1969-05-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Caccia.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the consumer price index rose by 1.9 per cent in the first four months of this year, is the government still working on assumptions made at the time of the budget that the inflationary factor during this fiscal year would be 3.5 per cent? Is the government still basing its plans on that forecast of inflationary factors, or has it revised its plans?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I really could not answer as to the 3.5 per cent. I know we have not changed our general assumptions. In any event, this is the kind of question the Minister of Finance will be discussing in his forthcoming budget speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure this matter is of interest to parliament and the country. Is the view of the government still, as expressed earlier in the year, that inflationary pressures in Canada have begun to ease, or has the government revised its attitude as to the urgency of inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, one of the
things we have thought about most is the necessity of curbing inflation. I commented on this question last week. Those comments did
not imply that we are not still concerned about inflation and that we are not bringing to bear policies and measures intended to curb it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it still the view of the government that inflationary pressures this year, as compared with those of last year, have begun to ease?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker when we said they had eased, I suppose they had eased. Of course whether they have eased is a matter of fact. It is our impression that the pressures have eased, and must continue to ease. Whether those pressures are less now than they were then is something I do not wish to speculate about.



THE BUDGET


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister always chooses his words very carefully and since he said a moment ago that the Minister of Finance would be making a budget speech, does that mean we are to have another budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we said that time would be set aside in June for the budget debate. That means there will be a budget debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Will there be a budget?



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since he is not in the house may I direct it to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to recover by any means the $80 million lost in customs duties to the automobile industry as a result of a recent order-in-council?

May 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.
[English}


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was about to rise to answer my previous question. Perhaps he could be recognized.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed about to rise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice the hon. member for Wellington wishes to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the minister could answer both questions at the same time.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will he assure the house that his department will collect all taxes due and owing under the United States-Canada Auto Pact in the normal way, and remit taxes in accordance with the terms of the pact.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has already been answered on the order paper.


John Edward Broadbent: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Does he intend to take steps in the near future to compel the auto industry within a reasonable period of time to effect price parity in the automotive industry of Canada vis-a-vis that industry in the United States.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is not part of the automobile pact. It is certainly, however, the intention of the government and of the industry to get parity of prices as rapidly as possible. Improvements have been made toward that objective.
If Your Honour will allow me to answer the general question, which pertains to the Departments of Finance, National Revenue and myself as responsible for the automobile pact, I will say that the automobile industry has done a very good job of implementing the pact and getting all the possibilities out of it. I think everyone recognizes this. I see some hon. members on the other side nodding in approval of that. The industry has done so-
[Mr. Broadbent.!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems the minister is now making a very general statement. I would not think that would be in order at this time.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consult with his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as to whether the pricing policies of the automobile industry warrant an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the administration of the auto pact is difficult, and in doing it one must bear in mind the spirit or intention as well as the letter of the agreement. I think in all these matters the spirit is more important than the letter. In implementing we have been looking at the general results, at the growth in production, in productivity, in exports, in employment, in taxes collected, investments made. This is why we have been quite willing to accommodate the industry when some technicalities arose. This is what we have done in the remission of the $80 million potential tariff which the government of Canada could have collected under the agreement.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister will realize the law is also important. Does the minister agree with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, when he said those who had slipped by a slight amount were not now going to be penalized and forced to pay the $80 million?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the minister agree that the automotive industry on the Canadian side of the border, according to most efficiency experts, is now just as efficient as the industry south of the border?


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


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister spoke of all the facets he was considering, he forgot about the Canadian prospective buyers having to pay through the nose. What has been done for the Canadian buyer of cars-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: When the minister was looking at all the advantages of
May 16, 1969

the trade pact did he also look into the question of the prices charged by the automobile manufacturers to Canadian purchasers of automobiles? Is he really satisfied that his so-called narrowing of the gap has met with the spirit of the pact which aimed at parity of prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When asking the second supplementary, the hon. member was asking for an expression of opinion. I doubt whether that would be in order. The minister may wish to answer the first question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was so interested in the second question, I lost track of the first one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the hon. member reflects on the supplementary perhaps we might give an opportunity to other members to raise other subjects which I am sure are important.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When answering the question the minister spoke a great deal about the spirit of the pact being more important than the letter, and indicated a number of ways in which he thought the pact had worked out advantageously. With great respect it seems to me it is not out of order to ask him, in the words he used, whether the soaking of the Canadian purchaser is within the spirit of the pact.


Mr. Speaker:: What I am suggesting to the hon. member at the moment is that we have had a sufficient number of supplementaries and I think we might go on to another subject.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF SURPLUS

Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Does the minister foresee any new possibilities of selling the surplus of wheat that we have at the moment in western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADHERENCE BY AUSTRALIA TO INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of recent reports that the Australian government is not willing to divulge the price at which recent sales of wheat were made to China, can the minister assure the house that this information is available to the signatories of the International Grains Arrangement within the International Grains Council, and can he inform the house whether any real progress is being made toward stabilizing prices under the International Grains Arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I could not give an absolute answer to this but I understand that the lines of communication between exporters, and in particular between Canada and Australia, are extremely good.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As a supplementary question could the minister give the house an indication of whether or not it is the government's intention to establish a firm support price for farmers at the minimum levels of the International Grains Arrangement? Is this under consideration? Our farm people would very much like to know.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already said that all these suggestions made on all sides of the house, and by different associations representative of farmers, are being studied by the government, and any new policy will be announced in due course.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister made any real attempt to determine whether or not Australia intends to recognize the International Grains Arrangement for the next crop year or for any date in the future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because I spoke with the
minister of trade for Australia I know that Australia has the same difficulty we have in respect of marketing wheat. I know the Australian government has decided to take responsibility for marketing only 357 million bushels out of a possible 500 million bushels and more. The farmers of Australia apparently will have to adapt to the circumstances. I was given assurances that Australia was and will be living up to the I.G.A.

May 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry MR. SPEAKER LAMOUREUX



FELICITATIONS UPON CONFERRING OF HONORARY DEGREE BY DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I know I am clearly out of order, but I also know you have to leave the chamber, and so may I take this opportunity personally, and I am sure on behalf of the house to express felicitations to you as you depart to accept an honorary degree, which you certainly justly deserve, from a great university in an important part of the country. May we all extend our very best wishes and congratulations to you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport are not in their places today, and since this concerns western Canada probably more than any other part of the country, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he has anything to report about the negotiations in reference to the Air Canada strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I know the negotiations have been going on for part of the night and that the Minister of Labour has been attending them. I had a report this morning that things were looking up and that we might be optimistic, but I do not know how long it will take.



ESTATE TAX ACT


Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will he give to this house the list or summary of the interpretations given by his officials with regard to the Estate Tax Act and the gift tax that was passed recently by this house, in accordance with an undertaking which the minister gave before a committee of the other place?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the committee hearings in the other place will be published, and of course they will be available to all members of this house. I believe members of the committee in the other place indicated that they

were going to have a large number of extra copies published so that they would be available to the public generally.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that he himself would give a summary of the interpretations of his officials that have been made with regard to the act. This is what I am after; not what was said in the other place.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to supply this in due course.



WHEAT-GRADES IN POSITION FOR SHIPMENT

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister told us he would be making a report on the shipments of grain for export. Is he prepared to do that today?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have figures with regard to the Lakehead and the movements from there. I cannot say whether this is for export or upstream-I don't know what the word is, but there must be a word, possibly storage. The movement-


An hon. Member:: Do you know what you are talking about?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Much more than you know.


Mr. Hees:: So there; so there!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The movement up to May 7 this year is 30.3 million bushels as opposed to 31.7 million bushels last year. So, it is about the same. With regard to Churchill, the elevator of Churchill is full to its working capacity of 4.7 million bushels. The rail movement of grain to Churchill will commence about July, just before the opening of the Churchill shipping season which extends from the last week of July to mid October.


George Robson Muir: Since the minister is so full of spirit today I wonder whether he could instil some of it into our grain export.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with reference to the revolving loan fund which
May 16, 1969

has been set up to assist our Indian people in the field of agricultural land development. Can the minister advise the house whether a further allocation of funds is expected and when he expects these further funds will be available to take care of the loans which have not yet been approved?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this problem which is corollary to the loans program operated under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and I know that officials of my department were in Manitoba yesterday or the day before, to speed up approval of pending applications.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Following the Prime Minister's statement, yesterday, concerning the latest proposals made by the federal government with regard to Forillon park, could the minister tell the house whether the Quebec government has finally agreed to the principle and the main conditions of the development of that park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had telephone conversations with the Quebec premier and his Minister of Tourism yesterday, and we agreed in principle. The Minister of Tourism is coming to Ottawa next Tuesday to finalize the agreement.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding Forillon park.
I understand the minister must go to Val-d'Or today for the inauguration of the airport. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am wishing the minister a nice trip in that beautiful area of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any idea when the federal-provincial agreement on Forillon park will be reached, so that we can immediately start developing this park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think we will be able to reach a definite agreement next Tuesday.
Inquiries of the Ministry

SECOND NATIONAL PARK IN SASKATCHEWAN Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question in respect of parks. On April 22, 1965 the federal government announced a second national park for the province of Saskatchewan. Can the minister indicate what progress is being made in this regard?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still under way and I hope that we will soon be able to make a regulation in the best interest of the citizens of Saskatchewan and of all Canadians.



JASPER-INQUIRY AS TO EASING OF RESTRICTIONS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, during the minister's recent visit to Jasper National Park did he meet with the citizens of Jasper and was he able to give them some assurance in respect of an easing of the heavy hand of government and bureaucracy in that park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I met-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about that question. It seems to me to be argumentative.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, was the minister able to meet-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Possibly the hon. member would like to rephrase his question. I have ruled it out of order, so I do not think there can be a supplementary question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall rephrase the supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister meet with the residents of Jasper National Park and was he able to come to any agreement in resolving their current problems?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I met at least 600 citizens from Jasper as well as the members of the Chamber of Commerce. We dis-

May 18, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry cussed all the problems of interest to the people of Jasper park and even if we have not solved them all I think we have made good contacts which will lead to better understanding in the future.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate that as a result of these conservations he was able to obtain assurance that there would be no interruption of services to the booming tourist industry in that part of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I heard the representations from Jasper businessmen and we discussed problems together. If some businessmen want to close down their establishments this summer, I cannot prevent them from doing so. However, it must always be kept in mind that national parks exist first of all in the interests of all Canadians and not only in the interests of businessmen who make profits in that area.



