April 30 and May 15 on disputes between the government and the Council of Postal Workers were suppressed until Friday, July 4, a delay of seven and nine weeks?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to say on that really, except that I have been pressing to have the reports myself almost weekly since May 1. I think the question should be directed to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. As the Leader of the Opposition said, one report was dated April 30, another May 15 and a third one May 16. I am at a loss to understand why they have not been released before now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question for whoever is speaking for the government today. May we have some explanation as to why these reports have been suppressed for this length of time?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will have to do better than that on a matter of great importance. It cannot have come with any surprise to the Acting Prime Minister and to other ministers of the government that the house is interested in this question today. It is a prima facie case of serious suppression, and I think the house is entitled to an answer to the question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising either out of the government's inability or its unwillingness to disclose information as to the delay in the publication of this


Edgar John Benson: This is a matter of Government policy. If any amendments to the Income Tax Act to change the exemptions for individuals should be contemplated they will be announced at the appropriate time.



UP-DATING OF ARMED FORCES PENSIONS

Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to take steps as soon as possible to up-date the Armed Forces pension structure with a view of removing discrepancies, and increase to an adequate level pension benefits of all pensioners, widows and dependants?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: The
question of increasing the pensions paid to former members of the Canadian Forces continues to receive active consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouette: 1.	What are the Crown corporations or other government agencies whose employees, in whole or in part, are not subject to the Civil Service Act?
2.	What is the general policy of each of these corporations or government agencies with regard to the right of their employees to participate in political activities?
3.	What provisions of the Act or what regulations apply in this regard in relation to each of these corporations or agencies?
4.	In each case, what penalties are provided for employees who fail to comply with these regulations?
5.	In each case (a) how many times have these penalties been applied, and (b) how many cases have been considered?
Return tabled.


TASK FORCE ON SPORTS-SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
Mr. Mahoney: With respect to the Task Force on Sports for Canadians (a) where, and on what dates did the Task Force meet to receive submissions or to hear witnesses (b) from what persons and organizations were briefs or submissions received and considered (c) what were the names of the persons who were interviewed by the Task Force and their respective affiliation or connection in sports (d) how many questionnaires were distributed and how many returned?
Return tabled.



PRIVILEGES UNDER NEW POSTAL REGULATIONS

Mr. Hales: 1.	Since the new postal regulations became effective on April 1, 1969, has any information been
Motion to Adjourn
made available as to what publications previously granted 2nd class privileges are now obliged to mail under 3rd or 4th class?
2.	Will this information be made public and from whom may such be available?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How much money was spent last year by the federal government on financing university education for foreign students (a) at the undergraduate level (b) at the post-graduate level?
2.	How much money was spent last year by the federal government on financing university education for Canada's native people (a) at the undergraduate level (b) at the postgraduate level?
Return tabled.



PAYMENTS UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Mr. Robinson: 1 How much money has been paid under the Canada Assistance Plan per year since its inception in 1963?
2.	How much was paid to each province in each year since the inception of the plan?
3.	Do the provinces still contribute to the Canada Assistance Plan?
4.	How many people in each province receive benefits under the Canada Assistance Plan?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADJUDICATION REPORTS-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the serious situation revealed by the adjudication report of W. S. Martin in the dispute between the Council of Postal Unions and the Post Office. Considering the vital and essential nature of efficient postal service to all Canadians, and considering that there have been two nationwide strikes in this service in recent years, the importance of such a debate cannot be overstated.
In addition, given the fact that negotiations are now under way for the labour contract to replace the current contract which will expire before parliament is likely to reconvene, and given the fact that there will be no opportunity before these negotiations take place for parliament to debate this national issue of the


Questions



TAX BENEFITS RECEIVED BY U.S. PROFESSORS

Mr. Anderson: 1.	How many U.S. professors or teachers came to Canada during 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 and benefited from Article VIIIA of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention, which permits exemption from Canadian taxes for the two years following entry to Canada?
2.	How many professors and teachers have come to Canada from the United Kingdom during the same years and benefited from Article 18 of the Canada-United Kingdom Income Tax Agreement, under which such teachers may remain in Canada for two years prior to Canadian income taxes being levied?
3.	With respect to U.S. and United Kingdom teachers and professors in Canada, does the Department of National Revenue insist upon proof of payment of either English or American taxes before granting such persons exemption from Canadian income tax?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: 1 and 2. This information is not available.
3.	No.



CALGARY AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What firm or individual was chosen by the Department of Transport or other government departments and agencies for the operation of parking facilities at the Calgary International Airport?
2.	When was the agreement made, for what term and for what additional purposes, if any?
3.	Who are the directors of such company, and who are its principal shareholders?
4.	What method was used to choose such firm or individual for the purpose of this agreement?
5.	What other agreements exist between such firm or individual and the Department of Transport or other government departments and agencies?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: 1. Allied Parking Services Limited.
2.	March 16, 1969, for a term of five years. Agreement covers management of car parking lot only.
3.	Directors and principal shareholders: W. Crinchic, President; J. G. Crinchic, Vice-President; D. Crinchic, Secretary.
4.	Tender Call-lowest bid to manage the car parking lot.
5.	Management contracts for car parking lots at Halifax and Ottawa International Airports.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND POST OFFICE CLOSURES

Mr. MacLean: 1.	What are the names of the rural post offices in Prince Edward Island that have been closed down in the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?

2.	(a) What are the names of rural post offices in Prince Edward Island which have been closed out to date in the year 1969 (b) what further rural post offices does the Post Office Department propose to close out in the remainder of the present calendar year (c) what further, if any, rural post offices have been designated to be closed down in the calendar year 1970?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	1965: Midgell, Ocean View, Newton Cross. 1966: Bristol, Beatons Mills, Piusville, Johnstons River, Fort Augustus, French River. 1967: Alma, Summerville, Cherry Valley, Iona. 1968: Brackley Beach, New Glasgow, Stanhope, McNeills Mills, South Rustico, Union Road, Hampton, Oyster Bed Bridge, West Devon, Bear River, Tracadie Cross.
2.	(a) Hopefield, St. Mary's Road, Wilmot Valley, Bedford Station, New London, Kellys Cross, Armadale, Howlan. (b) Clyde River, Dundas Centre, Kinross, Malpeque, Milton Station, Stanley Bridge, Carleton Siding, Conway, Fredericton Station, North River, Peakes, (c) Portage.



P.E.I.-CAPE TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE

Mr. MacLean: 1.	With regard to the two new car-ferries to be constructed and ready for operation in the Prince Edward Island-Cape Tormentine ferry service in 1971 (a) are both these ships to be operated on the Borden-Cape Tormentine run (b) if so, is there at least one further vessel to be brought into service on the Wood Islands-Caribou run by 1971 (c) what will be the approximate capacity of these two ships (d) will either, or both, be an icebreaker designed for year round service and capable of carrying railway cars?
2.	Has the Department of Transport any plans for installing new and more powerful engines in the MV Abegweit?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Future plans for the Wood Islands-Caribou service are being prepared but are not yet finished; (c) Approximate capacity of these two ships is 500 passengers and 150 cars each; (d) No. Neither ship will be an icebreaker or capable of carrying rail cars.
2.	No.



REMOVAL OF TAX ON INCOMES BELOW WELFARE LIMIT

Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the feasibility of removing income tax requirements on wage earners who receive less in annual income than the amount they would receive if on welfare?


arts magazines, as outlined in the answer to Question No. 2,526.



CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS TO &quot;TAMARACK REVIEW&quot;, 1967 AND 1968

Mr. McBride: 1.	What was the amount of the grant from the Canada Council to the Tamarack Review (a) in 1967 (b) in 1968?
2.	How many issues of the Tamarack Review were published (a) in 1967 (b) in 1968?
3 Is it the policy of the Canada Council to provide grants to periodicals carrying political opinion?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Answered in reply to


Mr. Yewchuk-June 13.: 2.	(a) 4; (b) 3.
3.	No, unless there is a clear predominance of artistic interest.



TORONTO HARBOUR AIR CARRIER AIRPORT

Mr. Robinson: Did the feasibility study of locating an Air Carrier Airport in the eastern area of the Toronto Harbour indicate that it was practical and, if so, what would be the estimated cost to provide the necessary acreage of reclaimed land deemed necessary?
Questions



POSTAGE STAMP SALE REVENUE

Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What was the total revenue to the Post Office Department from the sale of postage stamps for the years (a) 1967-68 (b) 1968-69?
2.	What was the total revenue to the Post Office Department from the sale of stamps through postage meters?
3.	What amount was paid to the British American Bank Note Co. Ltd. and to the Canadian Bank Note Co. Ltd. during the years (a) 1967-68 (b) 1968-69 for the printing of all the stamps sold?


Eric William Kierans: 1. In so far
as the Post Office is concerned: 1. (a) $118,831,756 including the sale of stamped postage supplies; (b) $125,466,254 including the sale
of stamped postage supplies.
2.	For postage meter and postage register sales: 1967-68, $152,462,666; 1968-69, $175,778,131.
3.
British American Canadian Bank Bank Note	Note Co. Ltd.
Co. Ltd.

(a) 1967-68	88,800
(b) 1968-69	491,000
1,175,000
662,000



CANADA COUNCIL GRANT TO &quot;LIBERTE&quot;

Donald Campbell Jamieson: The feasibility study to which reference is made is a preliminary engineering study only. This study indicated that it is technically feasible to construct, by means of reclaiming land, an area of sufficient size to accommodate two closely spaced uni-directional runways.
Comprehensive air space, meteorological and ground transportation studies associated with this proposal have yet to be finalized.
The cost of the reclaimed land based on the preliminary study is estimated to be $56 M. or $80,000 per acre.



TORONTO WATERFRONT AIRPORT FACILITY

Mr. Robinson: Is it the intention of the federal government to consider the feasibility of providing an airport facility as part of the development of the conceptual waterfront plans for Metropolitan Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, in competition with other possible sites in the Toronto area to serve the Southern Ontario region.


Mr. Thompson (Red: Deer):
1.	What grants were made by the Canada Council to the Quebec separatist publication, "Liberte", during the years 1966-69?
2.	What grants have been paid by the Canada Council to the "Tamarack Review" during the last ten years?
3.	Has the "Tamarack Review" been published since the date of the last Canada Council grant received by that publication?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. The policy of the Canada Council is not to make grants to politically oriented publications, separatist or otherwise. Grants for publication were made to the Montreal literary magazine Liberte from 1966-69 as follows: April 1966, $6,000; April 1967, $6,000; February 1968, $8,000; April 1969, $10,000.
2.	Answered in reply to Question No. 2,526, Mr. Yewchuk, June 13.
3.	Answered in reply to Question No. 2,544, Mr. Harkness, June 17.


Questions
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
2.	It is under study.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Yes.
5.	If and when it is found to be viable.



SYDNEY COAST GUARD COLLEGE

Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the total cost of the land, buildings and equipment for the Canadian Coast Guard College in Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many graduate officer cadets is it anticipated will be graduated from the college yearly over the next five years?
3.	Is it necessary to be bilingual as a prerequisite to attending the college?
4.	What is the total yearly cost of the Canadian Coast Guard for each of the years since its inception?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. $1,501,777.
2.	Approximately 25 for the Coast Guard. Additional officers may be trained for other Departments.
3.	No.
4.	1965-66, $260,075; 1966-67, $509,447; 196768, $704,675; 1968-69, $866,078.



TOTAL GRANTS OF CANADA COUNCIL TO &quot;TAMARACK REVIEW&quot;

Mr. Harkness: 1.	What is the total of the grants made by the Canada Council to the Tamarack Review?
2.	How many of these grants have been made and what was the date and amount of each?
3.	Has the Tamarack Review published a single issue since it received a Canada Council grant more than a year ago?
4.	What are the reasons for these grants having been made to this publication?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Answered in reply to


Mr. Yewchuk-June 13.: 2.	As above.
3.	Since December 1967, the time of the grant to which reference is made, the Tamarack Review has published issues No. 46 (February, 1968); No. 47 (June, 1968); and No. 48 (December, 1968). We are informed by the publisher that a double issue Nos. 49 and 50, which was due to appear in mid-April, was held up by a printer's strike in Toronto,

and will now appear on or about July 1st, 1969.
4.	The grants were made for continuing publication of this literary periodical. It was chosen for assistance by the criteria for periodicals concerned with the arts listed in the answer to 
Question No. 2,526-Mr. Yewchuk-June 13.



GRANTS TO &quot;TAMARACK REVIEW&quot; IN LAST TEN YEARS

Mr. McIntosh: 1.	How much money has been given by the Canada Council to the periodical, Tamarack Review, in grants over the past ten years?
2.	What was the amount of each grant?
3.	Was receipt of each grant followed by publication of an issue of Tamarack Review within the year following?
4.	Does Mr. Naim Kattan of the Canada Council have any part in deciding what periodicals receive grants?
5.	Was Mr. Kattan at any time a member of the editorial board of Tamarack Review or connected with the periodical in any other capacity?
6.	Did the Canada Council at any time ever give a grant to the periodical Edge and, if so, when were these grants given and in what amounts?
7.	Did the Canada Council ever withhold a grant from the periodical Edge and, if so, on what grounds?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Answered in response to


Mr. Yewchuk-June 13.: 2.	As above.
3.	Yes, four issues in each case. On one occasion there was a double issue.
4.	As an arts officer of the Canada Council directly concerned with support of literary periodicals, Mr. Naim Kattan receives and studies each application, seeks expert advice where needed, and prepares the application in summary form for the Council, which decides whether or not a grant will be made.
5.	Mr. Kattan was a member of the editorial board of the Tamarack Review until October, 1967, when he joined the staff of the Canada Council. At that time he resigned from Tamarack Review's editorial board.
6.	Yes. In February, 1967, Edge Magazine was awarded a grant of $1,000 specifically to pay poets for their contributions to the magazine.
7.	Yes, Edge was refused a grant for general assistance to publication on the grounds that it did not meet the criteria for support of


3. How 3	many copies of each publication are pro-		
vided and	to whom are they distributed and how		
is the distribution effected?			
Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote		(Minister of National	
Revenue)	: 1. Yes		
	Supplies		
and Services	Salaries	Total$	$	$1960	56,900	12,500	69,4001961	57,000	12,500	69,5001962	48,900	12,500	61,4001963	25,900	12,500	38,4001964	21,500	12,500	34,0001965	216,900	9,000	225,0001966	517,500	20,000	537,5001967	515,500	55,000	570,5001968	525,600	69,000	594,6002. Number of publications, information	sheets and public releases: 1960, :	2; 1961, 3;1962, 2;	1963, 4; 1964,	15; 1965, 3;	; 1966, 15;1967, 11;	1968, 11.	Cost of publications:	Taxation	21 MillionStatistics	a Day"$	$1960	8,000	1961	9,000	1962	9,500	1963	10,000	1964	11,500	1965	11,500	1966	12,000	20,9001967	13,000	1968	15,000	3. Distribution of publications:	Taxation
Statistics, 1,350 copies: Parliamentary Press Gallery; Financial Press; Other Federal Departmental Libraries; Provincial Governments; Canadian and American University Libraries; Foreign Embassies; Head Office and District Office Taxation Officials. "21 Million a Day", 23,000 copies; Members of Parliament and Senators; Foreign Embassies; Universities and Institutional Libraries; Tax Consultants; Banks and Trust Companies; Provincial Governments; High Schools; Taxation Staff.
Distribution is by local carriers and ordinary mail.



PUBLICATION OF &quot;TAMARACK REVIEW&quot;

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	When was the periodical Tamarack Review last published?
2.	How much has Tamarack Review received in grants from Canada Council and what were the dates and amounts of the grants?
Questions
3.	What was the purpose of the final grant to Tamarack Review?
4.	What are the criteria used in selecting periodicals to qualify for Canada Council grants?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. The latest issue of Tamarack Review, No. 48, appeared in December, 1968, We are informed by the publisher that a double issue, Nos. 49 and 50, which was due to appear in mid-April, was held up by a printers strike in Toronto and will now be issued on or about July 1st, 1969; No. 51, on or about September 1st, 1969, and the other issues at three-month intervals.
2.	The Tamarack Review has received Canada Council grants for publication, as follows: April, 1959-$3,000; August, 1960- $3,000; May, 1962-$5,000; August, 1963- $5,000; August, 1964-$5,000; November, 1965 -$6,000; November, 1966-$6,000; December,
1967-$10,000; March, 1969-$12,000.
3.	The most recent grant, for $12,000, approved on March 31st, 1969, is for continued publication of the Tamarack Review in 1969. It is payable in instalments as required to publish four issues.
4.	(a) For periodicals concerned with the arts, the criteria for grants are a clear predominance of artistic interest, a high quality of content, service to an interested public, and demonstrated financial need, (b) For learned journals in the Humanities and Social Sciences, the criteria are that they maintain those standards of excellence that will earn them recognition as prime reference material in the disciplines concerned and as outlets for the most significant results of Canadian scholarship.



LAST OAK PARK DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Southam: 1	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received from the Government of Saskatchewan a proposal for the development of Last Oak Park?
2.	If such a proposal has been received, what action has been taken?
3.	If no action has been taken, when can action be expected?
4.	Is the Department aware of the importance of this program to Indian people of the four bands concerned?
5.	Since the program is considered viable, when can it be expected to commence?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Not by the Department of


Questions
2.	When was the agreement signed and for what purpose?
3.	What are the terms of the agreement?
4.	What is the type of business performed by Elyroy Company Ltd., Windsor, and what agreements has the company with the Department of Transport or other government departments?
5.	Who are the directors of the firm Elyroy Company Limited and their position?
6.	What income is derived from the present occupation and use of lands by Elyroy Company Limited?
7.	What is the present market value of the land being used and what is the present income?
8.	What remuneration or consideration does the government receive from Elyroy Company Ltd. for the use of the lands?
9 Who acted as solicitors for Elyroy Company Ltd. in respect of this agreement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. Two agreements were negotiated between the Department of Transport, one with Mr. Bernard R. Roy and another with his company Elyroy Company Ltd.
2.	The purpose of the agreements was to manage airport land thereby relieving Department of the responsibility for weed control. The agreement with Mr. Roy was dated November 3, 1966 and the agreement with the Elyroy company was dated December 28, 1966.
3.	The Department paid $1 a year under each agreement and the contractor retained the crops. Types of crops were subject to Department's approval. The agreement with Mr. Roy was for the period October 21, 1964 to December 31, 1970 with provision for renewal at the discretion of the Minister. The agreement with the Elyroy company was for the period commencing September 1, 1965 to August 31, 1972 with provision for renewal at the discretion of the Minister. However, both contracts were surrendered effective June 1, 1969.
4.	Elyroy Company Ltd. formed to engage in agricultural operations. To the best of our knowledge company has no agreements with other government departments.
5.	Bernard R. Roy is the President and his wife Cecile is the Secretary.
6.	(a) Bernard R. Roy, no income reported; (b) Elyroy Company Ltd., 1966 not known; 1967 estimated at $7,500 cropping plus $2,100 building rental; 1968 estimated at $600 cropping plus $2,100 building rental.
7 and 8. For restricted agricultural use this land is valued at $150 to $200 per acre. No income is received for the use of this land at present, but with the termination of the
[Mr. Gilbert.)
management contracts the Department will call for tenders for the purpose of entering into agricultural leases subject to crop restrictions to control the bird hazard.
9. Bernard R. Roy acted on his own behalf and for the Elyroy Company Ltd.



NATIONAL REVENUE PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue have a public relations staff and, if so how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. No.
2. N/A.



DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETARY REVENUE PROJECTIONS

Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Which government department makes revenue projections for the budget?
2.	What are the econometric techniques and the assumptions used in making these projections?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
The Department of Finance.
2. The revenue projections for the budget are produced using economic and demographic forecasts and projections generated through macroeconomic analysis and the use of standard statistical methods which in turn are checked through the Econometric Model of the Department. Revenue forecasting employs regression analysis to establish the correlation existing between pertinent economic or demographic variables and the yields of the various taxes. A description of the techniques used to forecast federal tax revenues appeared in the November-December, 1968, issue of The Canadian Tax Journal under the name of C. D. P. Bernier, an officer of the Department of Finance.



NATIONAL REVENUE INFORMATION SERVICE

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


3.	(i) (a) 103,200 annually; (b) 700 annually;
(c)	1,800 each release, (ii) (a) Departmental staff-active and retired; other Government departments; Radio and Television stations, and daily newspapers, aviation and marine publications; (b) Members of House of Commons and the Senate; Libraries in Canada and abroad; other interested agencies; and Government departments; (c) Includes press; radio; TV; Members of Parliament; Department of Transport officials; Aviation and Marine publications and Associations; airlines, and other interested agencies, (iii) (a) Mail and messenger service; (b) Mail and messenger service; (c) Mail, messenger service and telex.



ANDRE DUMAS-MANNER OF APPOINTMENT

Mr. Coales: 1.	Was Andre Dumas appointed to a position in the Department of Transport and, if so, was he appointed by the Public Service Commission and did his appointment result from a competition or notice within the provision of the Public Service Act?
2.	If the Public Service Commission followed the regular procedure was a competition called and how many applications were received for the position in question and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the position that Mr. Dumas has been appointed to, what is the annual salary and what are his qualifications?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Dumas was appointed from competition No. 66-366-185, a continuous staffing competition, one of the regular procedures used by the Commission to make appointments to the Public Service. In a continuous staffing competition, applications are solicited for particular kinds of work rather than for a particular position. The number of applicants in competition 66-366-185 varies from time to time from 800 to 1,200.
3.	Mr. Dumas was appointed at the level of Administrative Services 7 in the office of the Deputy Minister of Transport. His salary at the date of appointment was $14,441 per annum and was subsequently adjusted to $16,534 as a result of the salary revision for the Administrative Services Group. His qualifications include: (a) knowledge and experience related to the duties of the position; (b) managerial and administrative skills related to the duties of the position; (c) service as a pilot in the R.C.A.F.; and (d) proficiency in both official languages.
Questions



STUDENTS EMPLOYED BY PASSPORT SERVICE

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many students are employed for the summer by the Passport Office?
2.	How many students have applied for summer jobs in the Passport Office to date, this year?
3.	What are the official criteria for hiring students for summer jobs in this office?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:	1.	140 students are
presently on the staff of the Passport Office.
2.	No record of enquiries regarding summer employment in the Passport Office has been kept. All students who enquired were directed to the Canada Manpower Centre.
3.	All students for summer employment in the Passport Office were hired through the Canada Manpower Centre in accordance with selection standards established by the Public Service Commission for the Administrative Support Category.



TERMS OF REFERENCE OF AUDITOR GENERAL

Mr. Fortin: Does the government intend to introduce a bill to amend the terms of reference of the Auditor General and, if so, will the Auditor General's recommendations in this regard be taken into consideration?


Edgar John Benson: In its Third Report to the House of Commons on June 28, 1966, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts expressed its opinion that all of the characteristics, duties and functions of the Office of the Auditor General should be set out in a separate Act of Parliament instead of being a part of the Financial Administration Act, and noted that the Committee had requested the Auditor General to consult his legal advisers and to cooperate with them in drafting such an Act for submission to the Committee and to the Government. In accordance with the Committee's direction, the Auditor General in 1967 submitted a draft of the proposed legislation. This draft, presumably, is still under study by the Committee. Any recommendation by the Committee in this regard will be carefully considered by the Government.



AGREEMENT WITH BERNARD A. ROY, WINDSOR

Mr. Gilbert: 1.	Was an agreement entered into between the Department of Transport or other government departments and Bernard A. Roy, Windsor, Ontario?


Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The St. Lawrence Seaway
Authority advises as follows: 1. The cost of operating the St. Lawrence Seaway including the Welland Canal, for each of the years 1960-68 is as follows:

1960	5,908,943
1961	6,729,848
1962	7,346,573
1963	7,970,325
1964	9,602,856
1965	12,414,128
1966	15,498,125
1967	15,242,135
1968	16,743,334
97,456,267
4. The total revenue received from operations of the Welland Canal during each of the
1960-68 is as follows:	$
1960	2,072,794
1961	2,217,208
1962	1,439,726
1963	779,474
1964	941,495
1965	797,677
1966	1,063,104
1967	2,093,949
1968	2,703,323
14,108,750
Note: Cost does not include interest on loans and provision for replacement of machinery and equipment.
2. The revenue received in operating the St. Lawrence Seaway, including the Welland Canal, for each of the years 1960-68 is as follows:

1960	9,360,642
1961	10,447,256
1962	10,691,922
1963	12,045,224
1964	15,050,107
1965	16,848,181
1966	19,396,118
1967	19,384,762
1968	22,051,023
	135,275,235
3. The cost of operating the Welland Canal during each of the years 1960-68 is as follows:	
1960	$ 3,788,936
1961	4,577,945
1962	4,415,627
1963	4,851,603
1964	6,316,208
1965	8,900,925
1966	11,112,295
1967	10,275,507
1968	10,972,084
65,211,130



DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT INFORMATION SERVICE

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


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. Yes. (April 1 to March 31):
1968-69, $159,008; 1967-68, $136,205; 1966-67, $119,577; 1965-66, $96,665; 1964-65, $82,996; 1961-63, Not available; records retained for five years only.
2. Accurate figures for the Department are not available. Information Services issues: (a) a bi-monthly staff magazine; (b) departmental annual report; (c) press releases. Cost: (1960 to 1964 is not available-records retained for five years only.)
1965	1966	1967	1968$	$	$	$(a)	1,600	1,908	2,169	2,063(b)	1,800	2,040	2,975	2,927(c)	9,000	8,300	11,000	10,000
(Cost for (c) includes paper; typing; mimeographing; collating; stapling; addressing and mailing.)



2	Will such studies be tabled in the House and, if so, on what date?
3.	If not, for what reason?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. A contract for a feasibility study of a Canadian merchant marine has been awarded to a consulting group under the direction of Hedlin, Menzies and Associates Ltd.
2.	The report will be made to the Canadian Transport Commission. After it has been studied by the Commission and the Government, consideration will be given to tabling it.
3.	N/A.



BALANCE DUE TO CANADIAN NATIONAL (WEST INDIES) STEAMSHIPS

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the United States Government maintain a ban on payment of the balance due to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship Ltd. and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Who are the directors of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship Ltd.?
3.	In what activities is that company at the present engaged?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Canadian Transport Corn-
Questions
mission advises as follows: 1. The balance payable by the Bank of America to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, being in Cuban funds, has been withheld under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.
2.	H. J. Darling, Canadian Transport Commission; H. R. Balls, Department of Supply and Services; C. L. Read, Department of Finance; G. C. Tilley, Department of Transport.
3.	The wind-up of the aifairs of this Company has been deferred pending settlement of this payment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL HOTEL LOSSES

Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What C.N.R. hotels presently operated by the Railway Company have shown losses in their operations in the last five years?
2.	What was the total amount of loss in each case?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The management of Canadian
National Railways advises as follows:-
1.	and 2. The following statement indicates the profit or (loss) after allowing for depreciation from the seven hotels operated by the Canadian National Railways during the years shown.
1968	1967	1966	1965	1964$	$	$	$	$The Bessborough	(186,185)	(198,894)	(165,766)	( 91,293)	( 82,645)Chateau Laurier	(219,216)	392,997	1,718	(297,169)	(102,650)The Fort Garry	290,937	228,447	( 27,201)	(153,503)	(154,354)Jasper Park Lodge	415,313	254,728	393,461	348,780	218,055The Macdonald	( 33,076)	(120,786)	( 98,013)	21,557	33,366Newfoundland	72,293	126,246	113,531	151,956	164,244The Nova Scotian	134,530	168,868	168,753	120,464	63,902



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL


Mr. Robinson: Question No. 2,463-Mr. Robinson:
1.	Does the Department of Transport have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What is the total cost of the public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
1.	What was the total cost to operate the St. Lawrence Seaway for each of the years 1960-68 respectively?
2.	How much revenue was received in operating the St. Lawrence Seaway in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	What was the cost of operating the Welland Canal during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
4.	What was the total revenue received from operations of the Welland Canal during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
10876


Questions
2.	Yes. Similar advertisements were placed in other media to ensure that as many qualified candidates as possible were given an opportunity to express an interest in these important appointments.
3.	The cost for the advertisements in the
other publications were:	The magazine
Executive, $480.00; the weekly Financial Post, $1,199.52; the weekly Les Affaires, $600.00.



WATSON LAKE, YUKON, ASPHALT ROAD

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Does the government intend to build an asphalt road to Watson Lake, Yukon Territory, in the near future?
2.	If so (a) when will the work begin (b) when will it be completed?


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



KAMOURASKA, QUE, POST OFFICE CLOSURES

Mr. Dionne: 1.	(a) Which Post Offices does the Post Office Department intend to close in the constituency of Kamouraska during 1969 (b) what savings does the Department foresee as a result of each of these closures (c) are the postmasters and postmistresses affected assured of obtaining other employment within the Department?
2.	What are the names and business addresses of the newspapers, periodicals, brochures or other publications that meet the conditions laid down in sections 11 and 12 of the Post Office Act, as amended by chapter 5 of the Statutes of Canada, 1968, and in the second-class mail regulations pursuant thereto?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	(a) and (b): Pied-du-Lac, P.Q., $1,700; Plante, P.Q., $1,241; St-Pacome-Station, P.Q., $900; Village-des-Aulnaies, P.Q., $2,700. (c) No alternative employment is offered by the Government but those postmasters under superannuation would receive benefits in accordance with the Public Service Superannuation Act.
2.	A list of those publications meeting the conditions laid down in Sections 11 and 12 of the Post Office Act as amended by Chapter 5 of the Statutes of Canada, 1968, and the regulations made pursuant thereto, has been tabled, on the 18 June 1969, in reply to Inquiry No. 2141.
[Mr. Pelletier.!
Records are not maintained, at this time, in such a way as to permit the listing of business addresses of publications without undue labour and cost.



CRITERIA FOR CANADA COUNCIL AWARDS

Mr. Stanfield: 1.	Does the Canada Council require only "residence" and not "citizenship" or some similar criterion, as a requirement for scholars receiving awards for post doctoral fellowships, research grants, publications and travel grants and, if so, is there active consideration being given to changing that requirement?
2.	Does the Canada Council keep records of the citizenship of the applicants to whom it gives grants and, if not, is consideration being given to keeping a record of the citizenship of successful applicants?
3.	In considering applications, is it the policy of the Canada Council to take any notice of the length of time applicants have been in Canada and, if not, is consideration being given to establishing that as one of the informal criteria?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows:	1. Canada Council fellowships and
grants to scholars for study, research and travel are available to persons holding Canadian citizenship, residence or domicile, subject to two exceptions: (a) in rare instances, scholars who meet none of these requirements but are nevertheless established as full-time members of faculty at a Canadian university are considered eligible; and (b) Canadian citizens resident abroad are eligible for grants only if this foreign residence is clearly temporary or if the nature of their research makes it of particular relevance to Canada.
No change in these requirements is contemplated.
2.	The records of the Council disclose whether the requirements described in No. 1 have been met, but separate records of the citizenship of applicants are not kept, nor is this being contemplated.
3.	Applicants are eligible from the time they meet the requirements described in No. 1 above, the only exception being that, in order to receive a doctoral fellowship for study abroad, a scholar must have been a landed immigrant for at least a year. No change is being considered.



CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE STUDIES

Mr. Forlin: 1.	What progress is being made in the studies of the possibility of creating a Canadian merchant marine?


and willing to transfer to the industrial sector of the Company's operations.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING DON MESSER'S JUBILEE

Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many letters (exclusive of petitions and form letters) regarding the Don Messer show cancellation have not been answered by the C.B.C. as of May 27?
2.	When does the C.B.C. expect to answer such?
3.	Is it policy for the C.B.C. to give some kind of acknowledgement to each signed submission made to it and, if not, for what reason?
4.	How many individuals have expressed their (a) approval (b) disapproval, of the CBC's Messer decision by letter, telephone calls, petition, other written communication?
5.	As to the figures answering part 4, how many (a) approve (b) disapprove, of the C.B.C.'s Messer decision by provinces or territories?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1 and 2. As of May 27, some 65 letters to various C.B.C. offices regarding the Don Messer cancellation were awaiting reply, and were expected to be answered within a few days.
3.	The C.B.C. makes every effort to acknowledge all signed submissions made to it, with some exceptions such as letters lacking a return address, form letters received in bulk, abusive and crank mail, and letters already acknowledged by other bodies or individuals and forwarded to the C.B.C. for information only.
4.	As of May 27, letters and petitions written directly to the C.B.C. protesting the Don Messer cancellation totalled approximately 8,130. Letters and petitions approving the cancellation totalled approximately 80.
Telephone calls totalled approximately 1,475 protesting the cancellation and 50 approving it.
The C.B.C. has also received some 13,000 pieces of mail forwarded from other sources, including the C.R.T.C., Members of Parliament, newspapers and private stations. About two-thirds of this mail was in the form of commercially sponsored protest coupons appearing in newspapers.
Because of the multiplicity of the comments, it has not been possible to tabulate accurately the number of individual viewers involved, or the extent of duplication in the protests.
5.	Provincial representation has not been tabulated in detail, but a sampling of the mail indicates that all provinces are represented.
Questions



LEBRETON FLATS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the N.C.C. acquired all the land it needs to carry out the Lebreton Flats Development?
2.	Is the N.C.C. engaged in negotiations with the O'Keefe Brewing Company for any of its land remaining in the Flats area?
3.	Has the O'Keefe Brewing Company made the Commission an offer of any of its land in the Flats?
4.	What are the amounts of settlement, area of land, and general description of properties acquired from O'Keefes in the Flats to date?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	In November 1964 the National Capital Commission settled an expropriation with O'Keefe Brewing Company in the amount of $393,862. The area of land involved was 27,475 feet and comprised lands lying west of Broad Street, north of Wellington and east of the northerly production of the westerly limit of Preston Street.



INCOME FROM INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Mr. Robinson: What direct and/or indirect income, if any, does the federal government receive from research in industry?


Yves Forest: The
Government has no information either as to the amount of additional income earned by industrial concerns attributable to research or as to the additional taxes paid to the Federal Government resulting therefrom, if any.



&quot;FINANCIAL TIMES&quot; CAREERS ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Monteith: 1.	What was the cost of the advertisement, concerning Executive Careers, placed in the Financial Times issue of May 12, 1969, which took up all of page 16 of that publication?
2.	Were similar advertisements placed in other magazines or periodicals?
3	If so, what magazines or periodicals and at what cost?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The cost was $1,050.


Questions
2. What is the formula upon which these grants are based?
3 Were the language courses extended to the Czechoslovakian refugees after August 23,	1968
made under the legislation queried in part (1)?
4.	If not, under what authority did the Czechoslovakian refugee language training courses emanate?
5.	What portion of the Czechoslovakian refugee language program was financed by the federal government?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1 (a) Citizenship and Language Instruction Agreement of 1954; (b) Language Textbooks Agreement of 1963.
2.	(a) The Government of Canada makes to Provincial Governments who are signatories of this Agreement, grants equivalent to one half of whatever the latter have spent or contributed towards the teaching costs whether these costs have been borne directly by the Provincial Governments or indirectly through grants to local school boards; (b) The Government of Canada reimburses Provincial Governments, signatories of this Agreement, for the total expenditures in any year of this Agreement on language textbooks for use by adult immigrants in programs of language instruction. The amounts of money payable each year do not exceed the average calculated on the five preceding fiscal years of the annual amounts disbursed by the Government of Canada prior to this Agreement or by the Provincial Governments subsequent to this Agreement.
3.	No. However, some individual refugees have taken advantage of courses supported by the Government of Canada under the two Agreements.
4.	Czechoslovakian refugees were provided with language training within the authority for expenditures from a special fund set up by the Canadian Government to meet the special and urgent needs of the Czechoslovakian refugees admitted to Canada under the Special Refugee Immigration Program.
5.	All of the language programs for Czechoslovakian refugees were financed by the federal government except some special language courses provided by a few universities which are in addition to the language courses provided by the federal government to Czechoslovakian refugee students.



FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SERVICE

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


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. An information service was provided by the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, while it existed from October 1, 1966, to March 31, 1969.
2 and 3. Such statistics are not maintained.



MONTREAL-CLOSING OF CANADIAN VICKERS PLANT

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Is it the intention of Canadian Vickers Company to close down its shipyard in Montreal?
2.	If so (a) for what reason (b) does the government intend to provide assistance?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Its- continued operation has proved unprofitable; (b) The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has provided, over the past ten years, assistance totalling approximately $13.4 million in subsidies for marine vessels and $1.1 million in grants and loans for defence industry modernization (Industrial Division).
The Department of Manpower and Immigration is making available to those workers affected all its services including placement in other employment, training or retraining, counselling and relocation assistance when needed. In addition the Manpower Consultative Service has been able to persuade the Company and the Union to enter into a Manpower Assessment Incentive Agreement by which the problems facing those still to be laid off can be thoroughly researched. Training on-the-job or outside the plant will be arranged for those who are able


4.	What services normally provided seaports and fishing centres by the Department of Public Works of Canada will no longer be provided these ports?
5.	What are the projected plans for the ports of Prince Edward Island other than those listed in part (1) above?
6.	Will the operation of the federal-provincial agreement referred to above result in an overall increase or decrease in expenditure in Prince Edward Island under the Department of Public Works of Canada?


Yves Forest: 1 am
informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. The locations are to be determined as the agreement is implemented.
2, 3 and 4. The level and quantity of services which the Department of Public Works provides in the field of maintenance, repair and expansion will continue on the same basis as in the past i.e. each individual project must be justified economically and funds must be provided for it by Parliament.
5.	Plans will be developed to meet the level and type of needs that materialize.
6.	The effect of the agreement on future expenditures of the Department is unknown at this time.



GRANTS FOR CONSUMER PROGRAMS

Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What organizations receive grants from the federal government for consumer programs?
2.	How much money, if any, is each organization receiving for the fiscal year 1969-70, and for each fiscal year since 1960?
3.	On what basis are these grants made?
4.	Are these organizations required to file a report on the disposition of such grants?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Finance as follows: 1. Consumers Association of Canada.
2.	Fiscal year	1960-61,	$10,000;	1961-62,$10,000;	1962-63,	$10,000;	1963-64,	$10,000;1964-65,	$30,000;	1965-66,	$30,000;	1966-67,$30,000;	1967-68,	$30,000;	1968-69,	$30,000;
1969-70, $50,000.
3.	These grants are made on the basis that this association is a non-profit organization whose objectives are to protect the interest of the consumers.
Questions



FEDERAL REVENUE FROM PROVINCES

Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What amount of revenue did the federal Treasury acquire in the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 from taxation and other revenue sources from each of the ten provinces?
2.	What amount of monies did the federal government expend in the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 towards the development of each of the ten provinces?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.



ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES FOR LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What provinces have submitted requests for financial assistance towards the establishment or improvement of French or English language instruction in their educational system?
2.	What is the amount of these requests?
3.	What steps has the federal government taken to comply with these requests?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. The Government has received enquiries about assistance from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
2.	The Federal Government has agreed to pay fifty per cent of the costs of preliminary studies undertaken by the provinces in this field. Agreement has been reached to pay one half of the cost of a study of this nature, totalling $60,000, which is being conducted by the Government of New Brunswick. A request for co-operation in a pilot project has been received from the Nova Scotia government but the extent of Federal assistance has yet to be determined. No figures were mentioned in the enquiries about Government policy received from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
3.	It is anticipated that discussions will be held in the near future with most of the provinces concerned.



LEGISLATION PERMITTING FEDERAL GRANTS FOR LANGUAGE TRAINING

Mr. Rose: 1. Under what legislation or agreement does the federal government make grants to the provinces for adult education in the English and French languages for new Canadians?
4.	No.


Questions



RADIO AND TELEVISION POLITICAL INTERVIEWS

Mr. Broadbeni: 1. How many members for each political party have been interviewed on C.B.C. radio (a) Public Affairs programs (b) National News programs for the following months: October 1968, November 1968, December 1968, January 1969, February 1969 and March 1969?				
				English
			Oct.	Nov.
Liberal	1	2P.C.	1	1N.D.P.	1	1FrenchOct.	Nov.Liberal	1	2P.C.	-	1N.D.P.	-	1R.Cr.	1	11(b): No continuing record of individual news interviews is maintained. An attempt was made to determine the total number of news interviews with Members of Parliament, but it was not possible to arrive at accurate	2 (a): Oct.	English Nov.Liberal 2	3P.C. 2	1N.D.P. 1	2Oct.	French Nov.Liberal 3	3P.C. -	1N.D.P. -	1R.Cr. 2	12 (b): See 1 (b).	DESIGNATED PORTS IN P.E.I.	EXPANSION
Question No. 2,062-Mr. Macquarrie:	
1. What are the twenty ports	designated for
Inclusion in the federal provincial	agreement for
the economic expansion and social	adjustment of
Prince Edward Island? 
2. How many members for each political party have been interviewed on C.B.C. television (a) Public Affairs programs (b) National News programs for the following months: October 1968, November 1968, December 1968, January 1969, February 1969 and March 1969?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1 (a):
Network
Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.3	1	7	42	-	3	11	-	1	1Network	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.2	10	4	71	-	1	--	1	--	-	-	1
figures for the period in question due to the large number of newscasts involved and the fact that many of the scripts or tapes are no longer available.
Network
Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.4	5	2	21	-	3	_2	-	2	Network	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.3	1	3	6-	- '	1	--	-	-	1-	-	-	12.	How will the maintenance, repair and expansion service provided these ports in the next fifteen years differ from that provided other ports in Prince Edward Island?3.	What services will the Government of Canada provide the remaining fifty ports in Prince Edward Island?
Monday, July 7, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, under the coastal fisheries protection regulations, foreign fishing vessels entering Canadian ports must obtain a permit from the Department of Fisheries. For some time the issuance of these permits has been handled by the customs officers of the Department of National Revenue, but recently customs asked that they be relieved of these duties. For this reason the Department of Fisheries and Forestry must once again assume the responsibility, and is prepared to do so. However, the department believes that these permits can be issued during normal business hours,

10834	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion could be converted to dogfish harvesting, thus solving another acute financial problem of at least a section of our fishing industry in British Columbia.
Off season employment would effect substantial savings in the matters of unemployment insurance and welfare payments. But, above all, let us not be defeatist about the challenge of the dogfish. Many other resources have been dismissed as valueless because, seemingly, they held out little potential, and we have known them in the history of Canada. Yet, subsequently, they became very valuable because we have applied knowhow in research and some development dollars.
With the application of some foresight, some well distributed dollars, and some Canadian ingenuity, the lowly dogfish or the Pacific tuna, however it may be named-the deep sea turkey, as my friend here suggests- would become a major source of wealth to our fishing community in the nation. Let us hope that at least a beginning of a solution will be found this week.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I should like to say, first of all, that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is meeting representatives of the fishing industry and of the fishermen themselves in British Columbia this week, along with Japanese officials. That is why he is not present in the house.
The suggestions for exploratory discussions were initiated during meetings between the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry for Canada and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for Japan during the Canada-Japan ministerial meetings in Tokyo in April. We realize that only 25 years ago the dogfish, which was the most valuable single species contributing to the fisheries economy of British Columbia, was so heavily exploited that it was threatened with depletion. However, before appropriate conservation measures could be developed and enacted, the problem was solved by economics.
In 1950 the market for dogfish liver collapsed, as the hon. member said, and brought the fishery to an abrupt end. We are told that in Japan the dogfish catch has dropped from
67.000	tons a year a decade ago to around
15.000	tons in 1968.
I agree with the hon. member that dogfish should be renamed. In parts of Europe it is called the greyfish and used in fish and chips.

DEBATES	July 3, 1969
In other parts of Europe it is used as a salted delicacy and eaten to the accompaniment of beer in beer gardens. In Japan it is used in many different ways. If dogfish is properly harvested, cleaned, etc. after being caught, it can be made into a very good food for human consumption.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I will stress again that it is in our interest in the Department of Fisheries to make sure that the fishermen of British Columbia are protected. These meetings are exploratory, and we hope some good will come out of them. We are optimistic at this time because of the Japanese initiative in seeking to take part in some program which we may be able to work out to the mutual benefit of all concerned.



FISHERIES-ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-LICENSING OF FOREIGN VESSELS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on July 2, as reported at page 10755 of Hansard, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Whelan) a question relating to the prohibition of the granting of licences enabling foreign trawlers to use the Port of St. John's.
At that time, in your wisdom, Your Honour ruled that my question should more properly be asked at the time of adjournment. I am sure you did not mean to reflect in any way upon the urgency of my question, because it is one of great urgency. Under present Canadian law, all foreign fishing vessels desiring to use Canadian ports on the east coast must first obtain licences. These licences used to be granted by the local customs officers. Recently, however, this function has been taken over by the federal Department of Fisheries.
On June 23 last, the St. John's office of the Department of Fisheries issued the following circular concerning the issuance of licences, that is circular No. 12-1969, File No. 728-1-2, and it reads:
To: All shipping agents re issuance of foreign fishing vessels licences and permits.
When the issuance of foreign fishing vessel licences was transferred from the Canadian customs to this department, you were advised that it was not our intention to issue these licences and/or other permits on Saturdays, Sundays or statutory holidays. Realizing that it would take some time for you to acquaint the foreign fishing vessel captains with this procedure, we have been providing issuance service on a limited basis during the weekends. During the month of July, an officer will be on duty for the issuance of foreign fishing
July 3. 1969	COMMONS
being held this week between representatives of the Japanese fishing industry and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) for Canada. Yesterday, I asked whether the subject of dogfish would be on the agenda of these meetings. I hope that tonight the parliamentary secretary can provide confirmation of reports that the subject of dogfish and their disposition will be a matter of serious discussion at the Japanese-Canadian conference.
Dogfish are far more sinister than merely fish with a funny name. They are of great importance on the west coast. Dogfish are a resourceful, predatory species of baby shark. They are suspected of doing real damage to our salmon stocks. They are proven mortal enemies of our herring industry. It is safe to say that dogfish directly or indirectly exact an immense toll amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions, from our fishermen and those in the allied trades. The economic impact of dogfish is beginning to have serious repercussions on the west coast. It is to be hoped that an effective dogfish control program will be evolved without delay, hopefully through the development of an economically viable dogfish industry on the west coast. The industry, hopefully, can exist without the need of federal government subsidies.
It has been suggested that Japanese fishing interests be invited to harvest and process dogfish within the territorial waters of Canada or our exclusive fishing zones. I hope it will not be necessary-I think this feeling is shared by British Columbia members of all parties-to have them engage in the actual fishing. One can comprehend the fears of those in Canada's fishing industry who see dangers in this kind of precedent. Let harvesting and delivering of dogfish be carried out by Canadians. If economics will not support the establishment of a viable dogfish industry in Canada, developed by Canadians with processing carried out by Canadians, let the processing for the world market be carried out by Japanese factory ships or factory ships of other nations.
At one time dogfish were harvested profitably in Canada, primarily for the vitamin-rich dogfish liver oil. A profitable and useful industry existed on the west coast between 1920 and 1944. In 1944 the synthesized vitamins industry effectively displaced the need for dogfish liver oil and the industry was rendered non-competitive. It may be more than significant that during this 24-year period herring and salmon stocks on the west coast were far more abundant than they are at the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion present time. In 1944 it was assumed that the dogfish was virtually extinct, but this ingenious, resilient fish has come back by feasting on the other treasures of the sea. Today the dogfish population on the west coast is back to 80 per cent of the 1920 population and constitutes a serious problem. The dogfish population is growing rapidly, so much so that whether or not a commercially successful program can be developed to reduce their numbers, with or without the co-operation of other nations, there must be a systematic counter-attack to reduce the toll exacted by this predatory creature.
Let us not be deterred by the failure, success or partial success of past programs involving various types of subsidies. In 195657, a $10, a ton dogfish subsidy was instituted. Only 220 tons were processed. In the period 1958-62 various bounties were paid on dogfish liver with rather inconclusive results. In 1966 another try was made. I will not go into all the details because time does not permit but let me say in summary that it is encouraging to note the interest in the problem which has been demonstrated by the minister. We wish him well in his meetings with the Japanese this week. It is to be hoped that the precedent can be avoided of allowing foreign fleets to move into our territorial waters or our exclusive fishing zones. It is to be hoped that negotiations can be completed successfully with our friends from Japan which would see Canadian fishermen harvesting and processing dogfish with the resultant product sold to Japan and other nations. If this is not feasible, then let Canadians fish and deliver their catch to the Japanese who could do the processing.
These activities may require a degree of government support for a period of time. But this support could be minimized if, through research, we evolve new uses and new markets for dogfish. Perhaps we had better start by renaming the species. No one will rush to the grocery store to buy tins of dogfish. All sorts of suggestions have been proposed, but surely the name needs changing. Government dollar support combined with an all-out program of scientific and market research could reduce the population of the dogfish predator, help our salmon and herring industries, reduce fishing gear damage, and help our fishermen. As the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Borrie) proposed so constructively at meetings a few months ago, our unemployed herring fleet, representing a fantastic tie up of capital at the present time,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mention in it of raising the income tax exemption levels. This was the case in spite of the fact that the cost of living in May of this year had risen 4.7 per cent over the cost of living in May of 1968. The cost of food was up by 4.2 per cent; the cost of housing by 5.3 per cent, the cost of transportation by 5.2 per cent and the cost of living is still going up.
I wonder whether the minister is deluged by letters of the kind I get? An example is this one from a woman in Alberta who says:
If only people like our Mr. Trudeau could experience the frustration of being put through the degradation of never having enough money to go around, I am certain some drastic changes would be made. I'd like to cover the rising food costs also, and what they mean to us. At the present time we cannot afford to have meat on the table once a day. Try and explain that to a grade 2 child who is being taught the importance of Canada's food rules in school.
I would like to explain that my husband is a graduate of the University of Alberta in Edmonton. He worked steadily for 8 years before entering university, and through the years he held a part time job as well as working all summer. He is presently working Saturdays, hours which should be devoted to classroom preparation as he is a high school teacher. During summer vacations he will also have to find a job instead of going to summer school as he had planned.
These are people who would be helped by raising income tax exemption levels-they and their three small children. So would some of the elderly people whose incomes are just enough to keep life in their bodies, but who are continually obliged to find survival in ways which are dubious and disgusting to them as well as to every sensitive person who hears about them.
This government must surely be compelled to make a determined effort to shut out the thought of their misery. Fortunately for cabinet ministers, they do not have to think about it, except once in a while, as when those elderly people told them about old age pensioners being obliged to eke out their food by eating dog and cat food. Undoubtedly, ministers made sympathetic noises in reply, but it is action that counts. The finance minister's budget was a cool and modern edition of Marie Antoinette's famous reply, which paraphrased, would be: If they haven't meat, let them eat cat.
I realize that my question of nearly two months ago referred to the minister's current budget. He will soon be hard at work doing the necessary thinking in preparation for his next budget. At this time I urge him to consider carefully the need for raising income tax exemption levels to at least $2,000 for single persons and $4,000 for married couples. 