ORANGE JUICE-DUMPING PRACTICES IN TORONTO AND MONTREAL MARKETS

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance.
Is he aware that some American dealers are dumping their dirt cheap soft drinks on the Montreal and Toronto markets?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board based on a statement contained in his speech in Montreal on May 8 to the first annual conference of the Canadian Pension Conference-and I thank him for sending me a copy of his speech. In view of his statement that the report of a special committee referred to by the Prime Minister, which dealt with the question of increasing the pensions of retired public servants, has been received, can the minister say whether a copy of this report will be tabled?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of ihe Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a report which was made to me. I do know that it was prepared for internal use only and I cannot give a definitive answer without consultation. I suspect it will not be tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell me whether this question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants is now under serious consideration, active consideration or hopeful consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is under all three.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting government house leader in reference to the Stanford report on the Northumberland causeway which the President of the Privy Council said would be tabled here, subject to the agreement of provincial governments. Since the Premier of Prince Edward Island some time ago declared publicly that Prince Edward Island was anxious and New Brunswick was agreeable, will the minister ascertain what is now holding up the release of this important document?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that thousands of university students across the country are unable to find summer employment, is it the intention of the minister to announce any government plans in the near future to provide additional employment for university students?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the question has been asked before. If there is in it a degree of urgency that is not apparent to the Chair, the minister may want to reply; otherwise I suggest that the question has been asked before.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister-
May 16. 1969


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may wish to rephrase his question, but he cannot ask a question supplementary to one that has been ruled out of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when he will be in a position to make a statement on motions regarding this question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I
appeared this week before the standing committee, on my estimates. I made a long statement on all matters respecting the department, including student employment. I will be happy to send the hon. member a copy of that statement.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that the summer is here and the minister has had an opportunity to assess his program for student employment in the summertime, is he satisfied with the results of the program and does he intend to carry on the same program next year?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



EDUCATION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, concerning the surplus of school teachers this year, particularly in the province of Ontario. Is the minister's department setting up any special program for the employment of these teachers in the federal service or any interprovincial field to take care of the surplus of public and high school teachers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the actual facts that my hon. friend mentions. I do know that last year Canada brought into the country about 8,000 people in the teaching profession from various countries. We do not believe that Canada itself will be able until 1972 to supply the demand for university teachers in this country. With regard to secondary school teachers, this is a question I would have to look into further.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I know I am not permitted to give information, but perhaps
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister would look into the fact that very recently, within the last two weeks, there has been an obvious surplus in Ontario of several thousand teachers.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance a question for the purpose of clarification. The minister will be making a budget speech in June. Will he at that time reveal the government's attitude toward the strong inflationary trends which exist at the moment, and is it the intention of the government to introduce a budget at that time?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether it is the intention to bring in legislative measures during the course of his budget speech in order to meet these inflationary trends?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman will have to wait and see.


John George Diefenbaker: You don't know yourself.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has been intimated that the right hon. gentleman is holding a series of private meetings with provincial government and agricultural leaders. Will there be no announcement in the house regarding the government's solutions to the economic problems in western and eastern agriculture until these meetings have been concluded and an assessment made of the information obtained?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make any announcement. Any such announcements are made by the Minister of Agriculture.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the right hon. gentleman whether we can expect no announcement in the house until these meetings have been concluded.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We make announcements all the time on various subjects, Mr. Speaker.

May 16, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE
POLICY TO COUNTERACT U.S. TAKE-OVERS Mr. John Burion (Regina East): Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing incidence of take-over of Canadian firms by American concerns, will the minister undertake to make an early statement indicating whether the government has a policy to counteract this trend?


Edgar John Benson: will consider the suggestion of my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Finance indicate when it is his intention to bring before the house the act establishing the Canada Development Corporation?


Edgar John Benson: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Due to the widespread uncertainty of taxpayers, can the minister say whether the personal expenditures for drugs, appliances and medical expenses not covered by medicare payments will continue to be treated as an income tax exemption as in the past?


Edgar John Benson: would like to consider this matter, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter that should be dealt with and will probably be dealt with in my budget speech.



POSSIBLE WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION EXTENDED TO FOREIGN TEACHERS

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have supplementary question arising out of the questions directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that there are now apparently sufficient teachers being trained in Canada to meet Canadian needs, is the minister examining and perhaps considering abandoning the two year tax holiday from income tax which under the present IMr. Trudeau.]
regulations foreign teachers enjoy when they come to Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is covered in our tax agreements. I would think that when we have a white paper on adjustments to income tax, corporate and personal, in Canada the matter of the tax agreements will also have to be considered.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister, when he is undertaking this review of the income tax legislation, consider giving the same kind of tax break for the first two years to teachers trained in Canada?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I ask whether he has met with representatives of the Canadian Teachers Federation with regard to their submissions concerning the agreements with teachers overseas under his department. Also, was the minister able to give them an assurance of future consultation?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met this morning with representatives of the Canadian Teachers Federation. The meeting was short, cordial and productive. It ended with the sharing of a friendly cup of coffee between my officials and the representatives.


David Lewis: Was that Irish coffee?


Mr. Whelan:: Naturally.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Before they partook of this cup of coffee I did assure them that instructions had already been given to the officials to consult with the Teachers Federation before any changes were made in the contracts.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister, who I hoped would be in the house today to reply to this question on a matter which affects the province from which we both come. I refer to a decision
May 18, 1969

taken recently in the province of Newfoundland by the machinists unions there not to service Nordair aircraft flying a supplementary service to replace the Air Canada service. What steps is the government taking to ensure that Nordair aircraft are properly serviced, thereby ensuring the safety of the travelling public?
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply
and Services): Mr. Speaker, as this matter is in the area of labour, I believe the question should properly be addressed to the Minister of Labour.


James Aloysius McGrath: I would redirect my question to the Acting Minister of Labour, who is also supposed to be here today but is not; therefore I direct it to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be in his place on Tuesday. He is aware of this and is looking into the situation.



PHASING OUT OF FEED GRAIN SUBSIDIES

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps if neither the parliamentary secretary nor the minister replying for the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to do it now, this question can be taken as notice.
In view of the concern expressed by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the maritime co-operatives arising from the recommendation of the task force on agriculture that feed grain subsidies be progressively phased out, will the minister give an assurance that this will not be done before the affected industries have an opportunity to make adequate representations? Furthermore, will the task force on agriculture institute further studies on the effects of this proposal on the livestock and poultry industries in British Columbia and the maritimes, as to whether they can remain economically viable if this subsidy were withdrawn-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make sure that
Official Languages
certain understandings that we have had are firm, and I believe they are. I think it will be found that there is agreement to bring into play at four o'clock today Standing Order 40 and take up a number of the questions that are set down for the adjournment debate. This would take the place of using the hour between four and five o'clock for private members bills. I think that this is agreed to and perhaps the acting house leader might ask for it to be made a house order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, and if we can make it a house order under Standing Order 40 it can become effective at 4 p.m. today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the bill of which we are beginning second reading today is to give equality, by legislation, to the two official languages of our country, insofar as the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already said that this measure is extremely important in the view of the government because it touches the very foundation of Canadian unity.
Indeed, this bill is a gesture of faith in the future of Canada, a hope and a pledge for most Canadians, who wish to fix their sights and determine their common objectives well beyond the differences that are threatening to divide us today.
It does not often happen that the citizens of a country find themselves able to open up new horizons, to exert a decisive influence on the historical development of the community

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
which they constitute. It seems to me that this bill is now providing us with just such a rare occasion. We are today together catching a glimpse of the possibility of taking an important step, of leaving the past behind us. With a minimum of common sense, of openmindedness, of realism and of good will, we can rejuvenate the face of Canada, enrich our society, make it more alive, more radiant and more just,, in other words a better place in which to live for all who belong to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: This is an undertaking
worthy of us all. We often hear much about petty politics; here is a measure reflecting high ideals and important consequences.
No doubt there is a risk of encountering many petty objections. For example, there are people who will object with a narrow, conformist attitude, contending-perhaps sincerely-that unity demands and presupposes uniformity. For such people it is inconceivable that a country where two languages are spoken could ever achieve a satisfactory degree of cohesion and unity. They thus conclude, being consistent with themselves, that French speaking Canadians, at least those who live outside the province of Quebec, must accept, must even seek, rapid and final assimilation. To hear such people talk one would think that unity can be achieved only if all the citizens are cast in one single mould. This is the price, such people think, that Canada must pay to become a coherent and harmonious country.

At the other extreme, we find another attitude-contrary, but equally intolerant-which tends to prevail. For this second group of extremists, Canada seems to be made up of two communities so different from each other and so completely devoid of common interest that no central government could represent its citizens as a whole. The adherents of this position consider the government in Ottawa to be an English-speaking government. Such people refuse to accord the Ottawa government any call to speak French-a call they also refuse to any provincial government with the exception of the government of Quebec.
They thus resemble the extremists of the other group, in that they condemn to oblivion all the French-speaking communities in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and the other provinces where English is the majority language and where French-speaking citizens

live. Of course, without always knowing it, they condemn the English-speaking minority in Quebec province to the same fate.

Is it acceptable that the cultural future of linguistic groups that form 10 or almost 10 per cent of the Canadian population should be decided so lightly and in such peremptory fashion?
It goes without saying that the government accepts neither one nor the other of these extreme positions, either one of which would sooner or later entail the falling apart of our country. Such extreme views are in fact only two facets of one and the same thing-separatism.
People holding such views are indifferent to the fundamental fact that we are all of the same clay, of the same country, however large it may be, that we all belong to the same Canadian society, and that the greater number of us by far have every intention of remaining so.
The government of Canada is as truly and fully the spokesman for all Canadians at the federal level as the provincial governments are for their citizens at the provincial level. Any misunderstanding on this point can only create anarchy, since it touches the very foundation of federalism.
On the one hand, all the provinces must feel free to develop without impediments their special characteristics within their own sphere of competence. Yet it remains true that the government of Canada, in its own domain, must remain free to act for the country as a whole. This domain includes, among other realities, the linguistic duality that has always characterized the whole of Canada. Indeed, our common life is expressed through two official languages and has always been based on two distinct cultures. These are resources that we have no right to imperil or to leave in jeopardy. This dual linguistic heritage and the many cultural contributions of millions of Canadians whose ancestors were neither English nor French form an integral part of the reality, of the grandeur of Canada. A foremost duty of the Canadian government is to ensure that these resources are not destroyed through negligence, intolerance or narrow-mindedness, still less through fanaticism of any description.
What we wish to achieve in these areas within our competence is the equality of our two official languages. Once this equality has been recognized and accepted, many difficulties will be solved. But above all we shall
May 16. 1969

come to realize that we are closer to each other than we had ever thought before, and that the inheritance of two great civilizations, far from weakening us, strengthen us as a people and enriches us.

May I hasten to emphasize that in the bill there is no question whatsoever of forcing English-speaking persons to learn French, or of imposing the use of English on Frenchspeaking persons. Still less do we wish to create cultural hybrids, or adepts in "fran-glais". Certainly it would be desirable for an increasing number of citizens to have both French and English at their command. But the Official Language Bill has nothing to do with all this.
Indeed, it is important to define very clearly what bilingualism is and what it is not. The many prejudices entertained on this subject are disconcerting. The purpose of the present bill is not to regulate the language which citizens must speak, but to ensure that they may address the federal government agencies in the official language of their choice. The bill concerns not individual bilingualism, but institutional bilingualism; that is, the use of the two languages by government services in their dealings with the public.
We intend to establish here the right of all Canadians, whether they live in Saint-Boni-face, Sudbury, Trois-Rivieres or Moncton, to communicate with the federal government in their own language.
A second erroneous interpretation of this bill is that one of the unavowed purposes is to push French-speaking Canadians towards slow assimilation, encouraging them to learn English. Whatever its origin, this interpretation borders on bad faith, because quite to the contrary, the practical result of the act will be to make available to French-speaking minorities throughout the country services in French which hitherto all too often have been lacking, and, conversely, to make the same services available in English to isolated English-speaking minorities.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)

There is a third erroneous interpretation. It has been claimed that the bill and the measures it involves would be prejudicial to the language and culture of other ethnic groups established in Canada. To understand the falseness of this argument we have only to refer to the text of the bill or to the general
Official Languages
policy of the government. Furthermore, clause 38 provides that nothing in the bill may affect "the acquired rights and privileges" of the other languages.
These are not empty words. Before the courts, for example, those who do not understand or speak French or English may call for the services of an interpreter. The bill in no way attempts to limit or lessen the rights and privileges of citizens. On the contrary, its purpose is to extend and strengthen them.
The same is true of the bilingualism policy of the government. I know that in certain areas of the country some people have difficulty in understanding it and others in accepting it. But I also know, having discussed it throughout the country, that the majority of citizens approach the question with a great deal of open-mindedness and good will. The task of applying this legislation will be greatly simplified if we all keep our cool, if we refuse to listen to alarmists, if in the final analysis we are prepared as reasonable men and women to put forth a concerted effort against fanaticism, prejudice, fear and bitterness.

There is one point, however, on which there must be no question of compromise. The government feels that we belong to a privileged society, precisely because we have refused assimilation and conformity and on the contrary, recognize the advantages of linguistic duality and cultural diversity. On this matter, any change of attitude is out of the question.
Our undertaking is original; it is no doubt difficult to achieve, but its meaning is simple and clear. We have simply to recognize the facts. In this country there are two great linguistic communities: English and French. And if we are concerned with this problem from a Canadian point of view rather than from a provincial or regional point of view, we cannot deny this fact. Nor can we deny that, in the past, one of these two groups has enjoyed privileges refused to the other. Is it not just to correct this imbalance? Is it not urgent to take the necessary measures to preserve Canadian unity by making sure that from the language point of view there is only one class of Canadians?
It is true that our Constitution already provides for the use of both languages. At present, however, section 133 of the British North America Act applies only to the National Assembly and courts of Quebec and to the federal parliament and courts. Though in no

May 16. 1969
Official Languages
way amending the Constitution, the bill which is being submitted to you does concern language usage in connection with the federal government and parliament and the institutions thereof. Seen in this light, the present bill represents the culmination of an extensive evolution.
During the debate on the resolution which took place in the house, the Prime Minister referred to a series of important measures which the government had adopted in order to encourage bilingualism in the public service. At the time of the Constitutional Conference held a year ago in February, the federal government announced its intention of proposing legislation which would be based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to apply to all areas of federal jurisdiction. Where language rights are concerned, this Constitutional Conference was unanimous in recognizing the principle by which French Canadians living outside Quebec would enjoy the same privileges as English-speaking Canadians in Quebec.
Most provinces have already realized the importance of these language rights. A year go Quebec was the only province which officially recognized the right to use both French and English in the Legislative Assembly; today half the provinces accept the same principle. This in itself is a promising start.

Progress has been made in the field of education as well. For the first time all ten provinces recognize in theory the use of the minority official language as a language of instruction in the schools and are applying this principle in varying degrees. These facts represent important steps toward linguistic equality, and in consequence toward Canadian unity.
The bill before the house is still another step in the same direction. Clause 2 establishes the following basic principle:
The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the parliament and government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the parliament and government of Canada.
Consequently all official documents issued by the parliament or government of Canada, by a federal court or by any government body whatsoever, must be published in both official languages.
The bill, however, does not stop there. It provides for the establishment of federal

bilingual districts in all regions inhabited by both French and English speaking citizens, as long as 10 per cent or more of the population, with certain exceptions, use the minority official language as their mother tongue. The geographical limits of these bilingual districts will be set by proclamation after the bilingual districts advisory board has submitted a report on the subject to the cabinet. The establishment of these bilingual districts in no way indicates that the government intends to restrict its services outside these districts. On the contrary, clause 13 states that the same services customarily made available to the residents of these areas will be continued. We thus wish to maintain, and in fact improve, government services in both French and English.
[DOT] (12 noon)

It is, however, in the bilingual districts that the system defined by the bill can be applied in its entirety. The establishment of these bilingual districts has given rise to a great deal of controversy since the idea was launched. Some provinces actually oppose the idea openly, whereas others see no point in such a project. I should therefore like to clarify the position of the federal government on this subject. The establishment of bilingual districts was first recommended by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. While studying the Commission's recommendations the Cabinet discovered that such a system would enable it to progress along the path which it had set for itself. We are of course prepared to consider any changes likely to increase efficiency. Bilingual districts constitute simply a means and not an end. If better methods are suggested to us, we shall be only too happy to examine them.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will report Tuesday on the consultations held with the western provinces, Quebec and some Maritime provinces about the amendments proceeding therefrom. I will today restrict my remarks to the subject matter of the bill.
Provision is also made for all departments and bodies of the Canadian government, all federal courts, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies and Crown Corporations to ensure that both official languages are used in all their relations with the public and for all the services which they are called upon to render, both in the National Capital region and at their headquarters. Furthermore, all services offered to travellers, within Canada and
May 16. 1969

abroad, should be made available in both official languages. This means, for example, that Canadian diplomatic, consular and immigration offices, as well as the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, will have to provide services in both languages throughout the world, except where the demand for such services is extremely limited. We shall thus present, both within Canada and abroad, a true reflection of the bilingual country we are in the process of creating.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: Similarly, there are a number of provisions affecting the courts. All federal agencies of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature, and all courts dealing with criminal matters, will have to ensure that persons testifying before them are able to do so in either of the official languages. Every federal court of record will have to provide interpretation services at the request of a party to the proceedings, except in cases where the court is satisfied that the absence of an interpreter will not place the party concerned at a disadvantage, or where the court finds it impossible to obtain such services, after taking all reasonable steps in an attempt to do so.
Finally, the bill deals with the appointment and duties of a Commissioner of official languages for Canada who will be, like the Auditor General, a servant of parliament, and not subject to the authority of the executive. The Commissioner will be responsible for ensuring that the status of both official languages is recognized in practice, and that the spirit of the law and the intention of the legislator are respected in their entirety. The Commissioner will have power of inquiry and of intervention in order to satisfy himself that the spirit of the law is being respected in matters involving the conduct of the affairs of parliament, or the activities of the Canadian government or any other federal agency. He will submit an annual report to parliament, but he will be free to make a special report whenever he thinks fit. In other words, he will be the guardian of the language rights of the citizen in the latter's dealings with parliament or the federal government, or, to borrow a term used by the Royal Commission, he will act as a "linguistic ombudsman".

Those, Mr. Speaker, are the most important provisions of the bill now before the house.
As I have already stressed, the bill represents in itself nothing more than a new point of departure as far as the official languages
Official Languages
are concerned. However, if the provinces adopt, as we hope they will, the legislative and administrative measures advocated by the Royal Commission, a great deal more will have to be done. The commission strongly recommended that the use of either language, and the right to education in either language, be guaranteed by constitutional means. This bill, I repeat, does not amend the constitution, although the federal government has begun a dialogue with the provinces on that subject. Constitutional guarantees affecting language use and education are not a mere formality. On the contrary, they are of vital importance if we are to ensure the inviolability of the language rights of minority groups and if we wish to forge really strong links between French speaking and English speaking Canadians.
The bill does not cover the possible forms of future federal government assistance to the provinces, but we have already put forward a number of proposals in this regard. Nor does the bill deal with the status or the future of the National Capital Region. This matter was the subject of one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism; it is now being studied by a preparatory committee whose work, as yet unfinished, also covers many related subjects.
Such subjects are outside the scope of this bill. Its provisions will nevertheless establish the language rights of the French and English minorities in Canada. Full implementation will take time, and the necessary delay is provided for. Time, however, is not the only requirement; another is money. The government nevertheless believes that statutory recognition of language rights is well worth both the time and the money. The bill will assure the French speaking minorities in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario and elsewhere that their case has been heard and that they have the right to deal with the federal government in their own language in all bilingual districts and in the national capital region, a right that also applies to all Canadians when they travel abroad. The bill offers an identical guarantee to the English speaking minorities in Quebec, a guarantee that has long since been honoured by that province.
The entrenchment of these rights is imperative. They must be recognized by the law of the land. The time is ripe, and we must put an end to all hesitation.

In conclusion, it is important that this bill be accorded its rightful place in the Canadian

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
context. This done, it will be realized that the undertaking has little chance of complete success unless all people of good will can be won over to its aims. What is involved is a long and difficult process which will bring about profound changes in this country. We are called, then, to a common endeavour, far-reaching in scope, in the full knowledge that it will be difficult, that results will be slow to appear,, but that we must see it through if we are to give this country the cohesion it lacks. To fail could be fatal, for the time is past when the individual, within the borders of his province, could agree to live apart from the rest of his fellow countrymen.
I believe that all Canadians are well aware of the seriousness of the choice they must make. I also believe that the great majority of them will choose federalism, with all that it entails. I believe, finally, that Canadians, over and above constitutional or political considerations, recognize that a man loses nothing by granting justice to his neighbour, and that stretching out one's hand to another is one of the few noble gestures this life affords. To do this, we must have the support of every Canadian. We are counting, especially, on the young people, who must rise above prejudices in order to embrace the collective vision of a future of greater justice and brotherhood.

This country belongs to all of us and its future is the future of us all; this undertaking has been postponed too often and we must now set a date for its fulfilment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I support the reference of this bill to the committee and, therefore, the adoption of the motion that has been proposed.
I regret to have to begin my remarks by making a protest in the strongest possible terms. The government has not seen fit to tell hon. members about the amendments it proposes to introduce. I do not wish to inject any heat into the discussion; I have always tried to avoid this. But, Mr. Speaker, one must ask what games hon. gentlemen opposite think they are playing in refusing to tell the house about these amendments. How can anyone expect me, as Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party and other leaders to discuss this bill intelligently when the government withholds essential information?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: That is the new Liberal dialogue.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will leave that topic. This bill is placed before the house to strengthen rather than weaken Canadian unity. It is put forward for the purpose of making Canadians, whether they speak English or French,, feel at home in this country to the extent that this is practical, and making federal government services available in the two languages. This is the principle which was discussed at the resolution stage. It was warmly accepted by all parties, including the New Democrats and Creditistes. Our task now is to judge the bill in the terms of these general purposes.