In this way, persons below these levels should not have to pay any income tax whatsoever. Income taxes are essential to carry on the public services of this country, but they should be levied according to ability to pay. Instead of scraping the last few cents from the pockets of young families and elderly pensioners, we should provide them with enough income to lead a modern and decent life, secure in their dignity as human beings. At the same time we should place the tax burden on the shoulders of those who have incomes, in the measure of their ability to pay. It is not what you pay in taxes that counts, it is what you have left to live on.
I do hope that the next time the Minister of Finance will be guided in preparing his budget by the principle of taxation according to ability to pay. Let him raise the exemption levels from the present $1,000 for single persons and $2,000 for married couples to at least $2,000 for single persons and $4,000 for married couples.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, proposals of the type just made by the hon. lady have already been made in this house by many hon. members, including members on this side who support the government. As the hon. lady must know, the government is completing work on a comprehensive program of tax reform, and it is expected that this will be made public in the not too distant future in the form of a white paper. One would think that the matter of exemptions would be one of a number of matters under active consideration in the course of the preparation of this program of tax reform.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
As the hon. lady knows under our British and Canadian parliamentary tradition matters involving possible changes of taxes are considered to be secret and confidential until formally announced in the house by the government in the course of a budget presentation or through a white paper. May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by again pointing to the interest and concern in this question on the part of many hon. members, including those on the government side of the house and again giving the assurance that this matter is one of those under consideration at the present time.



FISHERIES-DOGFISH-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN AND JAPANESE OFFICIALS

Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I understand that meetings are

July 3, 1969	COMMONS
 NAYS Messrs:
Anderson	Lessard (LaSalle)
Andras	Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Badanai	Lind
Basford	Loiselle
Beaudoin	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Bechard	MacEachen
Beer	MacGuigan
Blair	Mackasey
Blouin	McBride
Borrie	Mcllraith
Breau	McNulty
Brown	Major
Caecia	Marceau
Cafik	Marchand (Langelier)
Cantin	Marchand (Kamloops-
Chappell	Cariboo)
Chretien	Matte
Clermont	Morison
Cobbe	Munro
Comtois	Murphy
Corbin	Noel
C6te (Richelieu)	Olson
Crossman	Osier
Cullen	Ouellet
Cyr	Pelletier
Danson	Penner
Deachman	Pepin
Deakon	Perrault
Dionne	Pilon
Douglas (Assiniboia)	Portelance
Dube	Pringle
Forest	Prud'homme
Forget	Richard
Foster	Richardson
Francis	Roberts
Gauthier	Robinson
Gendron	Rochon
Gibson	Rodrigue
Gillespie	Roy (Timmins)
Givens	Roy (Laval)
Godin	Ryan
Goyer	Serr6
Gray	Smerehanski
Guay	Smith (Northumberland-
(St. Boniface)	Miramichi)
Guay (Levis)	Stafford
Guilbault	Stanbury
Haidasz	Stewart (Cochrane)
Hogarth	St. Pierre
Hopkins	Sullivan
Hymmen	Tetrault
Jamieson	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Jerome	Tolmie
Kaplan	Trudeau
Kierans	Trudel
Lachance	Turner (London East)
Laflamme	Turner (Ottawa-
Lambert (Bellechasse) Carleton)	
Langlois	Wahn
Laniel	Watson
Laprise	Weatherhead
Latulippe	Whelan
Leblanc (Laurier)	Whicher
Lefebvre	Whiting
Legault [DOT] (10:10 p.m.)	Yanakis-126.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the motion lost.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Mclniosh: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against the amendment because I oppose the bill in principle.


Frank Howard: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it might be called ten o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, let us continue with the vote, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: According to Standing Order No. 40 a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I believe I should wait for a few minutes.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I
wonder-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The hon. member is waiting. I wonder whether the hon. member might take advantage of the audience now in the house to pursue her question.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which is worse, the audience or the noise.
On May 14 I drew the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to the fact that the Economic Council had recently set new poverty levels at $1,800 a year for single persons and $3,000 for married couples. My question was:
Will the minister in preparing his new budget consider raising income tax exemption levels from $1,000 for single persons and $2,000 for married couples who have survived 21 years of inflation?
You found my question Mr. Speaker, unacceptable but assured me that I had made a suggestion which I must assume would be considered. Perhaps it was, but the fact remains that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brought down his new budget two weeks later, on June 3, there was no


Official Languages
services in the two languages. I feel that if this bill could achieve this, and all federal organizations could provide bilingual services, regardless of the way in which it is done, we should have made great progress.
Once again we are confronted with amendments that prove all too obviously the lack of understanding, logic and common sense of some hon. members. If at least the reasons for the amendments had been explained to us clearly, but until now the arguments have had absolutely no bearing on the fundamental principles of the bill. One of the main articles, that of the creation of bilingual districts, and the necessity of bilingualism strictly in those districts where there is need for it, has been ignored.
It seems to me that sheer justice, would require us to provide people with adequate service, irrespective of language. We deplore, in view of the present development, especially in Quebec, the lack of concern for the wishes of the French Canadians towards emancipation and fulfillment. To think that we are still discussing such amendments! Mr. Speaker, the amendment under consideration is a step backwards. It would have been better had it not been introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the vote on this amendment stands deferred.
We will now resume consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid).
Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment to the motion which reads as follows:
That the motion be further amended by deleting the words "to a committee designated"-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.
[Mr. Matte.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister not intend to make a statement on the position of the government with regard to this amendment?


Gerald William Baldwin: The question has been put


Mr. Speaker:: The question has, of course, been put to the house. That is the purpose of the exercise the Chair has been going through for a couple of minutes now. I am in the hands of the house, of course, but when a question has been put I doubt that we should go back.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order. I assume that what Your Honour is doing is putting the amendment to the amendment-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has put the amendment to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would mind very much if I interrupted to remind him that the discussion should be limited to the motion before the house. I anticipate that there will be further general debate on third reading, and it seems to me that the very interesting remarks being made by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) would be more pertinently made on third reading than on a motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) which deals with a rather specialized aspect of the bill now before the house.


An hon. Member:: What about the minister?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the point as fast as I can. I am laying the ground work. I have not spoken previously on the bill. I find fault with it because the provincial premiers were not consulted and a consensus has not been arrived at in Canada. If we are to have three school systems, what will happen to the separate schools in the province of Ontario? Will they have less and less funds with which to carry on? They are short of funds now, particularly in secondary education. It may sound fine to the English in Quebec to have English schools, and the French elsewhere to have French schools. I agree with this program provided we can afford it and it will not mean poor quality schools which will make our young people second-class students and non-competitive in a world of quality scholars.
This is an age of irresponsible financing. Do we know if we can handle this program? I want the people of my riding, be they French, English or of any other ethnic origin, to be not discriminated against when they apply for a civil service job at Malton, Toronto or anywhere else. I do not want any French speaking person from my riding discriminated against because he does not speak English. I do not want people of any ethnic origin discriminated against if they want a job and qualify other than in respect of language. I do not want language to be made a barrier. People must have the opportunity to learn the other language in a reasonable period of time. There are not in this bill adequate

safeguards to prevent discrimination of this type.
Like everything else the government does, this matter has been handled in a dictatorial way, with little acceptance of ideas and thoughts from anyone else. This has been proven by amendment after amendment getting the axe. When you think you know it all, you are hopeless. That is our problem today in this house. There has been today a great deal of talk about the civil service. You may be a civil servant for years. I met a civil servant who some years ago went to lengths to become bilingual. He obtained a civil service job in Ottawa and took a position that never required the bilingualism he had acquired. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Is he still bilingual?
We have in the civil service some very brilliant people who speak only one language. Are they to be discriminated against, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) asked, because they cannot learn the second language, or because they have been in the civil service for so many years that they do not feel they are capable of learning it or should do so? I believe this provision would put the civil service at a distinct disadvantage in respect of its ability to hire competent people. Many of these employees with ability cannot be replaced. Are we to discriminate against them because they speak only French or English? As the hon. member for Hamilton West asked: Are people to be discriminated against because they find it impossible to learn the second language? Perhaps we should look at our Bill of Rights, but frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not expect this government to do anything but muddle up the languages bill.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed several amendments concerning this bill on the official languages, but we are astounded by the impertinence of the amendment now before us.
I must now congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) for setting the record straight so adequately that I wonder whether the movers of the amendment will ever understand things which I consider elementary, since everything said by the hon. members of the Conservative party is completely beside the point and they seem to overlook the principle that full bilingualism will apply only in bilingual districts. Therefore, there is

jobs. Instead of becoming head of the income tax office in Montreal an English-speaking civil servant could become head of the income tax office in Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland or any other major city throughout the land.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps I was not paying too much attention to the expose and explanation of the minister, for which I am very grateful. I should like the minister to explain to me what would happen after a man had given 15 years of his life and was the best suited for a specific job but found that his capabili.ies did not allow him to become bilingual. Would he be the one considered for that job notwithstanding his ability to become bilingual? That is a very simple question, and I hope the minister can answer it in simple terms.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I used very simple language, but I suspect the hon. member does not understand because he does not care to understand. What I said was very simple.


Robert Muir: Let
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) take on this question. At least he would be a gentleman.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) understood my opening remarks in which I said that the amendment before us would lead to impossible complications. I used the example of a unilingual French speaking civil servant who might be qualified for the job as head of the income tax office in Toronto but could not speak a word of English. I posed the question to him in simple terms. I am surprised that the hon. member needs my help to understand a very exceptional case that he might judge from a common sense point of view.


An hon. Member:: Just because the seals are flapping does not make it right.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments I should like to make in respect of this bill and the amendment posed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Tonight we have been given an example of a situation where two ministers differ in opinion. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) stated that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) moved an amendment which had a lot of merit. On the other hand, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has said
Official Languages
the hon. member's amendment was so poor he did not think he had even read the bill. Perhaps they should get together to see which of them is right.
Someone remarked that the Minister of Justice is a fine fellow. I would say that, on occasion, he has a lot of good sense. He has tried to make a good job of a poor argument. He always tries to gild the lily, even though it may be a poor lily. He did that tonight. The minister pointed out that there were some 370,000 public servants of whom approximately one sixth would be bilingual. He went on to say that 75 per cent of them would never move from their original localities. Do these people not get an opportunity to move to the top, 25 per cent of the jobs in Ottawa because they do not have the opportunity to become bilingual? I should like to know whether this is not straight discrimination against them. Perhaps the minister can also indicate why he does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot, in view of the opportunity given to civil servants in Ottawa who are or can become bilingual to obtain an increase of 7J per cent in salary. Why in the world should the people in my riding or other ridings be discriminated against by not being given that opportunity to become bilingual?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I am perturbed because the government did not consult the provincial premiers before bringing in this bill. Education is basically a provincial matter. I do not know why the government did not consult the provincial premiers and then come to the house with a plan that it knew could be put into operation across Canada, with the ground rules well laid.
I am interested to learn that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is involving the government in shared-cost programs. Just the other day he said the government was getting out of this type of program. He promised the provincial premiers that there would be no more high-jinks like medicare. Yet, as I understand this bill, it will involve a multi million dollar program for French language education in English speaking provinces and English language education in the province of Quebec.
More schools and teachers will be required. In fact, this program will require a third school system. From where shall we get the teachers? A feasibility study has never been undertaken to obtain the facts. The B and B Commission brought in a report, but it did


Official Languages
leader of the hon. member for Dauphin, the sure this is what the hon. member had in Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. mind-only able to speak French, and he is Stanfield).	applying-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow me one question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) on a question of the minister.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just wish to ask the
minister one question. I was very impressed with the minister and his usual brilliant footwork in bringing about-I shall use the word of the Minister of Justice-the expose of the importance of the bill. I stand behind the bill with certain qualifications, but of course I wonder why this government does not want to appreciate the-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What amazes me is that we now have an opportunity to do something, but the hon. member and the government do not seem to realize that we are discussing an important matter. I will get to the question and hon. members will have an opportunity to hear it. I am very impressed with the minister's statement to the effect that if anybody wants to be bilingual he can become bilingual. I take issue with that statement.
What I should like to know is what happens after a civil servant has been involved in one avocation for a period of 15 years and has not only shown a willingness but an integrity in his desire to become efficient in a second language, but for some God known reason cannot become proficient in that second language? This individual might well have all the attributes necessary to handle the particular job he is now holding, but what happens to him after he has attempted with all his God given attributes to become bilingual and cannot? The answer to this question will perhaps clarify this whole matter, particularly in the minds of a great many people in Canada. I hope the minister can answer it, keeping in mind the importance of a lifetime of work on the part of one individual in one particular avocation who cannot become bilingual.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to tell the hon. member it is always possible that there may be exceptions. I would say that for a man who was, let us say-I am


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Or English.


Gérard Pelletier: I am sure the hon. member had in mind a unilingual French speaking civil servant who would like to-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Gérard Pelletier: That is not what you had in mind?


An hon. Member:: Do not be so facetious. You are not good at being funny.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: After I make a statement it is amazing to me that the minister is able to read my mind. I say, with all due respect, that it was most unfair of the minister to say he thought I was thinking along a particular line. I was not thinking of anyone in particular. I had in mind a person who had given 15 years of his life to a particular vocation, had shown a willingness and an integrity to learn a second language but could not do so. What would happen to such a person who had the scholastic background and know-how to handle the position which that individual aspired to but could not learn a second language? I think it is very unfair for the minister to attribute to me the thought that I was trying to channel my ideas in a specific direction.


Gérard Pelletier: I cannot understand the objection of the hon. member. I was taking for granted that he was thinking of a French speaking civil servant.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Gérard Pelletier: I thought the hon. member was a very generous man and wanted to put himself in the boots of an individual who spoke another language. If he is thinking of an individual who only speaks French my answer to the hon. member is very simple. If that individual were among the few exceptions who found it really impossible over a period of five, ten or fifteen years to learn a second language, he would still have access to other positions.
Let me refer to a specific case. Let us consider a unilingual French-speaking civil servant who wanted to be the head of the income tax office in Toronto. Being French speaking, he would still have access to 25 per cent of similar jobs. If he were English speaking he would still have access to 75 per cent of these


the fairness extended to the public. A French-speaking or an English-speaking taxpayer, in an officially bilingual country, is entitled in all fairness to communicate with his government in the language of his choice, that is most likely in his mother tongue.
Thus, any rational appraisal of the text of the legislation, to be neither emotional nor biased, should give some consideration to that very important entity, the Canadian people, which through its historical fate and also its own will happens to belong to two different cultures and to speak two different languages.
I return now, Mr. Speaker, to certain points in the hon. member for Dauphin's intervention. According to him, we are dealing with an undesirable legislation. When the hon. member for Dauphin used the adjective "undesirable", I found myself wondering what he would consider to be a desirable legislation in the language field.
I felt I could guess, as he pursued his intervention, for instance when he told us-and it was like hearing Quebec separatists speaking-that there are no real bilinguals and when he mentioned that French Canadians were bilingual as a result of an historical accident. I relished the expression "historical accident", being, like almost all Frenchspeaking Canadians who speak English, one of those who have had to the language, and at their own expense, with no government paying to have them taught.
I like very much the "historical accident" referred to by the hon. member for Dauphin. He seems to think that French Canadians are born bilingual, like the people who are born black or yellow. I can set him straight on that. No Canadian is bom bilingual. Those who are bilingual have become so through their own efforts.

But I could also reassure him and say it does not take that much intelligence or effort to become bilingual, once you have decided that you want to do so.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Tell us what you mean by bilingual now.


Gérard Pelletier: So, Mr. Speaker, I understand what a desirable legislation means for the hon. member for Dauphin. I apologize for straying a little from the subject of this amendment, but that is exactly what the hon. member did himself.
He says there are no bilingual people. He thinks that Canada is a country with such an
Official Languages
English-speaking majority that we should not go to so much trouble for the language minority, precisely because it is a minority. He thinks that serving the French-speaking public in French and the English-speaking public in English is a means of discrimination for the federal government.
He did not tell us how he came to that conclusion and that does not surprise me, Mr. Speaker, because I have a notion that he does not know himself. The connection between the two statements is not clear to anybody, and probably not to the hon. member for Dauphin himself.
I merely want to say that once more we find, in his speech, one of those ill-omened prophecies-"the effort is doomed to failure". According to him, Canadian parliament is considering a bill which is doomed to failure. If the failure is inevitable, in the mind of the member for Dauphin, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why he entertains so many fears, because nothing he fears is likely to happen. He might as well leave the house safely, go to sleep soundly and let us discuss quietly.
Finally, I think, Mr. Speaker, and I want to stress this-I do not know which parliamentary language I should use-that it is a shame to quote out of context people like Mr. Gerard Filion or Mr. Claude Ryan, as the member has just done.
Those are men who when they analyse their society are not afraid to recognize its defects and to state them. But, the member for Dauphin uses a truncated quotation, for instance, to present Mr. Gerard Filion, as a detractor of the culture in which he was born and of the people to which he belongs.
I just want to say to the hon. member for Dauphin that if Mr. Filion were here, he would get a rather severe tongue-lashing, because Mr. Filion is capable of defending himself and his views differ fundamentally from those of the hon. member.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall what I thought the most unbelievable statement of the evening: this legislation, the hon. member said, will be passed through the obstinacy, the stubborness of the government.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only through the obstinacy or the stubborness of the government, but also because of the enlightened views of many members of the opposition-and I would like to pay my respects to them-among which there are some of our colleagues of the New Democratic Party, and because finally of the enlightened and intelligent attitude of the


Official Languages
of vanishing into thin air when his opponents take the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: I never had the pleasure- besides, I wonder whether it is a pleasure or not-to speak while he was here. How can the hon. member for Crowfoot seriously move that amendment and face up to cases such as this one, for instance: a unilingual Frenchspeaking federal civil servant who, by his sole competence, becomes the head, let us say, of the Income Tax office in Toronto, or else, to come closer to the hon. member for Crowfoot, of the Income Tax office in Edmonton.


John (Jack) McIntosh: How about the commissionaires you fired?


Gérard Pelletier: I would not know how to reply to the objections of this honourable member of whose constituency I am not exactly sure. I feel he has nothing to do with this discussion, since he is not interested in the bill. Besides, as far as I am concerned, he could leave the house right now and I would not feel the difference. I do not understand what he is saying but I suspect that it would not be very useful to me even if I did.
I was wondering when listening to him, whether the hon. member had read the bill. If so, he would have found in clause 19 (2)-
The Commissioner shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.
As for reporting to the responsible minister, he would have read in clause 33, and I quote:
If within a reasonable time after the making of a report containing any recommendations under section 31, no action is taken thereon that seems to the Commissioner to be adequate and appropriate, the Commissioner, in his discretion and after considering any reply made by or on behalf of any department or other institution concerned, may transmit a copy of the report and recommendations to the Governor in Council and may thereafter make such report thereon to parliament as he deems appropriate.
Therefore, the Commissioner of Official Languages would report to parliament, and the same provision is contained in clause 34 (2):
Every report or statement to parliament made by the Commissioner under section 33-
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Nowhere is it mentioned that the minister responsible shall appoint the Commissioner of Languages nor that the Commissioner of Languages shall report to the minister responsible.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot study an amendment such as this one without considering also its practical consequences. And its practical consequences-I see that the
Of course, any member may look at this legislation with a critical eye-this is what we are here for-but he should at least read it first.
honourable member has returned; I welcome him back-if it were passed and fully implemented, would make it possible for the honourable member for Crowfoot, if defeated in a future election, to be admitted in the Civil Service and become, for instance, an office head in the province of Quebec where nobody would be able to understand him. Has he truly considered the consequences of an amendment which, to my mind, is completely thoughtless and against one of the basic objects of the bill now under consideration?
I would also like to point out also-to throw light on the hon. member's statement- that he made some allegations which seem to me extremely gratuitous. He said, for example, that according to the bill, the responsible minister would appoint the Commissioner of official languages and that the latter would report to the responsible minister.
I should like to raise another point. Much has been said tonight about a fair treatment being given to civil servants and God knows I am all for it. It has been said and acknowledged that injustice has been done. That is right. It has been asserted that two wrongs do not make a right, and that is also true.
Now what surprises me is that no reference is never made to the fairness extended to the public, while the legislation respecting the official languages is essentially intended to render justice, at the language level, to a whole section of the Canadian public, that is to the English-speaking Canadian public and the French-speaking one as well living in communities with a different linguistic majority.
Now it is most important, Mr. Speaker, for one not to worry exclusively, nor even primarily, when considering such legislation, about the fairness exercised with respect to civil servants, but to worry above all about



and the United States as being two countries that share the same language but differ widely in cultural background. He said:
They have most words in common but the words do not necessarily mean the same thing.
Mr. Blackburn said that satisfactory communication and understanding can only come from two groups thoroughly understanding each other's cultural backgrounds and from experience. All these factors, Mr. Speaker, make me wonder whether this bill is nothing more than an empty gesture, a futile attempt to achieve something foredoomed to failure by the immutable facts of the world in which we find ourselves.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment simply because I believe it would make a bad bill a little better. It is now apparent that the government's majority and the stubbornness of its leaders make passage of the legislation inevitable. The best we who oppose it can do in the circumstances is to try to make it less objectionable, and hopefully less discriminatory.
In closing, I would simply like to quote another leading thinker and writer from the province of Quebec, Claude Ryan, editor of Le Devoir. He said, as reported in Canada Month magazine:
Quebeckers would like to have the best of two worlds, you know. They would like to be as free as possible-and I set no limit here. And on the other hand they want to be as comfortable and prosperous as the rest of North America, in particular the more prosperous parts of North America.
I echo those sentiments, Mr. Speaker, and to them I say "amen". But if the people of Quebec and the rest of French Canada are to find the freedom and the just share in North American prosperity to which they are entitled I do not believe it will be by means of artificial contrivances such as the bill now before us. They cannot find what they seek through legislative measures that will only end by segregating them behind legalistic barbed wire on isolated language reservations. They will not find it by accepting a false and unjust position of preferment. Neither the French people of this country nor the unity of Canada can come fully into their own on the basis of injustice and discrimination.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Secretary of State.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Some hon. members "Oh, oh."
Official Languages


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I had made up my mind to speak in French to avoid the rather troublesome and, on the whole, rather vulgar, interruptions my colleague, the Minister of Justice, had to put up with earlier while he was quietly and soberly expressing his point of view.
I see that my decision was justified because I had hardly opened my mouth that I heard coming from the other side of the house certain noises hardly identifiable, which did not make any sense to me, perhaps because did not have any, which would not surprise me a bit.
At this point of the debate, I should like to point out a number of particulars on two interventions: First of all, the one from the sponsor of the amendment that is before us now, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and then, the more surprising one and the least explainable, from the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).
I merely wish to clarify some points because during this debate, Mr. Speaker, a certain number of statements were made which neither the facts nor the bill under study can justify.
For instance, the hon. member for Crowfoot stated, on the basis of a very fragmentary and truncated quotation taken from a newspaper article, that I had said that I believed it necessary for all federal public servants to become bilingual. That is pure fantasy. Because I have said, on many occasions, that there was an obvious need in the Canadian public service for a certain number of bilingual public servants, but that in all likelihood it would never become necessary for all federal employees to be fluent in the two official languages of Canada.
When I said that we need a number of bilingual civil servants, I was thinking in fact of views such as those expressed by the hon. member for Crowfoot in the amendment he put before the house today. In fact, the hon. member wants us to include in the legislation that no appointment nor promotion will ever be refused to a civil servant on the sole basis that he cannot express himself in both the languages of this country.
Mr. Speaker, how can one reasonably propose such a thing? And I would put this question to the hon. member for Crowfoot if he were still in the house, but he has the art


Official Languages
these words with respect to language proficiency:
Section 12 of the Act authorizes the Commission to 'prescribe selection standards as to education, knowledge, experience, language, age, residence or any other matters that, in the opinion of the Commission, are necessary or desirable having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed . .in determining 'the basis of assessment of merit in relation to any position or group of positions .. Thus language proficiency is an element of merit pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act.
On page 46 the commission goes on to say this:
-proficiency in both languages is always a desirable qualification when it is not an essential one when 'ten per cent or more of the public served by the unit have the English language or the French language as their mother tongue-
The Commission's Regulations stipulate that any English-speaking or French-speaking minority group constituting 10% or more of the overall population of a given area justifiies provision of service in both official languages.
I am not in any way attempting to impugn the idealism of either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. I simply say that the facts of life in the world in which we live make it impossible for this legislation to achieve its ends. In fact, I believe this legislation will create the very conditions it seeks to alleviate and will bring about the opposite of that which it is intended to do. It will create in this country a preferred class and discriminate against the majority of Canadians. It will create language reservations which will be force fed behind protective legislative fencing. The result will be that the bill will create outside these fences resentment and animosity. These feelings in turn will create walls and the people inside the language reservations will not be able to break through them. We are setting the clock back. We are imposing immobility on our French speaking population and not providing for mobility. We are raising up an entire new system of internal barriers at the cost of our unity.
May I now return to the specific question of bilingualism in the public service, Mr. Speaker. It has been stated that merit alone will decide who is to enter or who is to be promoted in the government service. The public service regulations nevertheless make it clear that bilingualism is very important in assessing merit. In the 10 per cent areas envisaged under the bill I can see that merit will mean linguistic ability alone. As I have already previously noted, such linguistic ability on the part of our people in Canada is not a self-acquired characteristic. It is an accident of birth. It so happens that our history and [Mr. Ritchie.)
development as a nation have made sure that the bulk of Canadians born with this linguistic attribute are to be found in our French speaking areas. The facts of history and not the people of this country have dictated that the world of North America shall be overwhelmingly English speaking.
A man's facility in the second language will be a prerequisite for his entry into and promotion within the public service. In most cases the second language facility will become an absolute requirement. This, in turn, gives a lopsided advantage to people of French language background. French language areas will become prime recruiting ground for the public service which will become unbalanced. I submit there will be more French Canadians who speak English than English speaking Canadians who will be proficient in French. This state of affairs, certainly, will not be a fair reflection of Canada or Canadian society. It will be unjust and discriminatory and a poor example of the just society.
We must face the problem of defining bilingualism, Mr. Speaker. What is a bilingual person? I have already quoted the leading government authority on the question, who has said that a truly bilingual person probably does not exist. We must therefore recognize that the degree of a person's bilingualism is hard to measure. It is a volatile variable in our calculations. The degree may vary from day to day, month to month and year to year. The degree of bilingualism will vary as the area in which people work varies. Again, this bill will confer undue advantages on the minority at the expense of the majority. I am very concerned as to the sort of national job the Canadian public service will do if it is forced to depend for recruits largely on French Canada because of the provisions of this bill.
Also, Mr. Speaker, will we not present a schizophrenic face to the world in international affairs? Can a predominantly French oriented public service adequately serve a country that is overwhelmingly English-oriented? The highly respected publisher of he Devoir, Gerard Filion, said recently that Quebec is relatively poor and backward because it has failed to develop its vast natural resources and "Above all, its resources of human talent."
Mr. Blackburn, in the remarks I have already quoted, has noted that even when different groups share the same language, let alone two languages, that is not enough for them to understand each other and communicate adequately. He spoke of Great Britain


with the damage that will be done, by the implementation of this bill in its present form, to Canadians of all ethnic origins as well as to the national interest. This damage will arise from the discriminatory nature of the bill.
Discrimination is the very essence of this legislation. It will discriminate against all Canadians who, because of the area of Canada in which they were born and the total lack of second language facilities in those areas, have little hope of being classed as bilingual. It will favour those born into one language and brought up in two-in other words, French Canadians.
I very much doubt whether there is in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, a person who is truly bilingual in the sense envisaged by this bill. Neither do I believe that it is possible for anyone, be he of French or English language background, to reach the condition of bilingualism espoused by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in this theory of a fully bilingual state, and which they are attempting to create by this legislation.
In saying this I am not being critical, bigoted or stubborn. I am not saying bilingualism is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, fortunate or unfortunate. I believe that human limitations and the facts of life in Canada and in North America as a whole make my statement true. When you have legislation that prescribes, as a condition of employment and career advancement, that a person must be bilingual, you are imposing upon that person something that he is powerless to acquire of his own volition. To my mind it is similar to the arbitrary physical standards set out as a condition of employment in the R.C.M.P. or armed forces. It is a physical attribute that is imposed by nature, not by individual desire or initiative. It is an accident of birth.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The facts of life in Canada are that many Canadians of French ancestry have been born into French speaking homes and raised largely in an English speaking environment. The reverse is true of very few Canadians of English or other ethnic backgrounds. Any law that has the effect of compelling employees of the public service to be bilingual automatically restricts the recruiting ground of the Public service to the French sector of the country. It openly discriminates against those who by chance of birth come from other areas of the country and from a background other than French. As reported in the Montreal
Official Languages
Star of April 16 last, Mr. S. A. Blackburn, the man responsible for the language training program in the Public Service of Canada said:
-a second language can only be attained by one who is prepared to work on a full-time basis in a second linguistic and cultural milieu for a long period-a year or more.
Indeed, it is obvious that most Canadians cannot be fluently bilingual.
Mr. Blackburn is further reported to have stated that in his opinion the truly bilingual person is virtually non-existent. "Even the bilingual person", he added, "is at an enormous disadvantage if he has to do intellectual, creative work in a second language."
One does not need to have particularly clear perception in order to see what the effect upon Canada and Canadians will be if the public service of the nation is closed to all who are not already partly bilingual. In this regard it might be well to look at the experience of the Public Service Commission with respect to recruitment on a language basis and in language training, as set out in the 1968 report of the Public Service Commission. On page 24 of the 1968 annual report is found this paragraph:
Furthermore, the Commission felt it could not rely mainly on external recruitment of personnel already proficient in both English and French to staff positions where both languages were required since this course of action would have had unfortunate consequences. Opportunities for acquiring second language skills in many parts of Canada would have resulted in the Commission's having only a limited capacity to recruit in certain regions of the country. Secondly the career status of employees already in the service would have been adversely affected since through no fault of their own they found themselves lacking second language skills. Finally to have relied mainly on external recruitment to meet required linguistic objectives would have taken perhaps 20 to 25 years in order to attain a satisfactory situation unless a wholesale replacement program was undertaken.
On page 30 of this document is a table headed "Distribution by Training Levels of the Total Active Student Nominations, November 30, 1968". Underneath the table are to be found the following words:
It will be seen that approximately 88% of those studying French as a second language are in the two lowest levels while this is the case for only 41% of those studying English.
Furthermore, in Table VII, which shows distribution of identified population in the designated categories by levels of instruction, we see that 13,520 English speaking students are learning French whereas 3,200 French speaking students are studying English. On page 44 of this document are to be found


Official Languages
In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the hon. member for Crowfoot, through Your Honour, that his amendment does not achieve that objective. His amendment would render null and void the purposes of the official languages bill. The policy that he is trying to achieve I believe the government is trying to achieve by ensuring that the public service of Canada is made equally accessible both to French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians across the country. We do not want to force bilingualism on any citizen of this country. What we want is an institutional bilingualism that is achieved with fairness to those men and women who have been recruited to the public service of Canada. The legislative straitjacket which the hon. member is attempting to force on the government would not achieve what the hon. member wants to achieve but would indeed deny the principle of this bill.
For these reasons the government recommends to the house that it rejects this amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now the minister has concluded, would he permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot on a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will direct my question to the minister in this way. Let me assume his point is valid. If he finds fault with the wording of the amendment, would he ask his legal draftsmen to use their ability to bring in an amendment that will substantiate the point made by the amendment, which the minister has said is a valid one?
My second question is this: The minister says that all civil servants who so desire will be given ample opportunity to learn the second language, be it English or French. Are we now led to believe that every member of the public service will, in the future, have an opportunity to learn the other language? Will everyone in the 9,000 areas that the minister said will be set up be given an opportunity to learn the other language?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's first question no amount of skilful drafting-and I do not think we could improve upon the drafting of the hon. member for Crowfoot-could convert an inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages and a willingness to learn into an objective standard that would enable this bill to achieve this purpose. This must depend on flexibility and on justice of 
administration. That is the answer to the hon. member's first question. I could bring all the forces of the law officers of the Crown to bear on this particular amendment and none of them could achieve what the hon. member is attempting to achieve.
In answer to the second question if, as I have said, the bilingual capability really relates to 25,000 public servants-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You said one sixth.


John Napier Turner: Yes, one sixth. But 25,000 are, in the opinion of the commission, fully bilingual, so we are dealing with one twelfth-one half of one sixth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have to watch the minister's arithmetic. One sixth of 370,000 is 60,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the minister to direct his remarks to the Chair, and I invite the hon. member for Crowfoot to hear the minister out.


John Napier Turner: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member for Crowfoot is a pretty magnetic personality and sometimes I get carried away by him. I suggest that if the hon. member for Crowfoot and I were sitting on the fence watching cattle go through the gate, he would have no trouble with his mathematics. At the moment we are dealing with one twelfth of the public servants of Canada, 25,000, for whom a capability of 9,000 places will be available. As a result of the advice given to me by the chairman of the public service commission. I am convinced that our facilities will be adequate to achieve the desired result. They are my two answers, Mr. Speaker.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) since it is the only apparent hope of making undesirable legislation at least tolerable. I would have preferred to see this bill withdrawn and redrafted or, failing this measure of good sense, at least held in abeyance until the question of its constitutionality was cleared up and the effects of its provisions more closely studied. But as things now stand, it is clear the government intends to push it through parliament, heedless of probable consequences. In these circumstances, the best we can hope for is to mitigate some of the injustices it will obviously create.
Like other members of my party who support this amendment, I am chiefly concerned


instance, how does one interpret the words of the amendment "inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages"? It seems to me that this phrase defies definition and, consequently, application. The same problem arises in connection with the phrase "willingness to learn". The point was made very succinctly by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 
John Napier Turner: If applied in the rigid statutory form it could be fulfilled by a candidate simply saying: "Yes, I am willing to acquire a second language." I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that if this concept were set out in statutory form it would render ineffective not only the clause which the hon. member seeks to amend, but the entire bill.
This is a subjective concept difficult of objective definition and application. There may well be various degrees of willingness. One person might be willing to learn but not willing to make the effort required in order to succeed. As the hon. member for Greenwood said-and this is confirmed by the experience of everybody in the house who has immersed himself in the second language-willingness is one thing, but the persistence necessary to acquire a satisfactory knowledge of the second language is another.
For these reasons the government cannot accept this proposal. We are committed to the principle set out in section 20 of the Public Service Employment Act. We are committed jointly with the governments of the early 'thirties, the early 'sixties, under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), and of 1967, to the establishment and development of that principle.
In the third place, we do not believe that the rigid concept set forth in the amendment-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is nothing rigid about it at all.


John Napier Turner: -should be put into law, particularly when that concept is difficult to define and not easily applicable.
With respect, the point about which the hon. member is concerned is a valid one but I do not think he has put forward the appropriate solution. The government is concerned as to the necessity for applying a bilingual policy for the Public Service of Canada with equity and justice. The people of French
Official Languages
speaking Canada who complain of 100 years of injustice-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Two hundred.


John Napier Turner: It is not
necessary to reciprocate that injustice with another against the majority of the people of Canada by an unjust application of what we believe to be a legitimate policy.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are saying that two wrongs make a right.


John Napier Turner: No, two
wrongs do not make a right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what you are saying in this bill.


John Napier Turner: We deny that categorically, and I say that through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Crowfoot. We contend that the hon. member's solution would be impracticable, one not capable of realization.
I have reviewed with the chairman of the public service commission, and the government is also reviewing with him, the two aspects of this policy which must always remain in mind. They are, first of all, that no one should be penalized, either by way of recruitment or by promotion, for his failure to have a second language until he is given adequate opportunity to learn that second language. That is the policy of the government of Canada which was first enunciated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, and it is still our policy today. We are in continual contact with the Public Service Commission to see that this policy is ensured.
Secondly, as Mr. Pearson said in 1966-and this statement still governs today-no one who was recruited to the public service of this country under what he believed were different ground rules should be subjected to a situation where government policy, in his mind, has changed without being given an opportunity to learn the other language, or at least to preserve his career that was launched under different circumstances. In justice to members of the public service who have a certain seniority in service to the people of Canada, they have certain rights and at least must be given the opportunity to learn that second language; and this we recognize as part of the policy of the administration of government.


the Ralliement creditiste is going to vote with all its might against that amendment through which, as I said, some members of the Progressive Conservative party are trying to serve their own ends and purposes by playing politics.
Mr. Speaker, some of the representatives here are neither French- nor English-speaking. For instance, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), is not British at all nor a Frenchman from France and he states plainly, wherever he goes throughout Canada that he supports the recognition of two official languages. I believe the hon. member for York South serves the cause of national unity in taking such a stand.
I think that we promote national unity, like the government, when we do not sing two different tunes, one in the West, the other in the East, when we hold the same beliefs across Canada, when we say that we are one Canada. And I repeat again that there is only one Canada and not two nor ten.
Since the bill is under study, it is important that the principle of the recognition of both official languages be accepted without the question having to be submitted to a court. Nothing in the bill compels an hon. member to learn French or compels me to learn English. However, the legislation is to the effect that he, English-speaking, and I, French-speaking, must be equally respected in Canada. What we want is respect for the individuals.
The hon. member said that when he spoke like that, he was thinking of the welfare of the future generations. Now, having heard these explanations, I think that if we continue in the same direction, the future generations will be just as backward as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North was a while ago when he proposed his amendment.
There are limits, Mr. Speaker, to playing politics about a serious subject. I admit that we should be discussing other things than official languages at this moment when the economy is going downhill. However, since the bill has been introduced and since the government does not want to withdraw it, we favour the principle that both languages be officially recognized in the whole of Canada. We want English to be equal to French in the province of Quebec and that French be equal to English in Ontario, in Nova Scotia and in the other provinces so that Canadians will be united and our national unity will come true. Let us stop saying that this subject must be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada so
Official Languages
that judges may decide whether hon. members can make decisions by themselves or whether they are in a fog, as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North clearly seems to be.


John Napier Turner: I wish to speak briefly on this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I tried to persuade Your Honour not to admit it but now it is before us I should like to speak briefly to it.
I shall not go deeply into the constitutional arguments because I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that this is not the forum in which to decide whether this bill in its finality is constitutional or otherwise. Only the courts can do that. But I shall summarize the arguments I attempted to adduce on second reading in the strongest terms that on the best advice we have, the advice of the law officers of the Crown and others, supported by that of the law officers of most of the Attorneys General across Canada, this bill is constitutional and within the competence of parliament to enact.
Two constitutional arguments have been raised against it and they were referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). The first is that the 1949 amendment to the B.N.A. Act, which is now found in section 91(1), prohibits this legislation. That article says: that the parliament of Canada has, among other powers, the power to amend from time to time the constitution of Canada except-and there are some items listed-as regards the use of the English or French language. The answer to the argument that this bill transgressed section 91(1) of the B.N.A. Act is that it does not amend the constitution in so far as it affects the use of the French or the English language.
The second part of the argument against the constitutionality of the bill is that the legislation contravenes section 133 of the
B.N.A. Act. Section 133 reads:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.


Official Languages
This section merely says that in four particular situations it shall be open to any citizen of Canada to use either the French or the English language. There is nothing in the section which is limiting or restricting. There is nothing which says that the French or the English language can be used only in those situations. I would point out that if this were the case we would not have been able to extend the use of the English language across the North American continent. If that section is a bar to the extension of the French language it is equally a bar to the extension of the English language and this, surely, would be an absurd construction to place upon such a provision. The section is permissive, it is not restrictive.
Finally, since this bill relates to federal institutions operating within the federal power and within the competence of parliament, it is our submission on the basis of the legal opinion given to us that it does not Constitute an amendment to section 133 and, not being an amendment to that section, it is not affected by 91(1).
This, in brief, is1 the answer to the argument that the bill is unconstitutional. We are firmly of the view that it is constitutional. But I am not going to decide it. No hon. member of this chamber will decide it. We have to operate, I believe, on the assumption that any measure which is put forward by the government is constitutional unless and until it is successfully attacked in the courts. If we were to operate in any other way we would never do any business here.
For the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North to say that if the Minister of Justice were sure of his ground he would have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada first is unreasonable, since that argument could be applied to any piece of legislation introduced into this chamber. Once a bill has been introduced on the basis of the best advice obtainable, parliament moves on the assumption that it is constitutional until some citizen who feels himself aggrieved, or some province which feels itself aggrieved-I trust it will not happen in this case-challenges the constitutionality of the measure. Parliament must go on the assumption that it has power to enact bills put forward, an undertaking having been given by the government that, on the best advice available, parliament is competent to deal with the legislation.
We have to urge the house to reject this amendment so that we can reach the final

stage and decide whether or not this legislation is to receive third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, at an earlier stage in this debate, following a speech setting out his position by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) who moved this amendment, I was obliged to differ from the point of view he put forward. In doing so I said- and I repeat it now-that I respected the sincerity of his motives. He has maintained a constant position. To use the words of Voltaire, while I may disagree with him I defend his right to say what he has to say and make his views known.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Speaking for this party, I must declare that we cannot support this amendment. I will give in two or three sentences my reasons for being unable to follow the hon. member's reasoning. Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, in reply to something that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said may I say that merely because a government brings in a measure which has received the approval of the law officers of the Crown, and which it is advised is properly drafted and is constitutional, is no reason at all that the house must accept it. If I honestly and sincerely believed that this or any other measure was unconstitutional I would be derelict in my duty if I failed to attack it.
Outside the house I have attacked a great many statutes of the federal parliament and of provincial legislatures. In some cases I have been successful in persuading the courts that I was right. Without in any way disparaging the knowledge and professional skill of those who work in the minister's department, having been here a great many years I do not have that sublime faith in their ultimate judgment that the minister must necessarily have. Therefore I enter the caveat that if at any time in the future it is my honest belief that a measure introduced in this house is constitutional, I shall not hesitate to say so and to attack it.
In this case I cannot do so. The pertinent section here is section 133 of the British North America Act. The language of section 91(1) drives one back to section 133, and that is the section we must consider. As I see it, clause 2 of the bill deals with what in my opinion are the administrative rights of the federal government, rights that have been


exercised in one way or another over a great many years. In my opinion, clause 2 meets the pith and substance of section 133 of the British North America Act and fits within the scope and pattern of that section.
In my view, and in the view of this party, one cannot find that there is a conflict on this issue, and consequently that clause 2 of the bill and other aspects of the bill are unconstitutional, thus requiring a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada as outlined in the amendment. Therefore we are unable to support the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment? All those in favour will please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. McIntosh) negatived.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the interjections concerning the amendment, I have been very concerned about how this bill has been received throughout the country. I had referred to the fact that the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and myself represented the same sort of riding, his with a predominance of French speaking constituents and an English minority and mine with a French speaking minority and an English majority. Yet both ridings have met the same problem in similar fashion. It is also of interest to note that at least 25 per cent of our constituents are members of other ethnic groups, yet little difficulty has arisen in either riding. I would hope that this would be true in similar situations elsewhere in Canada.
Since I sometimes differ with the views of my colleagues I am often asked, and I was asked as recently as last weekend, whether or not I find it difficult to justify the stand I take on this issue in relation to the people I represent in my riding. When I was asked this question the other night I replied that this was one instance where I was not sure
Official Languages
what my constituents would like the result to be. In fact, I am not really too sure what my own position is.
In my opinion the Canadian people should have faced a long time ago the question whether or not bilingualism is desirable for Canada as a nation, though there are many other problems we should have faced as well. It surprises me that after all this time this issue has become so important. I have heard hon. members who have taken part in this debate declare that this bill will encourage bilingualism; I believe the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) espoused that view. In my opinion this bill will not encourage bilingualism; indeed, the very opposite may result.
This bill raises a much more fundamental problem, that of education. It seems to me that if we are to have a nation with a distinct culture, one tempered by the many nationalities that have chosen Canada as their home, one factor that will make our culture distinct from that of the United States will be our ability to speak the two languages. If that is a desirable state of affairs, and I am of the opinion that it is, then those who are interested in the subject must decide what are the educational requirements to bring this about. If this bill is used to promote a bilingual civil service, which in effect will mean that jobs will be allocated in the main on linguistic ability rather than on merit, it will be the most divisive piece of legislation the Canadian people have ever had to face. On the other hand, if we are tolerant and make it possible for all areas of Canada to benefit from bilingual education, this bill will have been worth while. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is interested in this subject. If all our school children are to become fully bilingual the federal government may have to step into the field of education.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
At present the regulations with respect to bilingualism seem somewhat discriminatory and senseless. I have seen some public service employment application forms, and I was interested the other day to see that a dietitian working for the government has to be bilingual. I do not know much about dietitians, my experience of them having been confined to the armed services. I and my friends always look upon dietitians as people who make up bland diets. Why a dietitian needs to be bilingual I do not know. About the only benefit in having a bilingual dietitian is that