The purpose of this bill is not to compel English-speaking Canadians to learn French, and vice versa. This bill is aimed at providing French-speaking or English-speaking minorities with all federal government services in the language of their choice, as far as it is practical. If the purpose of this bill were to impose bilingualism, I would oppose it, as I believe virtually every member of this house would.
The principle of making federal services available in both languages, as proposed today, is intended to really Canadianize all English-speaking and French-speaking minority groups, wherever it is practical to do so.

If the purpose of this bill were to impose bilingualism, I would oppose it as I believe virtually every member of this house would. As I understand the purpose, it is to make the services of the federal government more broadly available to the people in the one of the two languages of their choice.
In considering Canada, we must of course consider the country as it exists. It might be easier for some of us if we had only one language. It might also be easier if Canada, long ago, had adopted the melting pot theory. That, however, is not my view. I believe the existence of the two official languages of the two founding peoples of this country has made Canada distinctive and has created a tradition and respect for diversity which also show our appreciation of the nature of the people who have come to Canada from many other lands. Our task is to strengthen their union and our country as it exists. Canada, of course is not a melting pot but a country which respects diversity.
May 16, 1969

Perhaps the most profound concern lies in the administration of the bill. If this bill is not administered fairly and sensibly it can very easily create more disunity than unity. I say that in all sincerity. We could very easily create more new grievances in trying to remove old grievances. We must consider the possibility of imposing hardship upon Canadians who are already in the public service and are not bilingual. I speak with some knowledge when I say it is not the easiest thing in the world to become proficient in the second language, particularly when one is not as young as he once was. I hope my hon. friends in the house who have a facility in the two languages will not minimize the difficulties that many people have in acquiring a second language. I hope they will not overlook the fact that it is so difficult as to be virtually impossible for many Canadians, particularly those who are rather mature.
This bill must be administered in such a way that it will not destroy the careers of the many Canadians now in our federal public service who are not bilingual. I suggest the emphasis ought to be on providing bilingual government services to the extent it is practical rather than upon the public servants providing those services being bilingual. This must be done to the fullest extent possible so that both French and English speaking persons will feel at home in the federal service. The emphasis should be placed to the fullest extent practical upon the bilingual aspect of the service rather than the bilingual aspect of the servant.
What I am suggesting may involve some extra costs, but what we are talking about will involve costs in any event. Confederation has always involved extra cost. I sincerely urge the government to consider my suggestion and provide the people of this country with firm assurances in this respect.
There is concern in the country that the bill may eliminate the possibility of careers in the public service for those growing up in the unilingual parts of Canada, whether these be French or English, where there is little opportunity under present conditions to acquire such a facility. I realize that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have given assurances to those who may enter the public service in the future that facility in the two languages will not be required but a willingness to learn the two languages will. I urge the government to keep in mind that the facility to acquire a second language is not really available because the ability is not
Official Languages
always there. It is virtually impossible for some persons to learn a second language. Hon. members who have a facility in both languages ought not to overlook this fact. I suggest that the concept of the bilingual public servant ought not to be pushed farther than necessary. The emphasis ought to be placed on the bilingual nature of the service rather than the bilingual nature of the servant to the fullest extent possible and also to the extent that is fully consistent with French and English Canadians being able to pursue careers in the public service.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
There are these fears regarding administration and I have to say that they have been enlarged by the unfortunate remark, offhand, I think, by the Prime Minister with respect to elevator operators. And there have been other rather sweeping remarks made by officials associated with the public service which have created fears. If this bill is to create more unity than disunity firm and unequivocal assurances must be given in these respects. I suggest they be written into the act to the fullest extent possible in order to allay these fears.
If we are to create a feeling of greater unity we have to think in terms of enlarging rights and opportunities, and not of restricting rights and opportunities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have to think in terms of expanding the quality of federal services and their general availability in the two languages and not necessarily, and certainly not unduly, restricting the opportunities of unilingual Canadians in the public service.
We must remember too that a substantial proportion of Canadians are of origins other than French or English. We have to remember that the ability of many of these Canadians, at least initially, in the English and French languages is limited. I suggest that to the fullest extent possible it ought to be the policy of the federal government to provide government services in these other languages as well-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and that the provision of such services-


An hon. Member:: There we go.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friend says "there we go". I want to emphasize to him that what

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
I am trying to urge and create is an atmosphere of national unity and not disunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest this is important in order to create a sense of belonging for these many Canadians, a sense of belonging to the country, of participation in its life, as well as providing a service of very real assistance to them.
And I suggest it is also important at this time, when we are considering the extension of government services in the two official languages, French and English, that we encourage and recognize the existence of these many other cultures of native peoples who have come from many other lands, and that we must go to some trouble to indicate to them that this step that is being taken does not in any way allow them to feel that their cultures are not appreciated, are not welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would suggest in all seriousness that it might be possible for the committee to devise a preamble to the bill which would have such an effect.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) also spoke about instruction. I know it is the policy of the governments in many of the provinces to provide courses in other languages where it is considered that the number of people is large enough to justify this procedure. I would like to think that at the time this step which we are discussing today is being taken the federal government will positively encourage the provinces to continue this policy and perhaps assist them in amplifying it. I am not talking now of languages of instruction but rather of instruction in these other languages. It is important in trying to take a necessary step to increase national unity that we do not create new forms of national disunity, and I feel we can do this if we set our minds to it.
Virtually everything in the bill is now within the power of the Governor in Council without legislation. I am so advised by lawyers I consider competent. Therefore it is not a question of the bill providing the government with additional authority. The bill is not, therefore, a sort of Magna Carta. It is rather a declaration of policy by parliament, and a declaration of the means of implementation of this policy. Again, sir, whether it works for good or ill will therefore depend to a very large degree upon the administration of the bill.
One defect in the bill as it is now drafted is that it provides inadequate opportunities for parliament to examine and criticize the manner in which the bill is administered and the practices adopted under it. For example, there is provision for the reports of the commissioner to be tabled in the house, but there is no way to get such a report off the table unless the government takes it off or unless the opposition uses an opposition day for that purpose. The bill even makes provision for the commissioner to make a report to the Speaker where the commissioner considers a matter of sufficient urgency, but here there is no provision for this report to get before the house for discussion. I think the committee should carefully consider increasing and improving the opportunities of the house to examine and discuss the administrative practices that are adopted in connection with the bill.
The bill does not name the responsible minister. Here I am getting on to a subject of some delicacy, Mr. Speaker, but I have emphasized the importance of administration. I have emphasized that the bill will either help or harm national unity depending on how it is administered, and therefore it is essential that the minister in charge of the administration of the act be a man who has the confidence of the Canadian people in terms of fairness and good sense. I am sure it does not matter to the Canadian people whether he is French speaking or English speaking, but it is of vital importance that he be regarded by the Canadian people as an open-minded, fair-minded and sensible Canadian in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No doubt we will be suggesting amendments, but it is difficult to discuss this at the moment. We do not know what amendments the Minister of Justice will be bringing forward, a procedure which I again say seems to be absolutely inexcusable in the discussion of a measure that is designed to bring the house and the country together, but I would certainly urge the committee to examine methods of improving the opportunities of the house to scrutinize and discuss the manner in which the bill is administered. I would hope too that the committee would consider the definition of the bilingual districts to see if it can be improved upon.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I come back, sir, to the evidence that there is widespread concern and misunderstanding-concern regarding the way in which the
[Mr. Stanfield.)
May 16. 1969

bill will be administered, concern regarding the reluctance of the government to be frank and open with what it proposes to do, what it proposes to suggest to the committee, and concern regarding the lack of firm and satisfactory assurances about the way in which the bill will be administered. Many misunderstandings exist about the bill. I believe many Canadians have the idea that the effect of the bill will be to compel them to learn both languages, French and English. Again I shall be getting on ground on which I do not like to tread, but I must ask why the Prime Minister has not gone across the country, particularly to those parts of the country where there is the deepest concern, and explained the bill. I know my hon. friend the Secretary of State has gone across the country but-and this is in no way personal-I think this is a task which should have been accepted by the Prime Minister. I know the Secretary of State is a very stable man but I do not believe his talents lie in the direction of quieting fears or assuaging doubts concerning the purposes of this bill.
I sincerely suggest it is the first duty of the Prime Minister who is sponsoring the bill, which I accept as put forward to further national unity, to make certain that any bill relating to national unity is fully understood throughout the country. I suggest that very little effort has really been made to ensure that the people of the country understand what this bill is about and that very little effort has really been made to remove the misapprehensions concerning what the bill will do. It is very important that the bill not be launched in an atmosphere of apprehension and concern in many parts of the country.
This bill, after all, is perhaps a small part of the total process of strengthening the bonds of union within Canada. There is the major question of constitutional reform on which there has been much discussion but very little progress to date. Progress on constitutional reform can be made more difficult if any unnecessary misapprehensions are created in the course of the progress of this bill. I say it is very urgent in terms of national unity generally and very urgent in terms of the future progress of constitutional discussions that the fears which exist regarding the administration of this bill be removed by the Prime Minister and his associates who are sponsoring the bill. A very determined effort should have been made long since to explain the bill in great detail to the people of this
Official Languages
country in order to remove the misapprehensions which we all know are in fact widespread. It is important to have these assurances and explanations. It is also important, of course, that there be full co-operation and consultation with the provinces. This is essential in any event, of course, if the concept behind the bill is to be really effective and meaningful.
Doubts have been expressed about the constitutionality of the bill. The Minister of Justice reports that his law officers have advised him there really is no question about its constitutionality. He did hold some discussions and is proposing some amendments which may remove some of the constitutional doubts which were raised by the representatives of some of the provinces at the federal-provincial conference. I recognize the position being taken by the Minister of Justice. I do not know, other than from what I have read in the newspapers, which I do not think is a position I or any other member of the house should have to be in today, what amendments he will suggest. Some doubts, however, have been expressed by some persons who have occupied high places in the courts. The committee should examine very carefully and fully the question of constitutionality of the bill and should be prepared to take expert advice in an effort to satisfy members that the bill is either constitutional or as to what amendments are necessary in order to remove any real question about its constitutionality.
We must consider the future of our country, the tensions which exist in our country and the urgency of easing these tensions. The bill will not be welcomed by all Canadians. It is my own belief that we must be prepared to pay some price for Canada, some price for the country that was established 100 years ago and some price for a country which we believe to be a good country, a country in which it is good to live and a country which has a great contribution to make to the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But it is a country which is diverse and complex. There is a constant problem and there must be a constant process of readjustment and reconciliation. The people in all parts of the country have a right to expect adequate consideration of their problems. There is a widespread feeling in many parts of the country that economic problems are being neglected by the government.
Part of the difficulty in the present context is the feeling that the government has been