Official Languages
she will understand the abuse that is hurled at her in both languages. It is clear, therefore, that the authorities will have to exercise discretion in the selection of applicants for appointments. A bilingual candidate need not necessarily be the best candidate for the job.
I live in an area which to all intents and purposes is bilingual. Not long ago a man was moved out of my area to another area in which he will not need to speak both languages. Unless that man can perform his job satisfactorily to begin with, it will not matter whether he is fluent in one or both languages because his services will satisfy no one. I remember an occasion not long ago when several young French speaking people were com-paining about certain problems having to do with unemployment insurance and the local manpower centre in my area. They came to me with their troubles and I asked them who it was they had dealt with. They told me. Evidently they had been to see a French Canadian who was not much good at his job. In the end I told them to go to somebody else. They went to that man, discussed their problem and it was solved. I have mentioned this incident merely to illustrate the fact that if you want a job well done you must hire qualified personnel and that it does not matter whether the person you are hiring speaks one language or two languages. Of predominant importance is that person's ability to do the job well.
On a number of occasions I have heard of men who think that because they are fluently bilingual they are in some ways superior to the rest of us. They expect to receive preferential treatment when they apply for jobs. People like that are not interested in bilingualism as such; they are only interested in promoting their own advancement. That sort of thing we do not need. This bill only transforms into law what has been happening in Ottawa and in the public service for several years. For many years the public service has been hiring increasing numbers of bilingual employees, the idea being to develop bilingual services in various departments of government. That seems to be a good idea and, frankly, I do not see why we should not extend the philosophy underlying bilingualism right across Canada.
I believe that all our school children should be taught to speak French. But when some of our public school teachers who teach our youngsters French are put alongside French

speaking people, one finds that the French teachers and the French speaking people cannot talk to each other. Clearly we are not teaching our school children conversational French, and we should be. If we do not teach our children conversational French we will not teach them to be truly bilingual, and we will all be the losers.
Although I have been perturbed at the utterances of some hon. members on the other side of the house with regard to what this bill is to accomplish, I must say it is my impression that French speaking and English speaking Canadians are broadminded enough to put aside their prejudices in an attempt to make this legislation work. Fundamentally, all the people of this country will have to decide whether the concept of bilingualism is to work. If we are to become a bilingual nation we shall have to create a federal department of education so that both languages may be taught to all Canadians from coast to coast. We shall have to begin training our youngsters in kindergarten when they are five years old. All our children must become like the children of an hon. member of this house whom I have known for many years. Only recently did I realize that his family was equally at home in either language. That is how well trained all our children must be. As I said, our French teachers must teach our children conversational as well as written French if our children are to become bilingual. Our schools will have to use a system similar to that used by the Berlitz school of languages. Unless we treat all Canadians equally and give them all a chance to learn the two languages, we shall merely be legislating preferential treatment for one limited group.
All political parties will have to consider how best to implement the policy of bilingualism. The question is, do we or do we not want to become a bilingual country? That is the major problem we must face, and unless we face it and solve it adequately I say that this bill could cause unlimited division. Nothing but bad feeling will flow from any policy which insists that jobs be allocated on a language basis.
A few minutes ago I was speaking to an hon. member who told me that a man who applied to the Public Service Commission for a job was turned down on the ground that his name was too English-sounding. They wanted a bilingual person to fill the job and his name sounded too English. The hon. member took


this matter up with the commission and indicated that the man had been an instructor in French at McGill, had taught in the government's language school tor one year and was the head of the French department in a United States university. The people in the Public Service Commission probably did not read his application but only his name. I suggest that if that kind of result flows from this bill we will have divisions which will cause the type of concern that some hon. members have shown.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I hope the minister responsible for the administration of the bill will use every discretion possible. I hope there will be no need for the commissioner to investigate individual problems because every time a problem is investigated, whether it is satisfactorily concluded or not, everyone in that department will know about it. In my opinion this type of concern will lead to divisions that will be very hard to heal.
Members of the House of Commons and the press should give serious consideration over the next few years to this problem. It can only be solved if the federal government will provide the educational facilities in all schools in Canada so that the next generation, although they may not avail themselves of it, will at least have the opportunity to be bilingual, something which most of us in my generation were denied.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to recognizing the hon. member for Vegreville, I wish to advise the house of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security-increased pensions to meet cost of living; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-Agriculture- income of Quebec manufactured milk producers; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health and Welfare-call for services of medical doctors.
Official Languages



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau for the third reading of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate on third and final reading of this measure, it is not my intention to add further to the bitter feelings already stirred up by its introduction. Further, it certainly is not my intention to fan the fires of racial animosity or attempt to increase the damage to national unity. Indeed, it is because this legislation does these very things that I have serious reservations about it. I believe this bill has aroused unnecessary bitterness and controversy and has seriously undermined the high degree of national unity achieved in Canada prior to its introduction. I think this bill represents a retrograde step because it will stir up more animosity than it will overcome. It will erect a series of artificial boundaries within this country when the great need is to remove barriers that already exist.
I seriously question the theory of bilingual districts incorporated in this legislation. I maintain that it will tend to segregate rather than unite, consequently doing more damage to racial relations at the community level, and it is upon relations at the community level that national unity rests.
In the past we have had our full share of ethnic, religious and social differences, but over the years these were largely overcome. By 1967, the 100th anniversary of Confederation, these differences were well on the way to being completely removed. That year, in fact, brought a tremendous upsurge of national feeling, of love for Canada, one country and one people. It was the time of real birth of a Canadian nationality. Introduction of this bill by the government and the subsequent discussion of it have plunged us back and precipitated a new wave of suspicion and distrust.
As I have said, throughout the past 100 years, certainly there have been differences among the people of this country-social differences, religious differences and linguistic differences. However, and I speak here of western Canada, at no time has there been deliberate discrimination against any minority


Official Languages
group by any majority, most certainly not against those of French origin. All have been treated equal, with no special rights or privileges, all working in a spirit of co-operation, sincerely desirous of building a great country founded on a multicultural mosaic wherein each group is given the opportunity to add to its character.
We in the west can in no way be attached to the so-called guilt complex of discrimination which seems to exist in the central part of Canada and resulted in bringing forth this legislation. The people of our land are of some 40 different origins. People came to this country of their own free will, with nothing but their own two hands and the desire and courage to make this country their homeland. These people have since intermarried. They have raised their families with one thing in mind, the promoting of Canadianism. The last thing that is considered is the brand of hyphenated Canadian that one is. In my part of the country there is only one kind of citizen, whatever his origin may be, and that is Canadian. There is no place in this country for second class citizens.
I believe that this bill has a tendency to create two categories of citizenship. For this reason I take particular objection to clause 38. We in the Conservative Party tried to amend it in order that the numerous members of Canada's third force might feel they have a place in the development of the nation's cultural life. But the government appears adamant that status within Canada shall be confined to two groups only, the English language group and the French language group. I know there are many hon. members on the other side of the house who feel as I do. Why did they not stand up and support our amendment? Perhaps they have been threatened by the powers that be and are not able to vote as their consciences dictate.
This bill is supposed to symbolize the government's choice of the multiple society over the melting-pot society. In my estimation its provisions simply ensure that instead of one melting pot there shall be two melting pots. Canadians of Ukrainian, German, Italian or Scandinavian origin will have no choice but to be absorbed either in the French melting pot or the English.
Another one of the principal points of this legislation that I believe should be made crystal clear is its effect upon public servants and public service careers. We tried to clarify the matter by proposing an amendment in an attempt to dispel fears of discrimination

within the civil service. However, the government, which evidently has a monopoly on all good ideas, rejected the measure. The fact is that the bill certainly raises a great deal of apprehension among members of the civil service.
We heard one minister, a Minister without Portfolio, explain to a western audience that no Canadian will have to be bilingual in order to be appointed to the public service, or once appointed, to be promoted. He suggested that a bilingual secretary in one's office may suffice. Yet we heard shortly after and in unmistakable terms from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) that henceforth bilingualism would be a necessity in the public service and the chance of a unilingual person being hired, let alone promoted, would be nil. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should immediately give the country reassurance on this point and spell out in clear, concise terms just what this bill will mean to public service careers.
The general idea behind this bill may be fine and quite acceptable to all reasonable Canadians, but its detail and the cloud of confusion and doubt that surround its portable workings have made many people suspicious of its purpose and its operation. Certainly there remains a great deal of suspicion and doubt about the duties of the language commissioner, his interpretations of the bill, his administration, his degree of neutrality and his degree of scrupulousness, which we in this party have tried to clarify. We have been sincere about making this a workable, practical bill, but here again our suggestions and proposals have not been accepted. Why, Mr. Speaker? Is it because the government purposely wants to leave certain clauses and regulations vague in order that it may apply its own interpretation?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister has blamed the press for failing to explain the bill adequately. Surely the onus for explanation rests primarily upon the Prime Minister and, second, upon the members of his government. If there has been, as he claims, a misrepresentation of this legislation, the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the government and no one else.
I believe it is the government's duty to clear up this mystery in the interests of the nation.
Why does the Prime Minister not clear up some of the fears and doubts that exist about this bill, particularly in western Canada? In western Canada the bill is regarded merely as


Official Languages
yet another in a series of concessions to Que- reduced to a severely restricted dual culture bee. It is taken as further proof of the gov- nationality. The Canadian mosaic is shattered ernment's exclusive interest in central Cana- by this bill, and the pieces will be swept out da. It is one of the prime reasons for the and forgotten when this measure is enacted, growing feeling of alienation from the rest of Many of the people of racial origins other the country that is becoming so prevalent in than Anglo-Saxon or French are Canadians western Canada.	by choice. They have fully accepted our
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that in the series "Canada 70" conducted by the Toronto Telegram we find a majority of 52 per cent of those polled in western Canada placing their attachment and dedication to their region rather than to Canada as a nation. Is it because that part of the country has been overlooked, ignored and discriminated against? I submit that perhaps it is, and I suggest that as a result the bonds of Confederation are more precarious today than at any time in our history. However well intentioned, legislation that produces results such as this cannot be anything but harmful to national unity.
As I have said before, one of the weaknesses of the bill, and the one that seriously affects the majority in western Canada, is that it is vague in its guidance to minority ethnic groups throughout the country. It provides no reassurance or guarantee as to their status in the national pattern of living. It simply states that their rights will not be taken away but fails to open any doors to future cultural development or promise them a share in the cultural development of Canada. It excludes them and, I maintain, reduces them to a position secondary to that of those of English or French background.
If we are truly serious about maintaining and promoting the mosaic concept, positive measures must be taken to encourage, promote and preserve the cultures of the minority groups. There is nothing in this legislation to suggest any encouragement, only a minor clause to indicate that there are other languages and cultures.
My leader suggested a preamble to the bill in his remarks as recorded at page 8792 of Hansard. We moved an amendment and it was rejected. I submit that with this attitude it will only be a matter of time until the third group will be forced to assimilate into either the French or English melting pot, giving up their cultural and linguistic heritage which forms such an important and refreshing part of our society.
The just society announced by the Prime Minister finds no echo in this bill. The multicultured whole that was to be the new Canada under his government has been
Canadian customs, our Canadian institutions and our Canadian heritage. They have always demonstrated an intense loyalty to this country. Yet with this legislation we now tell them that by an accident of birth and ancestry they cannot aspire to a full life as 100 per cent Canadians. We should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that these people of whom I speak are a good third of all our people. Surely it is of the utmost importance to bring this third of the population fully into our national life and not exclude them on a part-time basis.
In my constituency of Vegreville where the population is made up of approximately 50 per cent Ukrainian, 30 per cent English, 7 per cent French and the balance of other ethnic origins, we are going to have a bilingual district. In light of these figures, what justification is there for creating a boundary which singles out a minority group and grants them special privileges? I wonder whether they are particularly pleased about being singled out and granted special consideration when they live within a community of understanding, of brotherhood, and in a climate of regard and respect for their fellowman regardless of culture,. race, religion or creed. Their prime motivation is to work together on equal grounds as equal Canadians in creating a community of good will, a community of progress, in a spirit of good fellowship and understanding. How are those of other ethnic groups, who are a majority, to feel about such a measure being enacted? Nothing can be created but a mood of animosity and bitterness detrimental to national unity at the community level.
The government believes that this bill is essential in building national unity. I believe it could be destructive of national unity. I believe we should be trying to get back to the original concept of a multicultural society. I have always felt that one way to do this is to get to know each other better. The greatest enemy of national unity is the regionalism forced upon us by the pattern of our settlement and development and by our geography. It is this regionalism which creates areas of economic disparity. Canada is a nation of regions, each with its own peculiar background, nature and way of living. These


Official Languages
regional differences must be rationalized if we are to know true unity. One method of achieving this could be by large scale exchanges of young people between one region and another. This idea has been tried on a limited basis and the results have shown that it works. When I think of the millions of dollars that have been spent on the B and B Commission I cannot help but think how much more could have been done for national unity if the money had been spent on projects such as youth exchanges between regions.
Canadians of all ethnic backgrounds are Canadians, and they must be able to feel so wherever they go in this country. To the extent that this bill will help Canadians of French origin to do so I believe it to be a good measure. However, I wonder whether the bill is likely to achieve this end. I think the bill will only succeed in entrenching English-French differences while reducing the potential for progress that is represented by the third group. It is even more unfortunate because I believe that the best way in which the historic differences between the two founding peoples can be bridged is by the intervention and intercession of the third group. I see the great number of Canadians of racial origins other than French or English as a catalytic agent that, with good will and good sense, could be made a successful neutralizer of ancient divisions and a base upon which to build a sound, cohesive, multicultural mosaic.
I wonder what the Fathers of Confederation wanted when they proposed the Canadian constitution. I think it would be well for us to review some of the thoughts of our only living Father of Confederation, the man who once said that he is "heart to heart, mind to mind" with the Prime Minister. That man is Joseph Smallwood, Premier of Newfoundland, often billed as the only living Father of Confederation. In a recent proclamation during Canada Week he said:
This I believe:
That Canada under God is one of the most beautiful and one of the greatest countries in the world;
That Canada is potentially as great as her people are great;
That Canada is one nation, indivisible, where no race or creed has special rights, and where all are equal, English and French, Italian and Russian, Portuguese and Ukrainian or whatever the ethnical origin may be;
That Canada is not a melting pot but a country where peoples of many racial origins can live and work together as unhyphenated Canadians, yet maintaining cherished traditions and distinguishing cultures;
[Mr. Mazankowski.f
That our system of government is a good system, and the best to ensure that all Canadians have equal guaranteed rights and equal opportunities;
That there should not be a rich Canada and a poorer Canada, but that material well-being and the good life should be as equal as can be.
To me, Mr. Speaker, there is somewhat of a conflict between the ideals of that living Father of Confederation and the aims of this bill. I can only hope that those who are responsible for its administration will pay particular attention to these clauses of this proclamation in order that we may truly work together to promote and preserve unity within this country, the country I love-Canada.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: This is one of the
most important bills ever to come before this house, because the future of this country may depend on whether or not we make the principle of this bill work. If I thought only about the legality of this bill I might worry about it, and I have studied a little constitutional law. I am not at all sure that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), or the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), are entirely correct in their assessment of the legality or constitutionality of this bill. I beg hon. members of this house to consider it from a more important angle.
Is there anything in this bill which might tend to bring us together? You might consider these to be strange words coming from me because from time to time, in my rather rasping voice, I speak in this chamber on controversial subjects and I am considered in some respects to be a backer of lost causes. I have been told more than once to get off my white horse and come down to earth. At this time I want to do just that for a few minutes.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is something of value in this bill and that is the spirit behind it, if nothing else. Let us go back perhaps 100 years and figure out what it was the Fathers of Confederation meant when they gave the people of French origin the right to their own language. Let me beg of those people of French origin, not only in this chamber but across Canada, to remember the second group of people who granted these rights. I am sure if they remembered this fact half the problems of Canada would disappear.
This agreement was signed by gentlemen. They had faith in the future and great respect for that great Gallic race alongside of whom they had lived for something over 1,000 years. They had reason to respect that race. The


only successful invasion of the British isles was carried out by those people, and my ancestors were among them. I refer to the Norman French. These people learned to live together in England and have done so for 900 years. They developed a parliamentary system, about which we will have more to say during the rest of this week. The English and French signed an agreement 100 years ago in an attempt to carry out a bold experiment. They wanted to see whether they could live peacefully together after all the useless bloodshed that had taken place in Europe for years. They wanted to try this experiment on this northern half of the North American continent.
There are bigoted families living on both sides of the Ottawa river. In spite of this we have developed a great nation. I have a great hope and belief that this nation is not about to fall apart. Those people on both sides of the river who might do this nation damage are in the minority. Let us look at the legality of this bill and try to remember that gentleman's agreement of 100 years ago which began this experiment on the basis of a certain equality.
There are many things about this bill which could create great fears, some imaginary and some otherwise. The bill provides great power, and power could be abused. There are powers given by the Criminal Code in respect of the arrest of individuals. A bad policeman could abuse those powers. I know something about this, but I did not abuse them.
Let me attempt to take a positive approach. One cannot write a statute that does not contain powers which cannot be abused. Let me gives the government the benefit of the doubt in this respect. This may not be a perfectly worded statute but it does contain these powers which may create stronger fears in some sections of our community than in others. I have in mind those roles played by one party and another party over a period of years. The civil service has been supported by one party or another party, and this in itself is reason for fear. The morale of the armed forces has not always been excellent as a result of the exercise of political authority, whether or not the exercise of that authority has been carried out by bilingual, unilingual or multi-lingual people.
I intend to speak of something other than the fears often expressed by members of our armed forces. I have said all I intend to say
Official Languages
about politics in this area. Let me move to a discussion of whether or not it is worthwhile spending a great deal of money-the price of a battleship or two-for cultural purposes. Is it worthwhile to spend this considerable amount of money to advance the French language? I have spent a lot of money trying to learn this language and have found it is difficult once you get beyond a certain age to learn a second language.
I hope the government will not abuse the powers written into this act by preventing a person who has spent the major portion of his life in the civil service from obtaining a well deserved promotion in either the civil service, the mounted police or the armed forces. I should hate to think a man who has distinguished himself in battle and risen to the rank of Brigadier-General could not be promoted to Lieutenant-General or a full General because his cultural aptitude had become calcified. It would be strange if that cultural aptitude did not become calcified over a period of time.
It would be very useful for a member of the diplomatic service to have two languages, or if one were selling corsets in Quebec. I do not intend to stress that. Let me return to the main theme. Within this bill there is an aspect of national unity. I have in mind one Canada, strong and free. This cannot be accomplished only by "Les Anglais", and it cannot be done only by people of French origin. This must be a team effort. This is something that cannot be settled by a third group in Canada, those who came here by choice. This is something which first of all must be settled by those of us who have perhaps neglected our duty in respect of our French speaking brethren. I have no hesitation in saying that our French speaking brethren from time to time have been somewhat lacking in their tolerance of us. I could cite an example of this which took place no longer than a day or two ago.
When we pass this bill, and I say "we" because I intend to vote for it, let us take another look at the whole situation. The passage of this bill will provide us with a new opportunity to go ahead in Canada in our 102nd year to show the scoffers that they were wrong. We want to keep Quebec in Canada, not to make this country strong in numbers but because we like the people of Quebec. This is not idle chatter on my part. If you come to Alberta, my province, you will see that in some districts at least one third of the population is French speaking. We like


Official Languages
these people; they are hard working, co-operative, aggressive, happy-go-lucky Canadians earning a good living. They are great people. Some of them are getting rich. At the present time some are not getting rich quite as quickly as they or we would like. But we like them as Canadians.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If we who are not of French speaking stock feel self-confident, then we need no special privileges. I appeal to my own people in this regard. The strong can always afford to be generous. I think this is a generous bill. If passed, it will bring up to date in Canada's 102nd year something which may well have been neglected in the past 102 years. Let us bring ourselves up to date. I appeal to those to whom the bill is directed to be generous, patient and gentle with us, as we hope to be with them. Nations, like people, are strong only when they are right. I believe it is always right to be as generous and as gentle as we can.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak very briefly in this debate. I support the intent and principle of the bill, but I do not agree that a crash program should be instituted at this time for the implementation of bilingualism, whether it involves the learning of the English or French language. It was stated before the committee that in the next four years over $7 million will be spent on this crash program. I imagine this will be the greatest underestimate ever given. In my opinion, bilingual education must begin in the elementary schools. Rather than instituting a crash program at this time in our history, let this federal money be allocated to the elementary schools system across Canada. I agree 100 per cent with my colleague and the leader of the Creditistes who suggested that bilingual education should begin at the elementary school level and not with the top civil servants. Having read articles about unilingual schools, it has become apparent to me that such a system means segregation rather than integration. It means we are compelling our children to be segregated by background, rather than using a forward-looking approach. We should have across Canada truly bilingual schools, with the federal authorities picking up the added cost of such instruction rather than the property taxpayer, who is now completely overburdened.
I am sure every member of the house agrees that there must be unity and understanding if this bill is to be effective. I believe

the bill must be passed and I shall support it on third reading. We all know it is long past due. At the same time, before passing a bill of this nature there should be attached to it an addendum to the effect that the full intent and provisions of the legislation will not be enforceable for a period of time. I am sure we all realize that many people have to prepare themselves for the change in system. There should be a period of time set down before the provisions of the bill come into effect, so that people may prepare themselves in this fast-changing society. I believe that if Canadians were given this assurance by the minister who will draft the regulations under this bill, there would not be the apprehension there is at the present time. In addition, such a provision would give the provinces an opportunity to effect an orderly system of education which is so necessary at this time in our history. This is my opinion. I express it as an individual and not as a representative of the party of which I am a member. If we are to have an effective bilingual education system, we should start not with older civil servants but with school children; we should make sure they are brought into the picture at an early age.
The federal government should at long last accept its responsibility and effect a federal system of education. There should be no hesitation or concern on the part of the government because of the constitution or anything else. Why cannot the federal government carry out such a program with regard to education? Civil servants, members of the armed forces, members of parliament and many other people move from province to province and there is no concern about the effect this movement has upon the education of their children. I believe this is a matter the house should consider. Liberal members opposite should have the courage to rise and suggest that it be considered.
We have been asked why one would support the amendments proposed to the bill. The answer is simple. The government, particularly in the last two weeks, has proven itself suspect in the eyes of Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is suspect in the eyes of the people of Newfoundland because of its complete disregard for the Terms of Union. It is suspect in the eyes of people of western Canada who are fighting to survive against great economic pressure. It is suspect in the eyes of the Indians because consultations are not being carried on with them. The government is suspect in the eyes of members


of parliament who believed there was sincerity in statements made in the house and they could place their trust in them.
This is why I believe amendments proposed by the official opposition merited consideration. Those amendments may not have been necessary to complement the legislation, but they spelled out in clear language exactly what the people of this land wanted. I suggest that the indifference of the government is sufficient justification for the suspicion that exists in the minds of many Canadians. Nothing is more damaging to our democracy than the mistrust and suspicion of our people, yet the government has accomplished that feat in just one year, and at a time when justice and understanding for all of Canada is urgently required if we are really and truly concerned about achieving unity.
I suggest to the ministers responsible for Bill C-120 that if they are concerned about unity in this country they had better do something about it; they should get out on the hustings, accept their responsibility and explain to the people of Canada what the bill is all about. I believe there is unity and purpose in Bill C-120, but the actions of government members, particularly those of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), will never achieve this desirable goal. The amendments that were not acceptable to the government were probably unnecessary in many instances, as I have already said. But safeguards must be written into the legislation if it is to be effective. I was particularly amazed at the government's refusal to consider having representation from every area of Canada on the advisory board. I believe this is an absolute must if the government is concerned about national unity at this time.
When one considers the smart aleck remarks of the Secretary of State, as reported at page 10823 of Hansard, is it any wonder that we are suspicious? I remind the minister that approximately one hour after his damaging speech on the bill, almost all his honey-covered colleagues put on the greatest demonstration of rudeness I have had the displeasure of witnessing. When the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis) rose to speak, the majority of members opposite showed their rudeness by the interjections made at that time. The Secretary of State should consider what was done on that occasion before he refers to the rudeness of the opposition.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) asked a question in all seriousness. All we heard was sarcasm before
Official Languages
any attempt was made to answer the question. I can assure the Secretary of State that he will hear a great many noises from one end of this country to the other if he does not show fair play in implementing the regulations of Bill C-120. This is a matter that concerns me. Once the bill has been passed, members of parliament will have no knowledge of the regulations under which it will operate. I dealt with this matter on a previous occasion.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I believe the regulations should be before the members of this house so that we can have a thorough knowledge of what we are really talking about before passing this bill. The principle of the bill is brilliant, but the regulations are not here.
I would like to say that I do not want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), particularly in view of the fact that my constituency borders on his. In fact, a short while ago I was amazed that the amendment introduced by the hon. member was voted upon in his absence. It amazes me that anyone should introduce an amendment and not be here to vote on the amendment.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You know the reason.


John Leroy Skoberg: I suggest that the people of that area are quite prepared to accept the principle of this bill but at the same time expect fair and just treatment from the minister responsible for the implementation of the regulations. The people of that area will give fair play if they receive the same treatment. I believe that deep down the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek agrees with me that we have in our constituencies the fairest minded people of all of western Canada. They are prepared to accept change if they know what the change is all about. But this government has failed completely to tell the house and the country about the change. They sat on their laurels and said nothing. They debated, they criticized, but they did nothing to let the people know what this measure is all about. According to Hansard, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in fact suggested that a member of this house was not interested in this bill and would have nothing to do with it. I believe that this is a disgraceful statement for a minister of the government to make. I can assure the minister and the government that the people of Canada are entitled to decide.


Official Languages
when the final ballot is cast, who their elected representative will be. When a member is elected and comes here he is entitled to have a say, whether or not the minister likes it. In the next election there may possibly be a change in the area bordering my constituency. Any responsible and sensible member of the house who is even remotely concerned about the nation and its unity must support the principle of this bill, and those who do not are intentionally damaging the esprit de corps of our great nation.
This government has done one of the worst selling jobs in history in explaining the bill, and no amount of explaining or passing the buck, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) suggested, will take them off the hook in this regard. I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country, if and when he goes to the west, he will have a wonderful opportunity at that time to explain to the people what the bill is all about. I am sure he will hear many people express to him what they think about it. They are open minded, if they receive the truth from responsible people.
I am sure that all members of this house must know that the French and English speaking people are prepared to meet on equal ground as equals, and to have a mutual understanding to a degree which would surprise even an imaginative mind in this house. We have heard a lot of talk about imagination and about people not accepting each other. These people are prepared to accept one another, and most of them will realize that if given a chance. Our young people will lead the way in proving that this bill is workable. I have to remind the house that only a short two years ago a band from St. Jerome went to our city of Moose Jaw and in exchange a band from Moose Jaw went to St. Jerome. After these two bands visited back and forth, they found they got along very well. This does not amaze me because an intermingling of the two races is bound to bring harmony. I am sure that if the Secretary of State were to provide sufficient funds for student exchanges from east to west, he would find this so-called problem which he expects in some areas would not exist at all.
I should like to conclude by saying that the greatest danger which I believe exists with regard to the implementation of Bill C-120, is in having too many jackasses trying to fit either the French or the English speaking people into some patterns in our society. All that is needed is an opportunity for everyone

in this country to live together in an economic atmosphere which will provide an equal opportunity for all, be they of English, French, Scandinavian, European, Asiatic, Indian, African or any other ancestry.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will realize that these people are really concerned about economic problems. They are also concerned about living together in harmony, and this will not be achieved by sarcasm from a member of the government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a very few moments to express a few views that I have with regard to the bill and to relate what I gather are the viewpoints of people in my part of Canada. So far as I am concerned, I thoroughly approve the principle of the bill and intend to vote for it. I think that everybody in Canada who belongs to the two major races is entitled under our constitution to the provision of federal government services in their own language, wherever they are grouped in sufficient numbers. It is bad enough trying to figure out the intricacies of the Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act in your own language, let alone trying to do so in some language with which you are not too familiar.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and others have suggested that the government might well give consideration at a future date to the provision of services to new immigrants in their own language. Often people who are fairly well advanced in years and who have newly arrived in Canada have difficulty in learning a new language. They may learn it sufficiently to become Canadian citizens, but they are not fluent in it. If we are going to establish a program of expanded immigration into Canada I hope the government will consider the provision of federal services under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Income Tax Act to new Canadians in their own language for a short period of time wherever the concentration of that one linguistic group makes it appropriate. I do not want to be misinterpreted and I do not want it to be said that I am trying to fragment Canada by language. I am not. My point is that elderly people coming to this country have difficulty learning a new language, and I think something might be done to help them if we wish to encourage immigration.
I am thoroughly in agreement with the principle of the bill and intend to vote for it


Official Languages
as I have before at other stages, but the early 'seventies everyone must be fluent in administration of the bill is a matter of con- both languages to obtain employment or pro-cern to me and to many Canadians. I have motion. No amount of explanation afterwards heard this from many people in my own part will allay suspicion caused by remarks of this of the country. In my view far too much kind. I am reminded of the famous speech of latitude is given under this bill with regard to Lady MacBeth during her sleep-walking the administration of the regulations by the scene in which she said: "All the perfumes of commissioner. The commissioner is given Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."
powers such as were wielded by men like Torquemada and Robespierre. The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) may shake his head all he wants, but this is my view of it, and 1 am also entitled to my view.
The editorial in today's Globe and Mail, a newspaper which is usually uncritical of the government to say the least, is critical of the government in this respect. However, I will not elaborate on that because I am sure that everyone either has read the editorial or is able to do so. The power given under this bill to the commissioner is very great. In my view some of the terms of this bill may well violate the Bill of Rights. The fears that many people have regarding how the provisions in this bill will be implemented will certainly not be alleviated in any way by the government's refusal to accept any substantial amendments from the opposition. A few minutes ago the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) pointed out that the purpose of most of the amendments put forward by members of the opposition was to try to improve the bill and to get it to work. However, the amendments were met with an adamant rejection by the government. Despite the eloquent, smooth and slick explanations given by the Minister of Justice many of us were not entirely convinced that these amendments should not be accepted, especially the right to appeal.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Additional worry in this regard has been caused by conflicting statements and remarks made by members of the government. As the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) has pointed out, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) makes one statement, and other ministers make statements of a different kind. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) paraphrasing, as it were, a former Queen of France who lost her head, said: If they are not bilingual let them run elevators. Or something to that effect. Then, one of the heads of the public service division said that by the


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I heard someone say "six o'clock". I need about one minute more.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue beyond six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Another thing which has
caused concern to many of us is the unfortunate attitude of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) during the conduct of this debate. It has not done much to alleviate our anxieties. Nor has his peculiar use of mathematics in a C.B.C. interview the other Thursday evening. He said that if you were French speaking alone you would be eligible for 25 per cent of the jobs available, but if you were English speaking alone you would be eligible for 75 per cent of the jobs available. This makes 100 per cent. But what happens to all the others who have to be bilingual? I do not know where they come in. This kind of odd explanation does not reassure people at all.
In conclusion, I will simply say this: I hope the bill works. I think most hon. members wish it to work. But there is certainly a great deal of apprehension in the country at large as to the manner in which it may be made to work. 1, for one, hope my fears and suspicions with regard to the administration of this bill and those who will be chosen to administer it, are unfounded. I certainly wish to enter one caveat in connection with my vote when I vote in favour of the measure. I hope the suspicions which are rampant in most parts of the country today are unfounded and that the government will administer the bill in good faith as has been promised.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


Debating Time Allotment AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.



PROCEDURE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the Standing Orders of the House be amended by adding the following new Standing Orders immediately after Standing Order 75:
75a. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
75b. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties, including that of the Government, have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
75c. A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee and has given notice at that sitting of his intention so to do may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Nesbitt.)


Gerald William Baldwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether there are two or three points of order or just the one. The hon. member for Oxford.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring Your Honour's attention to the fact that the translation system is not working and we have been unable to find out what is happening.


Mr. Speaker:: I am just wondering whether the hon. member is complaining that he did not understand the French translation. He must have heard me put the question in English.


Gerald William Baldwin: 
being now. I could repeat the speech I delivered earlier but I do not think I need to. I have simply raised my present point of order because it may well be that Your Honour has further considered the matter and has further words of wisdom for our ears.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Peace River. I see the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wishes to contribute to the point of order that has been raised. Of course, I would not presume to make a ruling without first hearing from the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will not refer to the anticipation rule. It seems to me that in the ruling Your Honour gave previously you agreed with the argument that had been made, which was that the report brought in by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) was one that he was directed to bring in by the committee. He was directed by the committee to seek concurrence in that report. This is not a private member's motion on some subject or other which the government can take over as its own. The substance of this report is one that has been directed, Mr. Speaker. I must emphasize that over and oyer again. There must be a clear distinction between a decision of this house and a decision of the government or a wish of the government. With the greatest respect, it is the duty of the Chair to enforce the decisions of the house and not the decisions of the government. I am not going to insist on that point any more at this time because I know Your Honour agrees with it.
There was a decision, as the result of which this house directed the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to deal with a particular motion. The committee did so. It came to a conclusion, and I am not going into the nature of the conclusion. The Committee then directed its chairman to bring in a report and to seek concurrence. I said the other day, and I repeat now, that the government, in trying to supersede the report of the committee, is actually in contempt of this house. It is the rights of the house and of all hon. members in it that must be considered, and not just the rights of the treasury benches. I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that the decision to be rendered by Your Honour will be very, very important. The committee report could have been the report of the Committee on Transport and Communications. or it could have been the report of the

Debating Time Allotment Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I was responsible for the insertion in the report of that latter Committee of two paragraphs which were highly critical of the government. Those paragraphs were accepted by the majority of committee members, including Liberals. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) may chuckle at that, but it so happened. But, Mr. Speaker, the effect of the action that is contemplated, that is if Your Honour approves of it, is that the government can take over any committee report; it can muzzle any committee chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and then bring in an excised version of that report. If we couple that action with the allocation of time, which is the substance of this order, this house will be bound hand and foot, and delivered to the mercy of the government. That, Mr. Speaker, is not parliamentary government. This house is not the servant of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The first responsibility of the treasury benches is to parliament, and parliament must never be a mere rubberstamp for some ambitious ministers. Much more is implied in the point of order raised by my colleague for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), than merely whether the government can, by dressing up a motion on the order paper and adding a couple of words, take unto itself the report of a committee. I will not repeat my arguments, Mr. Speaker, but this is the clear implication of the point of order raised by my colleague, and that is what Your Honour must decide upon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I shall restrict my remarks at this time to what I think are the two points that ought to be made at this stage of these proceedings. In the first place, I should like to confirm, by reading from the appropriate record, the statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton West that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization was instructed to bring this matter before the House of Commons and seek concurrence. Before I refer to the record, I wish to say that we agreed in our committee, once we realized we would get into a bit of a debate, not to rely on the minutes of our committee, since those


Debating Time Allotment minutes are not a verbatim report but a summary written in paragraph form with regard to what was said. It was agreed, however, that we could refer to the record for motions and decisions. I draw attention therefore to page 148 of the minutes of our committee covering the meeting held on June 17, 1969. This is the entry:
Mr. Macdonald-
That is the President of the Privy Council:
-moved that the Committee report 75a, 75b and 75c to the House and that the Chairman be instructed to seek concurrence in the report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And how did
the hon. member vote?


Stanley Howard Knowles: shall refer to the record with alacrity and with pleasure-with pleasure, at any rate. I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how under any organization's rules a situation can be tolerated in which a minister in a standing committee can bring in a motion instructing the chairman of that committee to take a certain action and then come into this house himself and move another motion that upsets the one he urged the chairman of the standing committee to move. The rest of the entry I referred to reads as follows:
The question being put on the motion it was adopted on the following division:
YEAS	NAYS
Deachman	Fairweather
Francis	Knowles
Jerome	Lambert (3)
Macdonald MacGuigan Reid (6)
Yes, under the nays is mentioned that same hon. member for Edmonton West who just spoke. My hon. friend for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) was also on the committee. The hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out that this committee was acting in the light of instructions given to it by the house last December, those instructions being that it should deal with this question and report back to the house.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The committee dealt with the matter. It came to a decision that was a majority decision only. As I have noted, three of us, the only opposition members present on that day, voted against it. We did not approve of the report but nevertheless, when the majority of a committee has so decided that is the report of the committee. The crux of that entry I just read was that the committee chairman, 
the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), was instructed to seek concurrence in the report. He was instructed by a majority vote of the committee and it was on the motion of the same President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), who now comes into this house to move a motion to set aside the other motion, under which the chairman of that committee was directed to seek concurrence.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What kind of a deliberating free parliament is this? Where is all this talk about participatory democracy? Never mind what is being done to us on the opposition side of the house. We are being asked to deal with a set of rule changes which represented the will of the government only, but look at what is being done by the government, by the representatives of the treasury benches, to the Liberal members of that committee.
The instruction in the committee was that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was to bring the motion before the house and seek concurrence. Before he could get to his feet to move it-mind you, he could have risen if he had not been told not to-the President of the Privy Council came in with this motion.
I said I had two things I felt should be drawn to Your Honour's attention. That is one of them. The other, Mr. Speaker, is related to something that happened this afternoon. Your Honour will recall that a third reading amendment was moved and that the procedural admissibility of it was protested by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), following which there was a bit of discussion. In the end, Your Honour ruled that the amendment was in order. Your Honour stated quite clearly that one of the reasons the amendment had to be admitted was that there had been changes in our rules. Many of the citations in the books no longer apply because we have altered the status of second and third reading. In support of my argument this afternoon that that was the case, I quoted from a few paragraphs of the third report of the special committee on procedure of the house which was presented on Friday, December 6, 1968.
I now wish to draw to the attention of Your Honour, hon. members, and if they will listen, the government, another paragraph from that same report. It is found at page 434 of
July 7, 1969	COMMONS
Votes and Proceedings for Friday, December 6, 1968:
V. The Committee-Structure of the House 12. It will be apparent from the recommendations already made in relation to supply and the legislative process that your committee envisages a significant extension of the functions of the Standing Committees and in consequence a substantial strengthening of their importance and influence.
How we are throwing those words down the drain, Mr. Speaker!
They would become the forums in which the details of expenditure and legislation would be closely considered. They would investigate the operations and continuing programs of government departments and would develop areas of subject specialization. We would expect debate in the Standing Committees to be well-informed and pertinent; their members to become influential in the areas of their specialized experience; and their reports to the house to assume a critical significance related more closely to the national interest as a whole than to simple political differences. We also anticipate that the business of the house would be greatly expedited and handled more efficiently through exploiting the potential of the committee system of the house to the full.
If we are going to do to standing committees what the government has indicated, Mr. Speaker, those words might as well be torn from the record. May I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Committee on Procedure and Organization is not now just a special committee as it was last December, but is a standing committee of the house. In fact, we asked for that in paragraph 15 of the same report from which I have been reading, and I quote again;
15. Your committee believes that a Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should be established with the function of keeping the rules and practice and the internal administrative organization of the house under continuing review, and that this committee should consist of not more than twelve members. If the recommendations contained in your Committee's Fourth and Fifth Reports are implemented, we would urge that this proposed Standing Committee be given an opportunity of reviewing the revised Standing Orders after they have been in operation for a certain length of time.
I ask Your Honour to put those two paragraphs, 12 and 15, together and note how clear their message is. This was a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. It was not necessary to adopt this report because it contained expressions of opinion as to how the house should operate. It was the basis for a later report which provided for actual changes in rules.
This afternoon Your Honour agreed with the contention that there had been a change with regard to third reading. That change is
Debating Time Allotment reflected in this same report. Put those two paragraphs together, 12 and 15, and the message is very clear. We said that we wanted a new regime as far as committees were concerned. We wanted the importance of committee work to be strengthened, made more critical and crucial in the legislative process. We wanted members to develop expertise, specialized talent, in their particular fields. We wanted this to happen in all of the standing committees. With regard to procedure, we wanted the committee to have an opportunity to review the procedure and rules of the house so it could make recommendations back to the house. I submit this is not just exhortation. This is something the chair has to consider. There has been a change, just as this afternoon Your Honour had to say there had been a change with respect to the status of third reading.
I submit there has been a change in respect of the status of committees. They now exercise a more important part in the whole process of this parliament. For us to be faced with a situation in which a committee has given consideration to a matter, has made a report, only to have it completely upstaged by the action of a Minister of the Crown, is an affront to that committee. It is an affront to all members, especially those on the Liberal side, who voted for this proposition. It is an affront to parliament. We thought we were operating under a new regime.
Just as Your Honour had to say this afternoon that the old citations did not completely apply in view of the changes that have been made, so I suggest it is with respect to committees. Some new jurisprudence may be necessary. The facts are clear. Last December this matter was referred to the committee, which by that time had been made a standing committee. This committee was called upon to make a report. We spent months working on this and other issues. A report was decided on in the committee. My friends across the way like to laugh and say, I voted against it. I certainly did. I will get into that when we get into the substance of the matter. Technically speaking, the committee carried out its instruction. It brought back a report. It did so in the light of a new regime which says that the work of the committees has critical significance to the job that is being done in parliament. Then, we get here and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) puts this motion on the order paper which means that all the work we did last year in trying to upgrade the work of committees, to
10930	COMMONS DEBATES	July 7, 1969
Debating Time Allotment make parliament function more efficiently on the basis of the committee system, was just so much waste of time.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I agree completely with the position taken by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), stated again by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that this is not just a one shot decision. This is not just some minor point because we are involved in a fight over procedure, and I regret it has come to that. It would be far better if we were doing things by agreement, but this point involves more than a procedural matter. This is a ruling that will affect the whole question of how our committee system is going to operate. I am one who believes this parliament will work better if its committees are upgraded and are treated as important, and if the members on them, whatever party they belong to, are respected for the work they do. You will ruin it all if this procedure is allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear, fTranslation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be rather short.
Having heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the point of order of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), we must draw some conclusions. Moreover, I was impressed by the argumentation of an expert in that field, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, especially when he stated that the work done in committee is becoming increasingly important.
Having read the reports of the proceedings of committees and studied the development of their work, I have come to the conclusion as did several of my colleagues that the work done in committee will have to be freed from the influence of certain ministers who wish to impose their views on the committees.
As a matter of fact, this is not the first time this year that we meet the same problem and we must agree that the point of order of the hon. member for Peace River is justified and acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, in the Votes and Proceedings of June 20 last, we read the following:
Mr. Blair, from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented the Third Report of the said Committee, which is as follows: Your Committee recommends-

As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, this was an unfortunate decision, but it was made by a majority of the committee. However, Mr. Speaker, there is something else with regard to the proceedings of the committee.
What about those proceedings? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), if I may use an expression I find very suitable in this instance, does not care a rap about that and goes his own way, just as if he was the one to decide, on behalf of the committee, of what it will do and how.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the ruling you will give presently is, according to the Ralliement creditiste, of the utmost importance, because it will establish, in fact, to what extent the report of a committee is really consistent with the wishes of its members or those of a particular minister.
Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of sitting on the committee on privileges and elections. Sometime this year, that committee studied a problem concerning one aspect of the field of transportation. It stemmed from a report of the committee on transport and communications which, according to some hon. members, was not consistent with the proceedings. Now, the President of the Privy Council intervened in the house a few days later, to dictate a ruling concerning the report of the committee on transport and communications.
Mr. Speaker, at that time, the President of the Privy Council anticipated on the decision of the committee on privileges and elections. He assumed powers that he did not have. He passed judgment, which he was not entitled to do, and thus put the members of the committee on privileges and elections in a very awkward position.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore obvious that this situation has occurred time and time again, and that some day sooner or later a decision must be reached on the procedure to be followed. We feel that the time has come to decide to what extent the recommendations of a committee, since this procedure is becoming more and more important, must be decided upon independently of the will of the ministers. Otherwise, we will have to believe, or will be inclined to believe, that the will of the government with regard to the work in committee is the same as that which prompted it to propose Standing Order 75C which, to my mind, is dictatorial.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
July 7, 1969	COMMONS
that very little need be said about the point of order brought forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in that it is really covered by the ruling of the Chair as recorded at page 10780 of Hansard. This ruling points out that the question of anticipation was not to be confused with the question of priority; that the notice of motion in the government's name was entitled to be transferred to government orders, and that at this point I would be entitled to seek priority for that particular motion. Therefore, I think the decision is quite clear on this point and little more need be said about it.
This whole matter will require few words from me because I do not think we need take seriously the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). They are two members who, according to the passage quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, voted expressly against the instruction to the committee chairman to introduce the committee motion. In other words, the two hon. gentlemen who, several days ago, found it expedient to vote against the introduction of the motion have now risen to their feet asking that it be called.
An. hon. Member: That is not true.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope it is true because I am only repeating what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre read out. If hon. members opposite insist I will be glad to read it again.


Thomas Miller Bell: Read it many times.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I know hon. members opposite are afraid to get to the substance of this matter. I quote:


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the committee report 75a, 75b and 75c to the house and that the chairman be instructed to seek concurrence in the report.
That was the motion that was adopted. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) voted against it. So these hon. members, who several weeks ago did not want the report introduced in the house, are now complaining because it was not introduced. I think I can say on behalf of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house that they concur in the notice of motion I have put on this particular matter. I believe they will agree that, while it is not verbally the same motion that the committee chairman was
Debating Time Allotment instructed to introduce, it does represent an improvement because of amendments made which will bring about greater certainty. The procedure now proposed will give the house what it did not previously have and, incidentally, for which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre argued last December when he suggested that this type of procedural change be not made by motion to adopt a report but by motion to concur in the actual wording of the rule change.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
committee of the whole.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In committee of the whole, yes; but I would point out to the hon. member that in 1965, when the then prime minister and house leader introduced a motion to amend the rules, he took no exception to the fact that it was moved by a minister with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. There is a good precedent for what is being done in these circumstances. I consider that this is the most efficacious way of dealing with this matter and, accordingly, I propose that we proceed with the motion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of this ill-fated committee set up to make a report. I was not present at the time the vote was taken,-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: -for a very good reason. If you follow the argument of the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), then the fact that I was not there to vote leaves me free today to criticize the action he has taken. If that is the viewpoint he takes, that is the one I adopt. I ask him where the Liberal members of this committee-the majority of six-are tonight. Where is the chairman of the committee? I see he is sitting in his seat, but why is he not moving the motion his colleagues asked him to move?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
There has been no reason given to the house why this report has not been presented, and why the motion of the President of the Privy Council has been given priority. The committee spent many hours discussing a great many other matters than the allocation of time in respect of which the report was made. Many meetings were held and good progress was made. When the time came for the report the government was interested in only one item, and that was the allocation of
10932	COMMONS
Debating Time Allotment time rule. All of the good work done on the other items was allowed to go into limbo and will be allowed to die when this session dies. The sooner this session dies the better, in the light of the way it is progressing now.
Regardless of what the President of the Privy Council may or may not say, it is quite obvious that the only object in getting this report was to provide an opportunity to bring in the allocation of time measure. When the report did not appear to be identical with what the government wanted, it walked over that report and brought in its own motion.
Let me repeat briefly one point I made on July 2 when the issue was first raised. We are talking about a fundamental matter, and by that I mean a matter which goes to the basis of parliament. The House of Commons, when it is sitting, should be the master of the government, not the reverse. The house, not the government, set up the committee in question, asked it to consider various matters and report. This committee which the house set up proceeded to hold meetings. The committee voted on a majority report and presented it to the house. The orders of the house have been carried out and this report has been made. We now have that report on the order paper, and we are ready to proceed with it.
It is fundamental that if the House of Commons itself is to have priority and seniority in this country, the orders of the house should be followed and should have precedence over motions of the government. This involves a fundamental matter in respect of which Your Honour should make a determination. This does not involve just a matter of rules, but involves a matter of going beyond those rules to the basis of the power structure of this country.
Is the House of Commons the master of its own proceedings or can the government, by intervention, stall or stop these proceedings? This is a fundamental question which must be considered and decided in favour of the House of Commons. If it is not, then we have moved into the second stage of deterioration of the power of the people.
The first stage of this deterioration was when this report was brought forward by means of a government majority. I do not claim long experience but I have been here over 12 years, and for the last 7 or 8 years a member of most of the procedural committees set up under previous speakers. Each one of these committees brought forward a report. As a matter of fact the reports were

DEBATES	July 7, 1969
unanimous and were brought in with no dissenters. It was never considered that this house could properly function unless we were agreed at least upon our rules. For the second time during this new parliament, which the people elected in June of last year, a majority report has been brought in without the concurrence of opposition parties. This exemplifies the first breakdown in the procedures of the house.
For many years we have agreed that committees set up by this house should consider and bring in unanimous reports in respect of our rules. The present occasion is the first example of a breakdown in this regard, to my knowledge. The government, having broken the first rule, is now proceeding to break the second rule by walking over a committee report on the procedures of the house.
This is not the report of a standing committee but the report of a special committee set up for a special purpose. It is essential at this time that Your Honour give very serious thought to the fundamental questions being considered. You should not consider this as just a parliamentary procedural matter, but as a fundamental matter on which the future importance of parliament may very well depend.
If Your Honour decides against the proposition we on this side support, that may well lead to a series of breakdowns in parliament, which in turn could lead to greater disrepute of this house. This may be particularly true if the government is allowed to overwhelm us by putting forward a principle contrary to the basic rules of this house. This is not the type of ruling which would be useful to parliament in years to come.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is a very basic and fundamental matter before you if you accept suggestions made by members on the other side. The basic and fundamental matter is whether or not any motion on the order paper does, in fact, rule out or prohibit the government from introducing a motion on the same or essentially the same subject matter. Obviously that is not so, because we have dozens, in fact scores of motions, bills and that sort of thing on the order paper relating to matters in many ways almost the same or at least dealing with the same subject matters as government legislation introduced some time later.