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
neglecting economic problems and giving priority to questions like the Criminal Code and the language bill. This difficulty would not exist if there were a general feeling throughout the country, for example, in the Atlantic provinces and the west, that the government is paying adequate attention to the problems of the people. When there is a feeling of dissatisfaction and a feeling that there is a lack of consideration in respect of economic problems, this too can create national disunity. It is creating national disunity. The people of the Atlantic provinces, the people of the western provinces and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) have been speaking about the neglect of their parts of the country.
Part of the problem the government has created, part of the reaction against this bill, results from the failure to convince the people in the many parts of the country, not just the Atlantic provinces and the west, that the government is earnest and is giving the necessary degree of priority to their economic problems. I cannot put too much stress upon the importance of the government grappling with these economic problems in an effort to convince the people in the country as a whole that the government is concerned about their economic problems. This conviction of neglect is unfortunately an important part of the context within which we are considering this bill.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I say in closing, sir, that matters affecting our ability to live together as a people, especially French speaking people and other Canadians, are of vital importance. We are all making a special effort and we must all make a special effort to understand each other. I assure you, sir, that in considering this bill we bear in mind that we are talking about something very close to the very fabric of our nation. It is in this sense that we will consider the biU. It is in this sense that I urge the house to send the bill to the committee and urge the committee to consider the matters I have mentioned in order that the bill can become as satisfactory and as effective as possible.
I urge the government in the name of this country to make a serious effort to explain to the people of Canada what this bill means, what it does not mean, and to give the assurances to this country which are necessary for the administration and implementation of this measure. After all, we are trying to create unity, not disunity.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for York South I might take this opportunity to advise the house as to the questions to be dealt with between four and five this afternoon pursuant to the special order made earlier this day. These questions are as follows and in this order: the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)- Post Office Department; the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier)-Agriculture; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nys-trom)-Trade; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-housing, and the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell)- Saint John harbour fishing restrictions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on the Official Languages BiU.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject we are debating I would personally be very grateful if I could make my remarks in one piece rather than in two pieces. I wonder whether there would be a disposition on the part of hon. members to permit me to call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock this sitting stands suspended until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am also forced to begin my remarks this afternoon by protesting as vigorously as I can
May 16, 1969

the failure of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to inform members of the house whether any amendments are to be proposed to the bill, whether, if there are such amendments, they will be major or minor and what parts of the bill they will affect. The fact is that we are debating a bill without knowing the precise nature of it. I am sure the Secretary of State would reply by saying we are debating at this stage only the principle of the bill. I say to him that that is sheer, shabby semantics, because the principle of the bill can easily be affected by changes made to it. There are doubts and fears across Canada about the way in which this bill may be implemented. If amendments are to be proposed which might serve to lessen those fears, the principle of the bill would be very desirably and seriously affected.
It seems to me it is an immense discourtesy on the part of the government to act with such insolence at this stage of the bill. I say to the government that it is worse than that. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the members of the government are as serious and sincere as they profess about the importance of this bill and, if I may say so, as I am about its importance, it was their duty to introduce the bill in such a way as to create a pleasant and co-operative atmosphere instead of immediately arousing resentment. You do not deal with this kind of delicate subject, which requires a great deal of understanding and tact, in a tactless way. This is precisely what we have seen happen today. I can only reach the conclusion that members of the cabinet have not yet agreed about what amendments, if any, there should be; they are still arguing about it.
Since every one of us expected the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to introduce the bill rather than some other minister, I can only conclude that the Minister of Justice has been in some way demoted and someone else has been put in his place. It was the Minister of Justice who travelled across the country meeting the representatives of provincial governments. It was from him that we expected to hear the results of those conversations. Instead, we had a very charming lecture from a long-time friend whom I like and admire, the Secretary of State, who told us as much about the bill as any commentator has written about it in the last six months. Instead of explaining what is involved and telling us what amendments will be proposed, instead of indicating the way in which the act will be administered, instead of telling the Canadian
Official Languages
people what the commissioner will actually be asked to do, instead of dealing with these matters that concern the people of Canada, the Secretary of State gave us a very interesting, pleasant and charming speech that I suggest advanced this debate not one iota.
Please believe me, Mr. Speaker; I say this not for the purpose of political needling but precisely because I am passionately in favour of the principle of bilingualism in Canada. The government, instead of introducing this matter in a way which would win widespread support and sympathy, has immediately fumbled the ball and introduced it in the most outrageous way. I understand that the Prime Minister has engagements elsewhere in the country. He drafted this bill and I would have thought he would be interested enough to make sure he was here on the day it was discussed by parliament so that he would be able to guide his cabinet and the commissioner in future in light of the debate on the bill.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member does not want to leave the impression that the Prime Minister was not here when the bill was introduced this morning. He was right in the chamber. The hon. member knows that full well.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will now make my point very clear because I believe it is of importance. I am, of course, aware that he was here when the bill was introduced. I am aware that he was here while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke. I am not sure whether I saw him here when the Secretary of State spoke.


George Harris Hees: He was here for just part of the speech.


David Lewis: It may be the other way
around. Whatever it is, if this measure is as important as he claims it to be, he is in charge of the program of parliament and if he had to be away today, which obviously he did-I do not begrudge him that or criticize him for it-it was within his power to make sure that the bill was introduced on a day when he could be in the chamber to listen to the discussion. I do not think it helps this delicate matter, this basically important matter, to treat it in this cavalier way, with the Prime Minister not here when the debate takes place, with the minister who introduced the bill not telling us what amendments, if any, are to be proposed, thus defying parliament and the people of Canada. One does not have to be a person with the experience in

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
communications which the Secretary of State possesses to know that today's debate is likely to receive more attention from the people of Canada than some other debates and that if this debate had started properly, if this parliament and the people knew exactly what this bill was about, the purpose and the objectives of bilingualism in Canada would have been well served. But in the way the bill has been introduced those objectives and that purpose have been ill served.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I rise on behalf of the New Democratic party to support the principle of the bill before us and to support its referral to the special committee. As hon. members know-if they do not, may I tell them-our party has consistently expressed support for the desirability of widening the recognition of the bilingual character of Canada. Permit me to emphasize that this policy dates back to the first day of the founding of the New Democratic party. A policy in support of Canadian bilingualism has been adopted at every federal convention of the New Democratic party, first at the founding convention in 1961 and then at subsequent conventions in 1963, 1965 and 1967. In parliament we welcomed-and I was the spokesman at that time as well-the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism when it first appeared. Also, last fall I spoke on behalf of my party in support of the resolution which preceded this bill. In short, my party's position on bilingualism has been consistent and unequivocal although, I must add, it is true that there are questions and anxieties among some members of the N.D.P. as there are among other groups in this country.
In speaking on the resolution last fall I said that personally I looked upon the measure now before us in the light both of our country's past and of its future. I emphasized that I regarded recognition of the two official languages of Canada in the way in which they are being recognized in the bill as redressing a profound oversight and an injustice which has haunted Canadians throughout the first century of our existence as a united country. I underlined my hope at that time that this long overdue step would contribute to greater understanding and unity in the future.
Canada to me has always been a bilingual country whose bilingual character has often been overlooked and ignored. I became acutely conscious of this as I grew up in Montreal and later began travelling across our vast and

diverse land. The extent to which Canadians outside the province of Quebec regarded Canada as a unilingual country was to me deeply disturbing, and this was particularly true of Canadians whose mother tongue was, like mine, neither English nor French.
I have said in many speeches I have made in many parts of the country to many minority groups of this land that they are profoundly mistaken in their attitude toward language in Canada, that it is better for them and for me as immigrants to Canada to recognize the bilingual character of the country, and above all to recognize that bilingualism is the major factor in our country's life which has prevented Canada from becoming a melting pot and has made possible the recognition of and respect for the languages and cultures of other minority groups in this land.
Bilingualism in Canada has been of great benefit to newcomers to our country, as it has been of great benefit to me and my family and to those who came to Canada at the same time as we did in the early 1920's. We learned immediately that in this country neither one language nor one culture dominates but that there are two official languages and two major cultures and that the languages and cultures of the minority groups that came to this country before us and will come after us are respected and recognized by Canadians of English and French origin. I say to them, and I say to hon. members who have sympathy for the fears of the minority groups-I share their sympathy but not their fears- that in a sense it is an insult to French speaking Canadians to insist that the English language has priority and that the French language cannot be equal to it. This kind of attitude on the part of some newcomers to this country derives from a misunderstanding of what Canada is and what Canada is about and serves to divide this country and to threaten its future in a way which none of these minority groups wants to see.
Therefore I appeal to fellow Canadians whose origin is neither English nor French to recognize the bilingual character of Canada and to recognize that no one in this country with any sense of responsibility, not even the members of this government who may not always be described in the words that I have just used, intends to force either of the two languages on anyone in this country. They will be free to learn English or French as they like, but whichever language they use they will have equal rights and equal opportunities in the federal institutions and federal
May 1G, 1969

organizations of this country, and only in them so far as this bill is concerned.
I said last fall in speaking on the resolution-and I think it is important enough for me to repeat-that as I watch Canada's independence being eroded by the economic domination of our industry and economy by the country to the south of us, eroded in the international sphere in which we so often fail to speak independently and so frequently act like mere satellites, and eroded by the so-called culture which comes at us over the air waves and through the screen, I know there is one official language and one official culture in this country which United States culture and United States programs cannot overwhelm and inundate. This culture and language will remain Canadian and no U.S. influence can affect and destroy them. The degree of our bilingualism is a measure of the enrichment of our country.
But there are still people, many of them, unfortunately, whose attitude toward bilingualism remains questioning, doubtful and fearful. I say to the government-and I am sure it realizes this as well as anyone else- that this attitude will not be changed by this bill or any other law. This will require time, patience and understanding. I say that it will not do to match intolerance and prejudice with impatience and rancour. Extremists on both sides feed on each other's intolerance and render difficult a rational, civilized and meaningful exchange aimed at reaching a greater and deeper understanding of what Canada is about. I sincerely hope that both in this parliament and throughout the country we will avoid this attitude on the subject in our debates here and in discussions across Canada.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, it is really a pity to see how much the climate in favour of bilingualism has deteriorated recently. A year ago, the Canadian people believed in the necessity of bilingualism and seemed to approve the language policy suggested both by the Lauren-deau-Dunton report and by the present bill.
Unfortunately, this eagerness, this sympathetic approach are no longer there. On the contrary, doubts and opposition are now growing in several parts of the country. The series of demonstrations staged against the English language in the schools of the province of Quebec have in no way helped to improve the situation.
Official Languages
Such events have rather done a disservice to the cause of bilingualition and, indeed, made things worse, not only in Quebec but also across the country, especially in the provinces where the French-speaking citizens are a minority.
The present situation in Canada makes it an increasingly heavy responsibility for the politicians, for the party leaders, for the members of parliament, for all the information media to educate the Canadian people and to make them aware of the fact that bi-lingualism is something essential to the unity of this country.
It falls on us, as Canadian citizens, to emphasize this necessity as an essential feature of the mutual understanding, equality and justice that should prevail in our country. In my view, it is our duty to try to solve the problem, to bring about understanding and sympathy instead of laying obtacles in the way leading to our objective by encouraging language prejudices and altering the truth in the necessary dialogues between our two language groups.