[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I agree completely with the ruling Your Honour made last July 3, that we must not confuse the issue of priority with the rule of anticipation. The rule of anticipation, of course, is involved here, but it should not prevent the transfer of this motion from notices of motions to government orders. That is what we are dealing with now. The second point that is extremely important is that after Your Honour was in the position where you transferred-as I said, in compliance with the decision you made-the motion to government orders, we were not dealing with the process under routine proceedings but were dealing with the sequence of those matters called by the government. Hon. members opposite will agree that is the proper thing at this stage. Then, of course, it is the prerogative of the government house leader to call any one, in any sequence that he sees fit, of those matters that are listed on the order paper under government business. That is precisely what is happening at this point in time. Therefore I suggest there has been no valid point of order outlined by hon. members opposite.
In this connection I would refer to May's 17th edition, page 400, which gives a number of prohibitions respecting the rule of anticipation and reads as follows:
In determining, however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
As has been clearly stated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and other members who were on the committee, they did not wish this motion put before the house. Now, they are taking exactly the opposite side of the argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: I never said that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The record of the vote in that committee has been read out twice. They were not in favour of this motion being brought before the House of Commons. Having voted that way and having made that decision, it seems to me the absolute apex of hypocrisy to now argue for and insist upon the motion being brought before the house. In addition-


Mr. Danforih:: What about the Liberal members?
Debating Time Allotment


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That has nothing to do with the point of order; that is just a point of argument. In addition, as I am sure Your Honour is well aware, this motion is not exactly the same as the motion moved by the hon. member for-


Gerald William Baldwin: No, it is worse.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is the opinion of the hon. member for Peace River. This motion is not exactly the same as the motion moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). As has been said not only dozens and scores, but indeed hundreds of times, the government has to take the responsibility for moving motions under that section of the order paper which deals with government business. That is precisely what is being asked at this point in time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I ask the minister whether he considers that the order standing in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, is a government order. If it is not how does he justify its not having precedence under Standing Order 18, which gives only government orders priority?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Item 99 of government orders in our Orders of the Day, which is that part of the day with which we are now dealing, is the motion that has been moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), and any other motions on the order paper do not apply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why don't you answer the question?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate because I had, if I may say so with respect, a great deal of sympathy for the position into which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) pushed Your Honour by putting a motion on the order paper. I was not at all sure that any contribution I could make would be of assistance to Your Honour in deciding the point of procedure. But I was raised to my feet by the arrogance of the President of the Privy Council-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
10934


Debating Time Allotment


David Lewis: -and by the irrelevant insults of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: There may have been good reasons why the President of the Privy Council put his motion on the order paper. If there were reasons, I would have sat and listened patiently to the President of the Privy Council for having the decency and the necessary modesty to tell the house why he put his motion ahead of the motion of the chairman of the committee. Instead of that he said: I wanted to put this motion on the order paper. I had the right to do so, and you had better lump it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right.


David Lewis: It is this sort of behaviour that is souring the atmosphere in this parliament. It is this sort of behaviour that is making the people of Canada wonder what this parliament is about. I happen to be a relatively junior member of the house, and I have supported with all the strength I could the notion that the committees of the house should be strenghtened and given a more important role. I have made speeches not only in this house but across the country from one end to the other pointing out that the business of parliament has now become so complex, so difficult; that the issues before members of parliament are so numerous that it is impossible for the house as a whole to deal with all of them in the depth they require. The only way to overcome this difficulty is to strengthen the role of committees of parliament, to give them the necessary staff and the necessary status in the proceedings of parliament so that they become the avenues through which these important, complex and difficult issues are discussed and debated in depth.
This is what most of us have hoped for. This is what most of us have believed the committees of parliament ought to become. It is surely the duty of the government, above all, in this house, to see it that the status of those committees is honoured and observed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: In addition to the legislative duty of a government, it is the duty of a government to lead this house; to give the house a program; to see to it that parliament functions in a way which will promote the benefits and welfare of the country and the

worthwhileness of parliament itself. That is the duty of the President of the Privy Council; that is the duty of the government house leader, namely, to assist this house, parliament and its committees to function properly. It is not his duty to step on the work of committees of the house. As I said, there may well have been a good reason why the President of the Privy Council decided that the government ought to put forward a motion to supersede the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair).
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Why did he not tell us what those reasons were? If he had humbly said to this house "there are the reasons and I would like to listen to hon. members", it would have been better. But he did not say anything of the sort. He just said that the government wanted to put a notice of motion and therefore they did, no matter what the committee did.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has the nerve-and I cannot describe it in any other way-he has the unmitigated gall, to say to this house that what we are dealing with is a motion put on the order paper by a member and that the government should have the authority to put another motion in its place. If he meant it seriously, he was not thinking. If he was thinking, he was being hypocritical.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I give him the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker, and say that he was thinking. He knows perfectly well that this was not a motion by any member of the house. This was a motion by the chairman of the committee who was instructed by the committee to put that motion on the order paper. What difference does it make how many members voted against or for it? Ever since I have been in this house, I have learned that there is no such thing as a majority report of a committee. I have been in the minority on committees of this house but I have not been able to file a minority report; the rules do not permit me to do that. All I can do is put out a press release and deal with the press outside. If anyone should know this, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Agriculture should know, that so far as the house is concerned there is merely a report of the committee-whether it is a majority report or a unanimous report is irrelevant.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


David Lewis: I am sure that the President of the Privy Council had good reason for making the Minister of Agriculture sit down, and I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture has learned to be sat upon before now.


George Harris Hees: Yes, knock him down, meat ball.


David Lewis: In all seriousness, I am speaking in this way because of the annoyance I felt at the attitude of the two ministers in this debate. I appreciate the difficulty in which Your Honour finds himself. I draw your attention, as did the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), to your ruling the other day as recorded at page 10780 of Hansard where you said:
Once the motion has been transferred for debate under government orders it becomes the government's decision and the government's responsibility to decide whether it will proceed with its motion.
The government has decided to proceed with it. Your ruling reads:
It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the minister's motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report.
As I understood the hon. member for Peace River and others who have spoken in support of this motion, they have drawn Your Honour's attention to your statement on July 3 and have said that now the motion has been transferred to government orders, now that the government is moving its motion, the question of anticipation becomes relevant. We ask you to say that the government's motion will in fact block consideration of the committee report, and that should not be permitted. As I understood it, that was the point of order raised this evening by the hon. member for Peace River, and may I say with respect that on July 3 you did not deal with that point of order. This is a new point of order which is precisely in line with the ruling you gave on July 3.
The sadness which I feel as I am about to sit down is at the way in which the work of the committees of this house, which were drummed up to be important and which everyone hoped would be significant, is being downgraded by the actions of this government which has the duty to make sure that the committees of parliament are in fact important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with what the hon.
Debating Time Allotment member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has just said about the behaviour of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) who, under his own authority, puts before the house a motion which is textually the report of the standing committee on procedure and organization, although that report has not been adopted by the house.
Mr. Speaker, what is the use of the committees if the President of the Privy Council can present to the house a motion which is textually-


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafonlaine: No,
no.


David Réal Caouette: The motion contains a few minor differences but it boils down to almost the same thing.


Mr. Lachance:: The differences are
important.


David Réal Caouette: The motion moved by the President of the Privy Council strangely resembles the report of the standing committee on procedure and organization.
So, as I said earlier, what is the use of having committees if at any time the minister can ignore everything and put himself before the house a motion that does not take into account the work of the committees?
For instance, has the President of the Privy Council any consideration for hon. members who sit on the committees? Are they mere ciphers? Are they appointed to a committee for the simple pleasure of knowing they will sit there and with no intention of considering the report they will make?
The President of the Privy Council presents a motion to set the new standards of parliamentary procedure. In my opinion, he is completely wrong in doing it that way and showing no respect for the wishes of the committee that presented its report on June 20 last. It was ignored.
And today the President of the Privy Council must face up to a situation which is unacceptable. He is afraid. It is all very well to say that the committee has nothing to do with his stand or his motion but it is quite obvious however, in the eyes of all hon. members, that the President of the Privy Council has disregarded the committee, that his action is meant to prove that a committee is totally inefficient with regard to the sound management of the nation's business. I would even dare say that the President of the Privy Council should apologize and withdraw his motion as long as the third report of the
10936	COMMONS
Debating Time Allotment standing committee on procedure and organization has not been adopted by parliament.
Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the President of the Privy Council is obvious. I understand that with a majority government it is possible to disregard the actions, decisions or recommendations of any committee, on the ground that the majority rules. However, if that is democracy, it is rather shaky and the President of the Privy Council has the duty to change his attitude with regard to the rights of hon. members who sit on the committee on procedure and organization.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the committee on procedure some years back and I have retained a cursory interest in this subject since then. As a result, I feel impelled to make a few comments on three points of argument which have been presented to us this evening from the government side. The first two points were advanced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and no doubt he intended that we should take them seriously, though it was difficult to do so. The third argument was advanced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald).
The Minister of Agriculture contended that the government has the right to move government orders. This is a ridiculous red herring to bring into the debate on which we are now engaged, a debate which is being conducted in an extremely tense atmosphere. The right to which he refers is not involved at all. What is involved is whether the government is entitled to make its own substitute for something parliament has ordered somebody else to do.
On September 28 of last year this house ordered a special committee to look into certain questions of procedure, among other things, the allocation of time for debate, and to bring its views before us. The committee has now carried out this work. Whether we agree with its suggestions is not germane to the debate. The question is whether the government has the right to disassociate itself from recommendations which the committee thought were acceptable, and bring something like this before us.
The second argument advanced by the Minister of Agriculture was that the government must direct the manner in which the house runs its business. I say an emphatic no to this proposition, and I believe any member of the opposition would do the same. Indeed,

DEBATES	July 7, 1969
I believe many hon. members opposite would share my attitude, though they have to express themselves secretly; they cannot present their true Liberal views openly on this particular point. I say it is not the business of the government to tell us how we are to run our own affairs. It is the business of each and every one of us.
We succeed best in this chamber when there is a consensus, and we succeed least when our course of action is dictated to us. I reject the reasoning of the Minister of Agriculture in this connection. The house must itself decide how to run its business. If it is not allowed to do so, there can only be trouble.
Finally, there is the argument put forward by the President of the Privy Council. He told us the Liberal members of the committee agreed that the government motion was the better one. What kind of an argument is that? As if these people, who had worked hard and long in the committee, would suddenly say: Well, after all, father knows best.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In the days ahead, when a large issue involving the freedom of parliament is concerned, or the right of parliamentary control of the executive-kings have lost their heads because they would not listen-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I say that in the days ahead, if the procedure envisaged in this motion is adopted and put into operation, the people of this country can expect no hope when they look to any member on the government side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether hon.
members do not feel they have used all the arguments which could be advanced. Hon. members must recognize that discussion on a point of order is not for the pleasure of arguing the procedure but for the specific purpose of advising the Chair. I have a definite impression that all possible arguments on this point have been advanced, although I would not want to prevent hon. members from putting any further arguments which they might feel have not already been submitted. If the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Now-lan) thinks he qualifies in this regard, I shall be pleased to call him and thank him for his assistance.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: always defer to your good judgment and wisdom, Mr. Speaker. I enter this debate not as
July 7, 1969	COMMONS
an expert on the rules, but as a backbencher who has seen two elections since taking his place in this chamber. Although I do not intend to go into all the technicalities of the rules, I do wish to bring out a few points which, so far, have not been brought to Your Honour's attention.
In the parliament elected before the present parliament, the 27th Parliament of Canada, we heard a great deal about the way in which the air of democracy had been polluted by the battles of the past. Regardless of partisan differences on questions of policy, especially at election time, we are all Members of Parliament. I read about hon. members opposite going into a seance at weekends with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of the Privy Council to hold their lovefest or love-in. They came out saying: Now the Prime Minister is on our side; the cabinet understands us. Yet, within a week or so they are confronted with an action of this kind on the part of the government, and participatory politics becomes just a sham.
If parliament is hamstrung, every member on the back benches is silenced, no matter on which side of the house he is sitting. Members opposite attend their lovely soirees at the weekends-I am a little jealous, I suppose- and leave feeling that their point of view has been accepted-only to find themselves confronted with a proposal such as this, one which will profoundly affect the workings of parliament. We were told that parliament would recess on June 27. How misleading this has proved to be. I was a member of the former parliament when, as has been said, the atmosphere was polluted. I well remember speaking during tense moments in the early days of the 27th Parliament. Has a lesson been learned? In the first year of the 28th Parliament, for no good reason which rules 75a and 75b would not take care of, the government has decided to ram rule 75c through the house. They may succeed eventually. I do not know. But I suggest to Your Honour and particularly to the 100 or so members who came here little more than a year ago looking for the new politics, participatory politics, that as a result the atmosphere will again be so polluted that the present parliament will encounter all the pitfalls and sandtraps which bedevilled previous parliaments.
To turn, now, to the point at issue. The committee system is under attack. We ask the question: Is it a charade or will the President
Debating Time Allotment of the Privy Council be the puppeteer to pull the strings-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am sorry the President of the Privy Council does not share the enthusiasm and idealism of the hon. member for York South. Neither has he accepted the advice of some of the veterans on this side who have suggested that the fact our parliamentary committee system does not work is the responsibility of cabinet. If that is true, then let the cabinet inform members of all parties of this house that the committee system is a charade.
The present situation is the last straw. I should like to refer to reports submitted by three committees, of two of which I have been a member. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) knows more about the fifth report of the transportation committee than I do, but I would like to refer to the report on maritime transportation. While the committee was considering its report, the minister brought into this house the transportation bill without reference to the committee's report.
Then again, the Minister of National Defence, (Mr. Cadieux) honourable gentleman that he is, said that no decision would be made on defence policy until the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence had made its report. The committee went to Europe and had a very informative and illuminating tour, but I am not so naive as to believe that basic decisions on NATO and/or NORAD and/or maritime command were not made before the committee submitted its report.
Then tonight, the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Olson) who knows something about the rules, certainly more than I-though he did not display that knowledge this evening-set up a straw man. In view of all the wheat that still remains for him to sell, I do not think he should compound the problem by adding all the straw he built up tonight, to say nothing of some of the beef that he was distributing. Certainly, his performance was not a fair reflection of his knowledge of the rules. The hon. gentleman knows that the report presented by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) was not one that he composed himself, having sat and considered the matter for some months entirely on his own. The house gave the committee an instruction to bring in a report.
10938	COMMONS
Debating Time Allotment
As the hon. member for York South so ably-said, talk of majority reports and minority report is hypocrisy. I have sat on committees wiih the hon. member. There is even one member on the other side of the house, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, (Mr. Allmand), who regularly issues his own minority press statement. But no issue has ever been taken over whether a committee's report is a minority report or a majority report; it is a report of the committee.
I suggest we might as well face the facts. Perhaps it is just as well that this debate is had during the first year of the reign of this Prime Minister in the 28th parliament, because it will show us how serious and sincere is the government about reforming the committee system. This debate will indicate whether the governments' action will constitute a challenge for the members of this house, and particularly whether members on the government side will be made to dance like puppe!s as the President of the Privy Council pulls the strings.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there are no further contributions to this debate, I might try to make a ruling. For a while I was hoping that contributions would continue until ten o'clock, in which case I would have had further time to consider the interesting arguments adduced by hon. members in the course of this enlightening discussion on procedure.
I have to indicate to hon. members that, in my view many, if not all, of the arguments which were advanced by learned members of the opposition this evening in the course of this debate were essentially those which were presented for the consideration of the chair when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) initially raised his point of order. He himself recognized this this evening, though I am sure that when he heard the lengthy presentations that followed his cursory submission to the house he must have felt a little unhappy that he had not taken the opportunity to repeat for the guidance of the Chair the lengthy and very cogent arguments that he had earlier submitted on July 2.
At that time I considered at length the arguments that were advanced by the hon. member for Peace River, by the hon. member for Edmonton West, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. With the advice, counsel and guidance of the clerks and other advisers who assist the Chair in such difficult matters, I considered all aspects of the problem. Following this consideration I
[Mr. NowlanJ
DEBATES	July 7, 1969
reached the decision that is recorded in Hansard for July 3.
I am afraid that the situation has not changed. We have exactly the same situation this evening as we had originally. I ruled on the former occasion that the motion that had been proposed by the President of the Privy Council for the consideration of the house should be transferred to government orders under the provisions of Standing Order 21. As pointed out by the hon. member for York South, (Mr. Lewis) I had said that it is at the point we are now reaching that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the minister's motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report.
If I were asked to rule on this point at this time, I would have to say that I agree that our proceeding with the minister's motion at this time does effectively block consideration of the motion that might have been proposed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
At the same time, I might say, having taken into account the arguments advanced by members of the opposition, that if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had moved his motion I would have recognized that the rule of anticipation would have given his motion precedence, that I would have allowed his motion to go forward in preference to the mo'ion that is now before the house in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I would have so ruled in view of the fact that our committees have now taken on a new significance. Under the rules of the house and in the reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure we have given a new role to our committees. Since the hon. member's mo'.ion refers to the report of a committee of the House of Commons, I would have recognized that the hon. member's motion had precedence over the motion of the President of the Privy Council and, if moved, would have blocked the minister's motion.
However, the minister's motion is now before the house. Certainly the rules allow the minister to make a motion at the present time. The motion having been moved, I suggest to hon. members that it has to be considered.
Many other issues were brought before the house for the consideration of the Chair, though I am not sure they were entirely relevant. Hon. members want me to substitute my judgment and my ruling for that of the House of Commons. If a majority of the members of the house think that this motion
July 7, 1969	COMMONS
should not be adopted, that it should be voted down and we should proceed later on with another motion, then it is up to them to take this course. Hon. members should not ask the Speaker to do this on their behalf. My duty and my responsibility is to rule according to the rules that hon. members adopt and pass, and which they expect the Speaker to respect on their behalf. I think it might be a dictatorial act on the part of the Chair to assume the responsibility that hon. members are suggesting be placed on its shoulders, and I am not prepared to do so. As the servant of the house I must respect the rules. Therefore, I suggest to hon. members that the motion is properly before the house at this time and must be considered.
Whether I approve of the procedure, whether I think it is in accord with the new and exalted role that we would like to assign to our committees, is another matter. I am not sure whether I am entitled to have an opinion about this; qertainly if I do have one I cannot tell the house what it is. I will humbly and with good grace accept the role which hon. members accord to their Speaker and be the servant of the house, rule according to the rules which they themselves have adopted, and say that this motion is properly before the house at this time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on another point of order. I now wish to place before Your Honour the second of the three points of order I wish to raise with regard to this particular issue. Your Honour has decided on one and we have no recourse except to consider what action the house may take with respect to an hon. member who, as chairman of a committee, has not carried out instructions the house gave to him. My second point relates to an entirely different point of order. The house is asked to consider and adopt the recommendation of the standing committee of this house. It is also asked to adopt a motion of the President of the Privy Council. I submit to Your Honour that the motion is out of order in as much as it proposes that this house shall adopt a Standing Order already rejected by this house in this session as a substantive part of proposed standing order 16a which was negatived on December 20, 1968. Many hon. members in this house, and many outside the house have noticed a striking similarity between the government's present proposed order and the order which was negatived. On December 20, 1968, the order was

Debating Time Allotment read for resuming debate on the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) the order being that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 4, 1968, be concurred in.
With the unanimous consent of this house the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) moved, and I quote:
That the motion be amended by inserting . .. after the words "Procedure of the House," the words "except the proposal with respect to the proposed Standing Order 16a".
I repeat the last words, "except the proposal with respect to the proposed Standing Order 16a". It is now well known that the motion of the President of the Privy Council was agreed to. The main motion as amended was agreed to. That motion, as amended, then read:
That the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, except the proposal with respect to the Standing Order 16a, presented to the House on Friday, December 6, 1968, be concurred in.
The report, as so amended, was then concurred in. The standing orders proposed in that report are now in effect, except standing order 16a. The house made its will known last year. Obviously, the main motion as amended put a positive question and a negative question, and to these questions the house answered that it did not concur in the committee's recommendation to adopt rule 16a but that it did concur in the remainder of the committee's recommendation. If it had been intended that no decision be taken on rule 16a, the procedure exists under which this matter could have been deleted or withdrawn.
The rule of the United Kingdom House of Commons which was adopted on April 2, 1604, is as follows:
That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the House.
That rule has been accepted in this house over and over again. In the face of the judgment of this house made last December that rule 16a should be negatived, the house is now being asked to adopt rules 75a, 75b and 75c. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that essentially the two proposed standing orders are the same. Each provides a procedure under which a minister of the Crown may, subject to agreement or consultation with a designated committee or group, bring in or move a time allocation order. In the case of rule 16a,


Debating Time Allotment he could do that with respect to all the business of the house, including public bills, and in the case of rules 75a, 75b and 75c he may do that with respect to public bills.
I submit that qualitatively, former proposed rule 16a and the present rules 75a, 75b and 75c, are identical. Quantitatively there is a slight difference. Nevertheless, they are the same in concept fundamentally. There is no question about that at all. The point at issue is, however, that the house, in rejecting the quantitatively larger rule 16a, has also rejected proposed rules 75a, 75b and 75c.
We are not without guidance on this subject, Mr. Speaker. The most recent precedent was the salutory and wise decision rendered by Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 1967. It is reported in House of Commons Journals for March 11, 1968, at page 753. I shall refer to this precedent later. It may be remembered on that occasion this house had rejected a tax bill and, in violation of the long established principles and precedents of centuries, parliament was ruthlessly violated by the government. Having stripped parliament of its cloak of decency, the government brought in a tax bill similar in many respects, although differing in quantum, to a previous tax bill. At that time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised the question of the right of the government to so proceed. On March 11, 1968, Your Honour rendered a decision. I will not read it all; the lateness of the hour prevents my so doing. In part, Your Honour said this:
It then becomes a matter of interpretation or judgment whether, in the words of the rule,-
That is the rule I have already quoted. Your Honour of course had that in mind. I continue:
-the motion offered-
That was the motion to accept the new tax bill.
is substantially the same as one on which the decision of the House has been expressed. The only way to interpret the two measures in relation to the rule is to compare the proposals offered in each case; that is, in the previous Bill and in the new Bill now before the House.
Your Honour continued at pages 755 and 756. I think your decision is well known. It was that the bill was not to be proceeded with but was to be withdrawn. I submit that the two cases, the case of the previous bill and the case of the rules, are identical and on all fours. The second tax bill contained the principles of the first, although the quantum
[Mr. Baldwin.!
of tax was different. Here, we have two measures which touch on the procedure of the house. Each provides for a time allocation order at the instigation of a minister after certain preliminary procedures have been followed. I submit to Your Honour, therefore, that since this house in December of last year, by accepting the motion of the President of the Privy Council and concurring in the rules then brought in, negatived the right of the government to bring in rule 16a. At this time, therefore, the motion the President of the Privy Council seeks to bring before the house should not be allowed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with three of the points raised by the hon. member. In the first place, may I draw Your Honour's attention to page 579 of Votes and Proceedings of December 20, 1968, where this house, as hon. members have already mentioned, instructed the committee to consider the allocation of time proposals. Those proposals referred to allocation of time orders which could be brought by ministers of the Crown after they had been in consultation with the committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are not dealing with a committee report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is quite right. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will give me an opportunity to put my argument to the house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister has lots of time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I point out that at that time the house recognized it would consider later in this session the question of an allocation of time procedure. It specifically instructed the committee to consider, for the purpose of having that matter further considered in this house, an allocation of time procedure along the lines of the proposal put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. This invited full consideration of the British practice which, as hon. members know, provides for the right of the minister to make a motion for the purpose of allocating time for debates. In fact, the house at that time gave every indication in the proceedings which occurred that day that it wished this question of allocation to be brought to a final decision in this session. It did not clearly at that time disentitle the house from further considering allocation of time proposals along the lines of that which I propose in my motion.