I ask myself, what are the reasons for the worsening of the climate on this issue? The last couple of years have been of great significance for our country. We faced a crisis of mistrust two or three years ago. Then the B and B report appeared and evoked a measure of understanding and an honest exchange of views. This was followed by the "Confederation for Tomorrow" conference of provincial premiers in Toronto. After some exchanges the leaders of the provincial governments seemed to gain an understanding of the problem of bilingualism and to exhibit a genuine sympathy toward the need to solve this problem in a just and equitable way.
Then came the federal-provincial conference on the constitution of February, 1968, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Lester B. Pearson. It showed further progress on this issue and we had reason to look hopefully to the future. But when the federal-provincial conference on the constitution resumed in February of this year, positions had again hardened and reflected a regrettable slide backwards on this basic and important Canadian problem.
What happened to change the atmosphere during the course of just one year? In my view, one of the reasons is obvious and important. The worsening climate was created by the fact that the official languages bill and the entrenchment of language and other basic

May IS, 1969
Official Languages
rights in the constitution were presented as the solution to the problem of national unity in Canada. This was patently misleading and was bound to arouse bewilderment and resentment. Language rights have always been and are today an important step toward more meaningful national unity. But the continuing social and economic problems which press on the Canadian people are even more basic and have taken priority in their minds and in their hearts.
The Quebecker looks at the high rate of unemployment in his province, at the low rate of investment, at the inequalities from which he suffers, and his impatience is fed by social and economic insecurity. In this context, I submit that the promotion of bilingualism appears to him to be a gesture rather than a meaningful accomplishment for his life and that of his family. The fact that he may now be able to speak his native tongue in a federal office in Manitoba can hardly move him to gratitude while he is unemployed in Quebec.
Similarly, the western Canadian sees his economy badly damaged by a continuing drop in farm income and he begins to resent the fact that the government and parliament are preoccupied with matters which he may or may not recognize as important but which he knows cannot assist him and his neighbours in their mounting difficulties. Across the country,, the failure to deal with regional inequality, with pressing problems like housing, high rents, mounting interest rates and destructive increases in the cost of living, creates an atmosphere in which discussion about language rights seems secondary, if not irrelevant.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How can it be irrelevant?


David Lewis: I said, irrelevant in people's minds. I say, Mr. Speaker, not with partisan satisfaction but with deep regret, that the worsening climate for a better understanding on the issue of bilingualism is due directly to the failure of the Prime Minister and the government to appreciate or, at least, to act as if they appreciated the fundamental social fact that the unity of a people must be grounded in social justice and equality. It cannot be patched up by action in other spheres which are in themselves important but which do not directly attack the antisocial priorities forced on our society by irresponsible corporate power. History has shown again and again that prejudice feeds on poverty and insecurity. And although the people of Canada are blessed compared with 
most people of this unhappy world, Canadians rightly resent the avoidable and heavy burdens which millions of them are forced to carry despite our immense riches.
I also say-I am sorry to be so emphatic about this, Mr. Speaker, but I believe this should be said-that even the priorities imposed by the government on this parliament will add to the misunderstanding reappearing in some parts of the country. The other day the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) spoke in Halifax and underlined the fact that the development of the disadvantaged areas of this country requires an industrial incentive program immediately; but his bill is not before us.
We have had a housing crisis that has mounted in severity. The crisis remains despite the fact that the Prime Minister refuses to recognize it. We have had the resignation of a senior member of the cabinet over the issue. To meet the difficulties created for him by the resignation of the minister, the Prime Minister acted in uncharacteristic haste and himself introduced a housing bill. My colleagues and I do not see in that bill any solution of the most urgent part of the housing problem, but why, one asks, is not even this housing bill dealt with now?
Where lies urgency in the light of the crushing social and economic problems facing our people? Or has this legislative priority been imposed on parliament because the two bills are pet projects of the Prime Minister which he introduced in his former capacity and which served to bring him into public prominence? We therefore have this bill before us immediately following upon a long and sometimes acrimonious debate on the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code, without legislation to deal with the most crushing matters concerning the people of Canada being interposed. I can only hope that this thoughtless intransigence on the part of the Prime Minister and the government will not do harm to a cause which is important to Canada and in which I believe as deeply as does the Prime Minister himself.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)

However, Mr. Speaker,, I admit right away that the matter of bilingualism in Canada remains important and that this bill has to be passed without delay, or prolonged and bitter debate.
We are in favour of this bill because we think that it is fair and necessary and even
May 16, 1969



essential to the future of Canada, in particular for the welfare of the young people in our society. Bilingualism has become a more urgent necessity today than ever before.
Technological development, the age of cybernetics, the steady increase in the number of students in our colleges and universities, create an increasing mobility all across the country.
I think it is urgent for the French-speaking people of Quebec to feel at home everywhere in the country; they have the right to live with dignity, to express themselves in their own language, and to live their culture.
In the same line, provision must be made so that the English language remains a living language in the province of Quebec and the English-speaking people may also continue to live there in a proper climate.
When we consider what is happening now in Canada with regard to bilingualism, we note a significant fact in those parts of the country with an English-speaking majority: older people are opposed to the development of bilingualism in Canada. The English-speaking youth in schools and universities show a great deal more understanding in this field and are enthusiastic about the development of the French language and culture. They recognize in it a possible enlargement of Canadian life.
Recently I had the opportunity of visiting a few universities in so-called English-speaking provinces. 1 also had the opportunity of addressing various groups of young listeners.
I then had the pleasure of finding out that English-speaking youths can adopt a sympathetic and understanding attitude towards the development of the French language and culture. I stress this fact because it gives me hope for the future of our country.
I am convinced that we can make the changes necessary for the development of the bilingual wealth of Canada. We, as members of parliament, have the opportunity for encouraging that rational and civilized thinking amongst the young; we can give them a striking example of co-operation and dedication to the idea of a united and bilingual Canada. It is in that spirit that I call upon all my colleagues in this house to discuss the objects of the bill now before us.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that acceptance of the principle of this bill does not necessarily mean it cannot be improved upon with further study. Fears have arisen which must be
29180-557a
Official Languages
calmed. There are fears in the federal service of Canada. There are men and women who have given long service in the administration of this country who fear that because they were taken on at a time when they were unilingual they may not be given the opportunities they would have had if this new attitude and new policy had not been introduced.
I do not see that there is in this bill any reason for such fear. I do not see that it is necessary to fear that one will be disadvantaged. Nevertheless, there already have been examples of the kind of thing I am referring to in Ottawa, when janitors and others have felt that as a result of the policies of this parliament they have been given less advantageous shifts or less advantageous positions or tours of duty than they would have been given if they had been bilingual. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we must make sure that one injustice is not replaced by another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: We must make sure that the people of Canada realize that this is a matter of agreement and consent and necessity and desirability, and not a matter imposed upon them from above. Canadians who have given long service in our federal administration must be assured of security and the same chance of advancement whether they are unilingual or bilingual. The introduction of bilingual districts and of the other official language should have the support of the surrounding community. The development of the objectives of this bill can be beneficial only if it is based on consent. These aims must be nurtured like a plant lest the frost of misunderstanding kills them at the roots. Unless we make certain we do it this way, unless we persuade the Canadian people of the values and benefits of bilingualism, and unless we make certain we do not impose it on them without understanding their position, the plant may well be killed at its roots.
Above all, the commissioner to be appointed under this bill must be a wise and flexible Canadian who is animated not only by the law but also by a sense of fitness and appreciation of Canadian unity. He must have that sense if he is to make this legislation into a unifying instead of a divisive instrument. As with many other desirable laws, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that much more will depend on the administration of this law than on the wording of the bill. If the commissioner to be appointed is a hard-nosed guy who is determined to ram things down people's throats, then this measure will be a disaster

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
for the future of Canada. If the government and the commissioner in particular appreciates the need to win support for what is being done, to win the consent of the people who are to be governed by this law, to remove fears, to allay doubts, to produce and evoke co-operation and sincerity, then this law will be a great step forward toward the greater unity of the people across this great land.
As one looks round the world, Mr. Speaker, one sees internal conflict everywhere. One is saddened by the fratricidal war in Nigeria-Biafra, by racial conflicts in the United States, by the inhumanity of white rule in South Africa and Bhodesia, by the purposeless religious strife in Ireland and by the occasional outbursts of violence between the two linguistic communities in Belgium. On every continent, in every part of the world, there are conflicts among tribes and, among peoples of different languages and cultures. There are wars and near wars. I watch these and other destructive events across the world and I pray, as I am sure all hon. members pray, that my country may be able to avoid fratricidal strife and that our people will find rational and humane solutions to the differences which divide them and to the potential conflicts which darken our future.
It is in this context that I regard this bill as a necessary step in the direction of Canadian unity. Other steps will have to follow quickly and resolutely in the social and economic spheres of our collective lives. We will have to take steps much more quickly than this government has been willing to take them to deal with the high cost of living, with the regional inequalities in the country, with the foreign ownership of our economy, with the ruthless use of power by the corporate conglomerates of this country and with the way in which the lives of our people, their future and security are overlooked and even ignored by events over which they have no control.
We shall have to find quickly and resolutely ways in which the people of this country can play a meaningful part in deciding their own destiny and in overcoming the alienation from which they suffer in a society governed by big government, big industry, big unions, big corporations and bigness of every sort. Much more quickly and resolutely than this government is willing to do, we shall have to find ways to deal with the problems arising in the ever increasing urban communities of this country and make the collective life of our people in our cities a good deal more pleasant and meaningful than it is now.

It is the totality of these measures and not only language rights, it is the totality of social and economic solutions to deep-seated social and economic problems, which will lay the true foundation for unity in this country and which can make us in Canada an example of rational development and achievement. In the meantime I express the hope that the long overdue recognition of the bilingual character of Canada which is embodied in the principle of the bill before us will be accepted with grace and understanding in all parts of this country.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wish to put a question to the hon. member for York South?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should like to put a very serious question to him, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for York South is giving us excellent reasons to show that the bill is most important for our young people, for the minorities, for French-speaking Canadians, etc. At the same time, he tells us that the bill should not have been introduced at this time. If absolute priority is to be given to social and economic questions, as the hon. member suggests, when then could a bill such as this be introduced?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, true bilingualism would have it that the minister speak French and that I might answer him in English.

I say to the minister that it would have been sensible, responsible and sensitive to have spent a period of approximately ten days between the Criminal Code amendments and the languages bill dealing with bills such as the industrial incentive bill, housing, a bill dealing with higher pensions for retired civil servants or some other matters. There would still have been time enough to deal with this bill as well. The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, and the minister's question gives me the opportunity to emphasize it, is not that I necessarily oppose this priority because I am afraid of what may happen by virtue of this bill. I have no such fears.
May 16, 1969

But it would have been much wiser psychology, after having spent two or three weeks on the amendments to the Criminal Code, which are important but do not put bread on anybody's plate, to deal with some matters for a week or two that may put some bread on somebody's plate before entering a discussion on this bill. It would not have lessened the priority or importance of this bill. It would have shown the people of this country that the government is not merely concerned about dealing with pet projects of the Prime Minister but is also concerned about matters just as important and equally pressing as language rights.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively this morning to the remarks made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
At the outset of their comments, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for York South blamed the government for keeping silent about possible amendments to the bill before us, but they were very careful not to mention the ones they would favour. They said, further on, that they accepted the principle of the bill but that amendments should be made to the bill in order perhaps to modify its principle. Therefore, there is nothing very clear in all that.
Mr. Speaker, the clearest thing at this stage is this: Bill C-120 was put on the order paper of the house under the authority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The Prime Minister, as can be seen, is absent. He was here this morning during part of the speech made by the Secretary of State and part of the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition. Then, he disappeared. Maybe he has other engagements but

and here I agree with the hon. member for York South-he should be here, at least to have an idea of the various parties' points of view on this first day of debate on the official languages bill.


Mr. Mongrain:: He can read Hansard.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) says that the Prime Minister can read Hansard. He does not even have time to read it and one of his assistants will no doubt report to him what was said in the house.
Official Languages
At any rate, we regret that the Prime Minister is not here on this first day of the debate on this bill.
We think that Bill C-120 is not a bill of utmost importance for Canada. Other subjects might have been discussed; namely the economic situation.
The unemployment rate is increasing and I think this is more important than to know whether the unemployed speaks English or French. It is also more important to know whether our needy mothers must have something to eat, something to wear, a convenient place to live in than to know whether they speak English or French.
This does not mean that the official languages bill is not important, but I think it should rather proceed from an economic and social system enabling every human being to enjoy at least security and freedom. Then, we could discuss the matter of official languages in Canada.
We approve the bill on the official languages, but we still maintain that it is not essential, that it is not the question we should now be discussing when the Canadian people need specific and constructive measures from the government.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
But the government prefers to let us play around for four weeks with the bill on official languages. I hope it will be dealt with fairly quickly and that it will be passed without delay by the house.
Now, the unfortunate thing is that in many regions, as the hon. member for York South said a while ago, the question of national unity and bilingualism has lost ground in Canada over the past year, and that we probably should have dealt with it over a year ago. Then the hon. member contradicts himself and says that the question is not all that important. But it is one of two things, either it is important or it is not.
Is bilingualism losing ground in Canada? I do not think so. I had the opportunity of visiting western Canada, just a few weeks ago. I went to Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg. There I met people of English, Ukrainian, Polish, German, Italian origin, in short, people of all nationalities or languages; they are worried because people of bad faith told them that the bill on the official languages would force them to speak French or English, when they know nothing of either language.

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
Therefore, the meaning of the bill is completely misunderstood there, as it is also in eastern Canada. People think that when the bill is passed, a 65-year old English-speaking man will have to learn French, and vice versa.
This is not the object of the bill. The passing of a bill designed to have both official languages recognized does not necessarily mean the establishment of bilingualism. It merely means the recognition of the fact that there are two official languages in Canada: English and French.
We could also have included Chinese in the bill. We would then have had three official languages. This does not mean that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would have to learn Chinese. But it would have been an official language if the legislation had contained a provision to that end.


An hon. Member:: It would be a Chinese trick.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, indeed. I thought the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) would have included a third official language, Chinese, in view of the current discussions aiming at a commercial agreement with Communist China. It seems to me we might improve our diplomatic and commercial relations with China, if we knew that language.
However, this was not done, and the bill provides only for two official languages, without for all that depriving any Canadian of his rights.
When I travelled through the western provinces, I found that people were confusing the official languages bill and bilingualism, which are two different things. One is bilingual when one speaks two languages. But, one may be in favour of two official languages and yet, speak only one.
It is the case, for instance, of my colleagues who have no knowledge of English and who accept the principle of two official languages. Since some English-speaking members have no knowledge of French, they will recognize, I hope, this principle.
Once the principle of the official languages is explained, people understand what it is about and then, we can speak about bilingualism. At the national level, it is the business of the federal government. But, at the educational level, bilingualism comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Therefore, all the federal government can do is to suggest, on the occasion of federal-provincial conferences, that English and

French be taught in schools, since education falls under provincial jurisdiction, a principle to be fully respected.
The federal government should not in any way whatsoever intervene in provincial fields.
Mr. Speaker, I said in western Canada that perhaps the official languages bill should never have been introduced in the house. If, 50 years ago, for instance, people had shown more good will on both sides, everybody would officially recognize both languages today and the subject would not have to be discussed in the house.
Because some people failed to take their responsibilities in the past, because some people on both sides proved narrow-minded and unwilling to reach some understanding, after 102 years of confederation, we find ourselves in 1969 discussing language rights to determine whether French and English should be recognized as official languages in Canada. However, better late than never. I wish to repeat, at any rate, that the principle of the two official languages does not constitute bilingualism.
Now, to get back to what I was saying a while ago, with regard to bilingualism in western Canada, everybody should not be compelled to learn both languages at the age of 50, for instance. Shall I ask my 81-year old father who has never spoken English to learn it? I would rightly be told that I am stupid.
Shall we ask the same thing to the English people? This is what the people out west are afraid of, to be compelled by the federal government to learn French. This is not the purpose of the bill. I told them that bilingualism will be a fact in Canada within a few years if all Canadians show the least bit of good will.
There is only one way to have a bilingual country where the people will understand one another all across it. The provinces must accept this principle and teach from the very first grades in school the two official languages of Canada-French and English- everywhere, in every Canadian school, in Quebec in British Columbia, in the Maritimes.
In five or six years from now, our youngsters who are now 6, 7 and 8 years old will be 12, 13 and 14 and then they will be perfectly bilingual. It is only then that we will have a bilingual country.
However we should not ask older people to become bilingual. We should not make matters worse. Do people know that this solution for teaching in schools has been approved in western as well as in eastern Canada?
May 16, 1969

Today, the head of a famliy who is 50 years old and who has five or six children at home wants his children to learn both languages and to become bilingual.
As for myself, I have two sons, who are 30 and 29 years old. When they were 3, 4 and 5, my neighbor in Rouyn was a Ukrainian who had a boy the same age as mine. After three or four weeks, my two boys would come back for dinner and speak to each other but I could not understand a word. My two boys spoke Ukrainian to each other, simply because they had been playing in our backyard with a young Ukrainian boy.
Children can learn anything. We who have raised children know that for a fact. It is even said that they learn much too fast in some areas. As for languages, it would be easy to teach French in every school, in the very first grades, and after a few years, Canadian children all over the country would be bilingual.
Today, there are clashes. Why? Because in the past, some people did not take their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, when I was in Victoria last year, I wanted to send a telegram to a person who does not speak English. I wanted to dictate the message in French, in Victoria, but it was impossible. Nobody understood a word of French, at the Canadian National. Then, I had to spell each and every word, and when the telegram arrived, the letters were all mixed up. In fact, it was incomprehensible.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
In my opinion, this is not logical.
If, for instance, an English-speaking gentleman comes to Rouyn and wants to send a telegram in his own language to somebody in Victoria, is he not happy to be attended to in English? That is understandable, and that is what the bill is designed to establish, not for the sake of bilingualism, but to recognize the two official languages in the federal departments.
Mr. Speaker, once again that does not mean that everybody must learn French. The solution I have to put forward relates to education. If everywhere, in Quebec as well as in other provinces, both languages are taught since the beginning of schooling, the trick will be done in a few years hence and parents will be happy to have bilingual children.
In the last few years, exchanges of students between eastern and western Canada have been very few. Such exchanges, we have
Official Languages
found, have been very beneficial to the students involved and have resulted in better understanding between different regions of the country.
Last Wednesday night, I spoke before the members of the Pro-Canada Association in Montreal, whose founder or president is the mayor of Pointe-Claire, Mr. Seguin, who is also a member of the Quebec National Assembly. At that meeting, I met Germans, German-speaking Canadians, Ukrainians and French-Canadians. The object of the Pro-Canada Association is to promote Canadian unity. There was a choir from Trois-Rivieres, the Sing-Out composed of 80 young boys and girls, aged 10, 12, 13 and 14, who sang in French and in English with an enthusiasm and a warmth which are rarely seen.
I had a vision, Mr. Speaker, I thought I could see the Canada of to-morrow. These young smiling people were acting with precision, quite spontaneously. They were tremendous.
That is why I asked the hon. Secretary of State if it would be possible to subsidize such groups, in order to encourage such an attitude throughout Canada.
At that time, my question was ruled out of order. I welcome the opportunity, as we are considering the official languages bill, to point out how much good such a singing choir could do for national unity throughout this country.
Mind you, they are young French-Canadian boys and girls from the city of Trois-Rivieres, who sing in English, and who were applauded by English-speaking and French-speaking people, because they sing Canada. They do not sing of division, of separation or even of destruction, but of Canadian unity. It is with such choirs that we can really establish or strengthen the ties which must bind all Canadians together, without exception.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Secretary of State whether it is possible to grant subsidies to such groups. In the province of Quebec, thousands of dollars are appropriated for cultural exchanges with France, or Italy or every European country.
However, I should like to ask a few cents for similar small organizations which I feel are most important. Governments declare themselves unable to help those young people to travel across Canada to promote better understanding among Canadians. It is a shame to go and seek culture elsewhere when

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
we can develop our own by helping our young people, such as those from the Trois-Rivieres choir. We have many such organizations. It is high time, I believe, that the federal government and the provincial governments should allocate some money to youth organizations such as those. These are not organizations eager to destroy everything. We should stop financing the latter and open the doors wide to the former.
It does not behoove me too much to discuss provincial policy, but, as I am a citizen of Quebec, I have the right to express an opinion. We spend, I repeat, thousands of dollars for cultural exchanges with foreign countries, when we have no money to help our own youth to acquire a certain degree of culture.
I saw some young people in Montreal on Wednesday night. They were not hippies, nor were they the kind that are to be found on street corners throwing stones in the name of Quebec separatism. They were smiling young Canadians, who were full of life and who have faith in the future of their country.
And we, as members of parliament, would not help these young people who will continue tomorrow the good work we have undertaken. I swear to you that, on Wednesday night, when I saw those young people from Trois-Rivieres, I was sure that they had not been assimilated.
And I shall repeat here that even if we French-speaking Canadians are only a minority in Canada, we shall probably still be here in 50 or 100 years. It is a fact that any minority made up of cowardly, irresponsible and destructive people is bound to disappear. On the other hand, any minority composed of vigilant, determined and responsible people will survive anywhere, even in India. That is what we must recognize.
And to think that in the province of Quebec there are some who maintain that we are in the process of losing our language. Now I say it here, in this federal parliament: one hundred years ago, we were not even one million French-speaking Canadians in Quebec, while now we number six million. Are we disappearing? And the quality of spoken French is much higher than that which we knew a mere 40 years, and even 30 years ago.
My father, who is 81 years old to-day and still going strong, lives in Rouyn. He attended school four or five years; he did not learn much French, and he never learned English. On the other hand, nowadays our youngsters all attend school at least up to the 11th or 12th grade.