The second matter is with regard to the terms of 16a. If I have an opportunity of debating the substantive proposals, I will go into at some length the manner in which the proposed 75(a), (b) and (c) differ from 16a. I suggest they differ very substantially in the form of procedure provided. There appeared to be concurrence on the other side of the house at the time they were under consideration.
Going back to my previous point, I think the real consideration to be looked at is how the committee could be seized with the question at all if, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said, it was out of order. If so, how can we give further consideration in the course of this session, to the question of allocation of time at the instance of the minister?
The final point that has to be made is that in effect the proceedings which occurred on December 20, as hon. members know, were, as a whole, the subject matter of agreement among all parties in the house. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) withdrew his amendment; I withdrew my proposal with regard to 16a and we arrived at a certain proposal with regard to dealing with the subject matter further. In other words, I submit that the various proceedings on that afternoon of December 20 should be regarded as a whole. They are not to be regarded as a negativing by this house of the principle of time allocation, including the possibility that time be allocated in accordance with an order to be introduced by a minister. For that reason, the motion I put this evening is not out of order.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) for getting to the floor ahead of me in the course of this debate because the argument he has put forward is so easy to demolish. I had hoped he would advance it, and he has done so.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has already read citations which lay down the basic rules of parliament in the matter of dealing again in the same session with something which has already been dealt with earlier in the session. To have this basic law as part of my remarks, I wish to read a couple of citations from Beauchesne. I draw attention first to citation 194(1):
(1) A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a 29180-692
Debating Time Allotment proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house.
Citation 200(1) states this again. I read it for emphasis:
(1) An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
That rule is quoted again in citation 203(7). The wording there is the same, so I need not read it. May I also point out, Mr. Speaker, that this rule has been used as the basis for some important decisions from the Chair in recent years. I refer in particular to the effort of Mr. Pickersgill, the former minister of transport, who back in January of 1967 tried to get a reversal of a decision that had been made on matters having to do with Crowsnest Pass rates. The Chair ruled very clearly on that occasion that a decision had been taken by the house in committee of the whole and it could not be reversed in that session, even though the attempt to reverse it was spelled out in language that was slightly different from the motion which had earlier been defeated.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has also drawn attention to the 5 per cent surtax measure that was defeated on third reading in the last parliament, following which the former minister of finance tried to bring in another measure which was so similar to the first one that the Chair had to rule it out of order. The rule is there. The practice of the house is clear and so are the rulings of the Chair.
The President of the Privy Council now stands and says, oh, but just a minute, a motion was passed by this house on December 20, 1968, which covers the matter. What did that motion say, Mr. Speaker? The motion said that this matter was to be referred to a committee, the committee was to discuss and consider this matter and it was given authority to bring back a report. I suggest that if the President of the Privy Council had not brought in his motion, but had let the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) move concurrence in the report of the committee, it would be in order. It would be in keeping with the instruction that was given to that committee by the house.
10942	COMMONS
Debating Time Allotment
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the decision of the house on December 20, 1968, that gave the committee the authority to deal with this matter and bring in a report and their recommendation was in keeping with the rule, provided it was done that way. When the President of the Privy Council seeks to bring in a government notice of motion, a proposition that changes the decision that was taken on December 20, he is just as far out of line as was Mr. Pickersgill and the former minister of finance.
This is the kind of thing that happens, Mr. Speaker, when you start trying to dictate to parliament, instead of achieving these things by a process of consultation and getting along together, arriving at some kind of consensus. That is the tragedy of this debate we are now going to have. We must get along. We got along for four or five months on the basis of arriving at one consensus after another. Now, it has been decided that we are going to deal at arm's length and so the minister resorts to these various devices. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this point of order would not be one that could be raised if we were dealing with the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). He would have had the authority of the motion passed last December 20. But no, he sits in his seat, not saying a word, and apparently the other six Liberal members of that committee have concurred in this process. So, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) brings in a motion which is in defiance of the basic rule of parliament, an old rule that has been brought up to date by yourself, sir, which says that a decision having been taken the matter cannot be raised again in the same session.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The President of the Privy Council says that there are some differences between 75c and 16a. Oh, yes, there are some differences but the basic proposition in 75c is the same as the basic proposition in 16a, namely, that if the government house leader cannot get the concurrence of the house leaders of the other parties for a time allocation order, he can bring in such an order himself.
There is a slight difference. Last December we talked about meetings of the Business Committee that would be held in the shower of the President of the Privy Council. Well, we do not have that kind of arrangement now. We do not have a formal meeting of the committee under 75c but we have the same fundamental proposition that the government

DEBATES	July 7, 1969
house leader can by himself, unilaterally, dictatorially, tell this house what time allocation he is going to make. In principle, in essence 16a and 75c are exactly the same.
The President of the Privy Council also has the nerve to stand up and say that no decision was taken last December 20. Mr. Speaker, what nonsense are we supposed to take in this place? We had a long debate last December on the whole question of the rules that were brought in. As hon. members will recall, practically all of us were in support of most of the rules that were in that package. In fact if I recall correctly I was in favour of all of them but 16a, as were most hon. members.
As I say, we had a long debate and the debate zeroed in on 16a. As a result of that debate the house, by means of compromise, by withdrawal of one motion and amendment of another, reached a decision and, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is just as much a decision as if the house were to vote tonight on the straight motion the government is trying to move.
What was that decision? The decision was that 16a, in the form in which it was before us, was not acceptable to the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, that proposition that 16a was not acceptable was agreed to on December 20, 1968, unanimously. It was a decision concurred in by every member of the House of Commons. Granted, so far as the government was concerned, there was a condition. The condition was that the matter was being referred back to the committee, or to a new standing committee that was being set up. That is quite true, but nevertheless even though there was that condition in the mind of the government the fact of the matter is that the decision was made and 16a was out. We have been operating ever since under the new package of rules that did not include 16a. It was every bit as much a decision of the House of Commons that 16a was rejected as it was a decision that we accepted all the other rules in the package.
I come back to the condition upon which the government accepted the decision of last December. That condition was that the matter be referred to a committee. At that time we were dealing with the report of a special committee on the procedure of the House of Commons, but under the new rules we provided that there would be a Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Procedure and Organization. It was set up under the new rules and later the same day, December 20, a special motion was passed referring this matter to that standing committee.
July 7, 1969	COMMONS
The President of the Privy Council says that this thing has to be taken in its entirety as a package-the whole content of what was done last December. He is perfectly right, and the whole content is perfectly clear. The house took a decision against 16a but the House of Commons, by unanimous decision, made a special arrangement for the subject of time allocation to be referred to the standing committee with the authority for that committee to bring back a report recommending that something be done about it.
As I said before, and I repeat it now, if this were being done that way then the rule against dealing with something that has been dealt with in the same session would be covered by that proposition. But it is not so covered. What we have got before us is a government motion that seeks to reverse a decision made by the House of Commons unanimously last December, and it is a government notice of motion which does not have the consent of the entire House of Commons.
I have done a little homework on this as a possible point of order, but I was doing most of my research on the question as the hon. member for Peace River was speaking and I ran across certain citations which, unfortunately, I did not note, but I know they are there. They make the point that in a situation like this something like this can be done only by unanimous consent. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only possibility by which the government, as distinct from the committee of the silent member for Grenville-Carleton, can introduce a motion to reverse the decision taken last December is by unanimous consent. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot quarrel with that proposition.
This is the strait jacket the government has got itself into through the means by which it is proposing to operate. I submit that this is a clear violation of one of the oldest rules of parliament, that the government has no right to put this motion before us and, as a matter of fact, that Your Honour cannot possibly see this as a simple proposition.
I see that Your Honour is looking at the clock, as I am. My hon. friends are encouraging me to keep going. The only difficulty is that there are three late shows coming on at ten o'clock. I have the first of them and I have not had much chance to prepare for it. But it does seem to me that this is a point to which Your Honour should give consideration. I would like to look up the precise citations I was referring to a moment ago and 29180-6921
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 29 as recorded in Hansard at page 9214, I asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the ever-widening gap between the level of the consumer price index and the 2 per cent increases which are permitted annually to those on old age security pensions, is the government considering amending the act to permit these increases to reflect the full extent of the increases in the cost of living?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I want to come back in a moment to as strong a comment as I can make about that monosyllabic answer of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). Before I do so let me indicate what we are talking about when we refer to the ever-widening gap between the level of the consumer price index and the amount of the pensions our old age penisoners are receiving.
The present $75 level was fixed in 1963, some six years ago. In 1965 a bill was passed which brought in the Canada Pension Plan and amended the old age security act in various respects. It provided for a cost of living increase in the old age security pension, but provided that it was to be limited to 2 per cent in any one year.
I mention these two dates, 1963 and 1965, because I think in considering the position of our pensioners, one must start from one of those two years. One must start, either from 1963 when the pension was fixed at $75, or
10944	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion from 1965 when it was decided by law that there was to be this increase due to the cost of living. What has happened?
In 1963 the consumer price index on the old basis of 1949 equalling 100 stood at 133.0. In 1965 it s'.ood at 138.7, and now in 1969 it stands at 161.4. That is the consumer price index on the old 1949 basis, not on the new basis which has been established recently, but in order to make comparisons I have to use like quantities.
This means that since 1963 when the pension was fixed at $75 the cost of living has gone up by 28.4 percentage points, or by 21 per cent over the cost of living in 1963. By the same manner of arithmetic the cost of living has gone up since 1965 by 22.7 percentage points, or 16 per cent over the cost of living as it s!ood in 1965. Members can take a choice. If they work from 1965, the year the law was passed to provide an increase, that increase is now of the order of 16 per cent. If they work from 1963 when the pension was set at $75, the increase is now in the order of 21 per cent.
In others words, the $75 pension should now be $87 per month, if you work it from the year 1965, or $90.75 a month if you work it from 1963. Yet, as hon. members know, all that has happened is that two 2 per cent increases have been added, a total of only 4 per cent, so that the pension now stands at $78. For the purposes of the argument I will settle for the lower figure. It should be at $87 right now to keep faith with the decision of this parliament in 1965, that we were going to raise the pension in accordance with the rise in the cost of living. In any event it is only $78. This is just the same as though we were taking $9 out of the pockets of every person in Canada who is drawing an old age security pension.
It is not good enough to go on telling us week after week, month after month, that all these matters are under review. This involves a principle and an obligation. As a matter of justice we ought to insist that the time has come to amend the Old Age Security Act and increase that ceiling in order that the increase in pension will reflect not just 2 per cent but whatever the ac'.ual increase in the cost of living happens to be.
A friend has reminded me, and he does not need to because this has been my song all along, that we have to go further than this. We have to give our elderly people a share of the increase in productivity. Surely, the least
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
DEBATES	July 7, 1969
we can do is give them the full measure of the increase in the cost of living,
I see you are moving to the edge of your chair, Mr. Speaker, so in conclusion let me say what bothers me most about the answer given to me by the minister on May 29. That is the ease with which he just said "No". That is the answer we get all the time from this government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He has had a lot of practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
answer is "No" to these old age pensioners, to war veterans, to retired civil servants, to railway pensioners-to anyone in this pension field.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nyet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nyet, that is the language they speak over there. This is one of the most serious questions facing this country. We must make sure that our retired people have a share of the increased productivty of this society. It is not good enough to go on answering "No". The time for action has come.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we often say in French that you know a good cook by her recipes. Well, I dare say that you know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre by his questions which are always in the same area.
I agree with the hon. member who says that the old age pension, the guaranteed income, in short, all the different kinds of pensions are not high enough. On the other hand, I may comfort him by quoting some statistics to show him what the Canadian government spends on these different kinds of pensions.
Were I to tell the hon. member that the government is in the process of revising all the social welfare legislation, he would reply: This is nothing new, the minister has said that before. He was shocked when the minister said no last May 29. And if the minister had said something else, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have objected in some other way.
Tonight, he choses to object in this way because the minister has simply told him no. If the minister had answered: We are in the process of considering the legislation as a

whole, he would have said: It is too little, too late, or something like that. One way or the other, I understand his position as a member of the opposition party, and I hope he will understand mine as a government member.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may well admit-


David Lewis: He could answer yes.


Gérard Loiselle: No, he cannot say "yes" when it is not "yes".


David Lewis: The minister could answer "yes".


Gérard Loiselle: Yes, and what argument would the member then bring up?
Mr. Speaker, the member will surely remember that it was the Liberal party that decided to lower from 70 to 65 the age of eligibility for the old age pension.
And so, next year, from the 1st of January, that is in five months, every Canadian citizen of 65 or more will be eligible to the old age pension; that will cost the government an additional $600 million a year.
The old age security pension now costs, according to the budget for 1969-70, $1,500 million. In 1970-71, it will cost $1,620 million.
With regard to the guaranteed income supplement, according to the budget for 1969-70, it will cost the federal government $269 million more, and in 1970-71, $286 million.
However, the 2 per cent increase, for 196970, which is taken into account in the figures quoted a while ago-
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.



AGRICULTURE-QUEBEC-NET INCOME OF INDUSTRIAL MILK PRODUCERS

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) the general displeasure of the manufactured milk producers whose income is decreasing as a result of the government dairy policy for the year 1969-70.
There is a tendency at times to blame the farmers for many things. Still, in 1966, the government itself was concerned about the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion decrease in dairy production. Indeed, the then Minister of Agriculture stated, on March 23, 1966, and I quote:
Unless the producer's confidence in his ability to make a decent living from dairy farming is restored, we face the prospect of shortages.
And so, a policy was adopted to encourage the farmers to increase their production, to enlarge their farms with a view to making their operations more profitable, and to provide the dairy production that is necessary for Canadian consumption.
The same day the former Minister of Agriculture said that the main cause which induced the government to act was the great number of dairy producers who were abandoning this industry in order to raise pigs and cattle. He said also that he was concerned with the fact that a great number of dairy producers had given up agriculture so that Canada was facing the possibility of a great shortage of dairy products necessary for national consumption.
He also said that we needed productive and adequate lands and that measures had been taken to this end through the Farm Credit Corporation and through ARDA. The present minister said this: I do not see how we will help the farmers by giving them more credit, by helping them to get into debt, unless we get more involved in marketing and particularly by giving more protection to our producers.
Now, on March 31, 1969, the Minister of Agriculture announced a new dairy policy. According to this policy there was a reduction of the quota price. I am not prepared to blame the whole policy but I am opposed to the established price and to the export tax.
Let us remember that in 1967 a march on Ottawa was organized by the farmers. At that time the Minister of Agriculture came to meet them in front of the parliament buildings. I was among them and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) told us that we were right to make claims, that we should have organized our march on Ottawa ten years before and that we had been very patient.
Therefore, once again we had hoped that the government would establish a long term dairy policy, that prices would get stabilized and that with an effort, we would finally succeed in solving the problem.
In 1968, which was an election year, the government which was then a minority government decided to raise the subsidy to $1.31.

10946	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion That served our purpose. We were happy about it. The farmers too were happy. The year 1968 was a rather good year as tar as agriculture was concerned, and especially the dairy industry.
However, in 1969 we had a majority government. The price of milk was reduced, the dairy policy was disrupted and today the dairy producers' plight is desperate. Those who tried to answer the call or our governments in order to get better organized, to modernize their equipment and improve the quality of their milk so as to receive a sufficient income in order to survive, had to get into debt.
Mr. Speaker, it is only in the agricultural field that salaries went down in 1969 in Canada. The farm worker is the only one to be penalized. In spite of the labour surplus on the labour market, it was recognized that a man who works is entitled to a reasonable salary and salaries as a whole, were not reduced. Thank God, we must be happy about such a policy.
The same thing should be done, I think, in the dairy industry. Those who organized themselves in order to be able to provide the necessary efforts and production in the dairy field should not be penalized.
Now the April Commission, appointed by the Quebec government, presented its report last year. According to that Commission, the farm worker is not hard to please and gets only 83 cents per hour for his work, while keeping a heard of 30 milk cows producing an average of 9,000 lbs. of milk.
In 1949, Mr. Speaker, butter was selling at 63 cents a pound and the hourly wage of skilled workers was averaging $1.25. For each of his working hours, a man could get two pounds of butter.
Now in 1969, the price of butter is 71 cents a pound and the average hourly wage in Canada as a whole, is $2.93. For every working hour, the worker can get four pounds of butter.
Mr. Speaker, a number of farmers will be severely penalized this year and will have to sell part of their production at $3.13 per cwt., after having paid the export tax. I am using the word "tax" because the former Minister of Agriculture had stated, in answer to a question, which was asked on March 23, 1966, and I quote:
The levy on exports is not in the form of government payments; it is a levy from the producers.

DEBATES	July 7, 1969
That is the reason why I am using the word "tax", because of the expression used by the minister himself.
The present minister is very well aware of the situation, as he stated in the house that the essential problem in agriculture was that of the very low prices and that certain steps had to be taken to bring them up.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question, as reported in Hansard on June 23, asks the minister's opinion as to whether or not the lower price obtained by the farmer for his manufactured milk, taking account of the export tax, would contribute to an increase in income in 1969 as compared with 1968.
It would be possible to quote a lot of statistics to show that in 1968 there was an increase in gross receipts, farm cash receipts in Quebec, compared with 1967, and so on. I certainly do not wish to try to make that case here tonight, because it is not my intention to assert that the farmer is getting enough, or too much, for the sale of his products. The question in connection with the change in the hold back-what the hon. member refers to as the export tax-from the subsidy, is far simpler than that.
From the time this subsidy program was introduced, farmers accepted the fact that there would be a hold back on the subsidy in any year sufficient to pay for the losses or shortfall with respect to the support program, taking into account what was obtained on the international market for those milk products, particularly cheese and skim milk powder which it was necessary to sell some on the international market.
The hon. member knows this very well. He knows it very well because I have explained to him in the agriculture committee and in many other places that the change we made this year in increasing the holdback was necessary because there was production over and above the quota which was supported at 20 cents a pound and 65 cents for butterfat. With respect to any of these products which have to be sold on the international market, losses are incurred by the Canadian Dairy Commission which must be paid for out of the holdback. The change was made in anticipation of the probable cost for the current dairy year, 1969-70. In addition, we increased substantially-in fact, we doubled-the holdback on the amount of production which was over the quota. It is a well known fact that
July 7. 1969	COMMONS
unless we are able to keep this production within our total domestic requirements, we will be losing more and more money on the international market simply because prices in that market are very depressed at the present time. That is all that has been done, and it is in complete compliance with the policy announced by the government when it entered into the dairy support program in the first instance.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



HEALTH AND WELFARE-CALL FOR SERVICES OF MEDICAL DOCTORS

Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, on June 26 I asked the minister a question concerning the very unfavourable situation regarding medical care in Canada. In an address to the International Association of Nurses in Montreal he had estimated that out of every 1,000 people who need medical attention, only 275 see a doctor, that only 10 out of the 275 went to hospital. The minister went on to add that not all of the remaining 990 people needed hospital care.
I would like to ask the minister if he could state or estimate what number, over and above the ten, were left without hospital care because of the shortage of hospital beds. I would have to remind the minister that it was probably unwise to take away the grant of $2,000 per bed for new hospital construction, and to cut the health resources fund, which would mean cutting some beds out of the proposed university teaching complexes.
Getting back to the 72 per cent of the people who do not see a doctor for one reason or another, is not the crux of the argument that people who need medical care are not getting it? This is because there are not enough general practitioners to go around. It is estimated by experienced physicians in this field that the work load is just about 25 per cent too great. We have today about one general practitioner for every 2,000 people. For the work to be done reasonably well, we need at least one general practitioner for every 1,500 people.
This is the point I have made to the minister over and over again. I have asked that medical schools be operated during the summer. This could step up the graduation of doctors by 25 per cent and help overcome the shortage of doctors. The answer was always a promise to confer with the provinces and the universities. To date, this is as far as the matter has gone.
Proceedings on Adjournment. Motion
The minister states that something must be done. Let us do it. I congratulated him on his wisdom and celerity in handling the cigarette smoking issue. Let us enable the general practitioners to do the diagnosing and treating. Unless this is done there is no point sending out public health nurses to find those who need treatment, because there will be no beds, and no doctors to provide the treatment.
If the government want to help ease the work load of the doctors a little, let them cut out the paper work that is inundating their desks and menacing their hospital work, taking time that is better spent with the patient. If this bureaucracy keeps increasing, the doctor will become a glorified referral secretary; he simply will not have the time to see his patient and diagnose his illness.
In many cases general practitioners are so harassed by this work load that their image and their communications have suffered. They are forced to admit patients to hospital without a proper clinical workup; they then write orders for a vast number of investigations in the hope that one of them will help in the diagnosis. This is very unfair to the doctors of this country as well as very costly to the government. Medical costs are increasing, I am told, at the rate of about $1 per person per month in Ontario.
We must not forget that the general practitioner is the only one who can give comprehensive care. He treats the baby, the child, the mother, the whole family, and in 95 illnesses out of 100 he is equipped to do so. It therefore follows that no medicare plan can work without a sufficient supply of general practitioners. The federal government has made medicare compulsory. It is up to the government to co-operate in supplying the doctors required in order to make the plan work successfully.
In conclusion, I look forward to hearing what are the minister's plans. It is his responsibility to make sure that the Canadian people receive adequate medical treatment.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member on behalf of the minister. May I ask for your indulgence in case I am unable to complete my reply in three minutes. The federal government is making every possible effort to increase medical care to the people of Canada. This is why we adopted the national medicare program-to
10948	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion see that there was universal accessibility to physician care for everyone. In addition, the federal government in combination with the provinces will be promoting a consolidation of health care facilities on the municipal, regional and provincial levels to see that they are employed to their greatest potentials.
The two levels of government are also hopeful of seeing reforms in medical education as well as inter-mural and extra-mural reforms through all the various health professions in the crucial matters of destruction of services, types of personnel most suited to the health problems involved and patterns of medical practice. As one example, we hope and trust there will be a widespread growth of such commodities as interdisciplinary family-care practice teams and community-level health centres.
DEBATES	July 7, 1969
To aid in the search for the best possible answers the federal-provincial conference of health ministers last year commissioned a set of task forces to look into the question of health services.
Four of these are looking specifically at the fields of beds and facilities, utilization, operational efficiency, and salaries and wages. Others are looking at the prices and the delivery of medical care and also at the cost of public health services.
The task forces will provide us with a set of new, unique and dynamic recommendations which will go a long way in improving health care facilities for all Canadians. On the basis of these recommendations the federal-provincial conference of health ministers will be moving in for action this coming autumn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, July 8, 1969