The quality of the French language is better now than 25 years ago, and we will hear prophets of doom claim in Quebec that we are in the process of extinction. They will disappear one day, indeed when we die, but as long as I live, in Canada, I wi 11 remain above all a French-speaking Canadian. That is my status, and it is not a special status. It is a natural right just like the one enjoyed by the English-speaking Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have enough of those who spread panic in the province. This morning, I was reading in Le Devoir an article on Rene Levesque, leader of the Parti Quebecois, who stated-everybody knows his political platform-that we had to secede, then try to unite in order to establish an economic association. We are part of Confederation, let us remain in it. Let us improve the situation if we are not satisfied.
Similarly, when we say that the Frenchspeaking Canadians of Quebec contribute 30 per cent of the national budget, that is a large amount; however, those who are not Frenchspeaking supply for their part 70 per cent of it.
Even Mr. Gilles Gregoire's salary, when he was here was paid in a proportion of 70 per cent by English-speaking taxpayers and of only 30 per cent by French-speaking ones.
We are told in Quebec that we are about to disappear, while Mr. Levesque, when told about the possibility of Creditistes getting involved in provincial politics, said yesterday that this would only help-
-to confuse the issues-
On the contrary, this would clear things up. and to put off the taking of the necessary stands and decisions. Anyone who is the least bit sensitive can see that there is a vacuum in Quebec-
He did not think that one up.
[DOT]-and that the two old parties are no longer in the game. Opportunists may think there is something in this for them, but they will not be able to confuse the issues much longer.
Levesque dixit. He goes on, and he sees things very clearly:
The pro-sovereignty member for Laurier stated that at a time when Quebec is trying to move towards a clear choice, the attempt of Caouette's group, if at all realistic, will only spread confusion.
You will agree with me that his position is not so clear as all that! We know that some people, instead of giving their vote to the
May 16, 1969

Official Languages
Liberals or the Union Nationale, would support Levesque, not because they are separatists but because they are fed up with the two parties in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, does that mean that Mr. Levesque offers a clear choice to the population? Besides, he himself is all mixed up. He says that in Quebec, only French must be learnt as the official working and promotion language. If ever Mr. Levesque becomes premier of Quebec-I hope that will never happen-and must borrow from the United States, before inviting Americans to invest money in Quebec, will he require as the main condition that the American investor speaks French, and that his working language be French? No. It would be quite the opposite. Mr. Levesque will go hat in hand to Washington and New York, and beg in English, like everyone else.
He hardly protested when the agreement for the purchase of hydro-electric power from Churchill Falls was negotiated in English. Now he shifts his position slightly and says that there is more for him in the substance than in the form. The form is English but he would like to have it French which would be-quite an acrobatic feat.
Mr. Speaker, at any rate, I do not intend to discuss here provincial politics. Perish the thought. However, I intend to say frankly that both official languages must be recognized, not only in Quebec but everywhere in Canada. It does not compel anybody to learn French or English, but it is advisable to learn both languages.
Today, we note how much importance the English-speaking and the French-speaking Canadians give to the teaching of both languages at all school levels.
When we refer to bilinguism in areas where there is a sufficient number of French Canadians, it means that the people should speak French. We all know this.
But, in the province of Quebec-and here I wish the minister could lend me his ear-we have some areas where there are practically no English-speaking people but where the federal	employee	is	required	to	speakEnglish. There are very few federal civil servants in the province of Quebec who are not bilingual. In many cases when competitions of the federal Civil Service are held, a French	Canadian	is	required	to	speak
English, while an English-speaking person is not required to speak French.
Therefore, this must stop. The same requirements must apply to both.
* (3:10 p.m.)
I have said again and again: Up to now in Quebec-and I hope it will stay that way- English-speaking people have been put on the same footing as French-speaking Canadians.
In Amos, Abitibi, Quebec, I started to learn English in school. There were no English-speaking people in the small municipality of Amos in 1920, 1922 and 1923.
I was happy then to start learning English.
I was glad to do so because I was convinced that a person who knew two languages was superior to another who knew only one. I have always thought so.
This does not mean that one has to neglect his maternal tongue in order to learn the other one. It seems to me that the culture of a bilingual person is more complete than that of another who can only speak or understand one language.
For instance, when I went to Czechoslovakia some four years ago, I found that most people could speak three, four, five, six and even eight different languages. It was wonderful to hear those people go from one language to another and talk with someone who spoke a language completely different from theirs.
In Canada, and most particularly in my region, Polish, Ukrainians are learning French and English; they keep their mother tongue. I am most pleased to find that those young people who attend our schools speak their own language at home. They speak three languages fluently. I feel that this enriches their culture. They speak a flawless French as any French-Canadian. They speak a flawless English as any English-Canadian. This is seen more and more today across the country.
If people recognize that they enrich their culture if they learn Spanish, Italian, German, and so forth, they should recognize all the more that it is enriched through a knowledge of at least our country's two official languages. It is essential, it seems to me.
Then again, that does not force our citizens to learn a language against their will. I believe that jurisdiction in matters of bilingualism belongs much more to the provinces than to the federal government.
At the present time, the federal government resorts to suggestions or measures on bilingualism within federal departments, but such departments do not represent the major part of Canada.

May 16. 1369
Official Languages
In the end, the provinces themselves account for the majority of the population. Therefore the provinces are in a better position to take effective action with regard to bilingualism, since education comes under their jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, government policy on bilingualism, according to a statement made by the present Prime Minister's predecessor on April 6, 1966 is the following and I quote:
-it will be normal practice for oral or written communications within the service to be made in either official language at the option of the person making them . .. communications with the public will normally be in either official language-
The linguistic and cultural values of both Englishspeaking and French-speaking Canadians will be reflected through civil service recruitment and training; and
A climate will be created in which public servants from both language groups will work together towards common goals, using their own language and applying their respective cultural values, but each fully understanding and appreciating those of the other.
That is exactly, I believe, what the Creditistes have been preaching in Canada for many of years. It is precisely what I said in the house almost seven years ago. Mr. Speaker, our attitude in this regard does not change.
I think it is possible to maintain unity in Canada. But to do so, the language problem is not the only one to solve. There are also economic matters to be considered, as the hon. member for York South said a moment ago.
The problems in the west are similar to those in the east. The wheat growers' problems are exactly the same as those of eastern dairy farmers and those of Ontario corn growers, and so on.
There is a high priority the government could have looked after. The government might have decided to introduce a positive legislation regarding Canadian economy. Instead, the government preferred to introduce the official languages bill.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot oppose this bill: On the contrary, we shall support it.
As far as the amendments referred to by the hon. member for York-South and by the leader of the official opposition are concerned, we shall probably know of what nature they are after the study in committee. Until then, what we must know is whether or not both languages, French and English, will be recognized as official languages, from St. John, Newfoundland, to Vancouver and Victoria, from coast to coast. We support Bill C-120.

Creditistes will probably make certain reservations regarding the enforcement of the language bill in the federal service. At that time, the recriminations or complaints we shall have to make will be put forward frankly and freely before the responsible minister and the right hon. Prime Minister who sponsors the bill.
This Mr. Speaker is all I wanted to say this afternoon. We believe it is possible for French-speaking Canadians to fight for then-rightful place within Confederation and for English-speaking Canadians to know what their position is.
In conclusion, I am still convinced that it is impossible to make an English Canadian out of a French Canadian or vice versa. However, both can make good Canadians.


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


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, before I go into the principal points I want to make during this debate I should like to deal with a few of the remarks made by the leaders of the opposition parties. The leaders of these opposition parties never cease to amaze me. They come into this chamber and state with great passion that they favour the bill, yet they drag out red herrings and set up straw men to be knocked down. Many of the things mentioned really have nothing to do with the bill.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They at least think for themselves.


William Warren Allmand: Perhaps if you listen and you will find out whether they do. The leader of the Creditiste party said at the beginning of his speech that he would like to know why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not here this afternoon. He pointed out that the Prime Minister was here this morning. The Prime Minister flew to Moncton, New Brunswick, this afternoon to receive an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Moncton, which is I believe the living image of growing bilingualism in the maritime provinces. That engagement was a long standing one. I do not think anyone would suggest the Prime Minister should have remained this afternoon and passed up the opportunity to fulfil that engagement. The spokesman for the New Democratic party and the Leader of the Conservative party were greatly incensed because the bill was introduced for second reading by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and they
May 16, 1969

were not informed of the amendments that would be made to it. It is my understanding that the Secretary of State is the minister responsible for this bill. As such, it is usual and traditional for him to introduce the bill. I also point out that this is a debate on second reading, a debate on the principle of the bill. It is a debate which, under the new rules, takes place before the bill is sent to committee to be considered in detail.
I understand, nevertheless that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will, when speaking to the house on Tuesday, relate frankly what minor amendments he proposes to the bill. I think it is nit-picking to be greatly incensed about these matters when we are supposed to be discussing the principle of the bill. The Secretary of State deals with the principle of the bill, and the Minister of Justice does not-


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


William Warren Allmand: I would like to deal with questions at the end of my speech, if the hon. member does not mind. I shall be pleased to answer his question at that time. The principal purpose of my participation in this debate-


Mr. Peters:: We would like to hear that.


William Warren Allmand: I have listened to you, and now you can listen to me. I will tell you why I am participating in the debate. The reason is that I am in this house as an English speaking representative from the province of Quebec. I represent a minority group in that province which for many years has put forward the proposition that the French speaking people in Canada outside the province of Quebec should be treated as we have been treated. For many years, the English speaking people in the province of Quebec have been treated with great justice. In recent years, since about 1960, there have been growing in the province of Quebec movements of extreme nationalism. These movements of extreme nationalism-I do not believe they are the answer to the problem- have in many cases been based upon valid complaints and grievances.
It is true that for many years, not only outside the province of Quebec but within it, the English speaking establishment that controlled the industries and much of the economic life of that province was very insensitive to the French speaking people in the province. It was very difficult for the French 29180-558a
Official Languages
speaking people to participate in the business community in their own language. There were justifiable grievances. But with respect to the solution of these grievances I support not the extreme solutions of the separatists or nationalists, the solutions of Mr. Levesque and Le Partie Quebecois, but the solutions of our Prime Minister. I believe his solutions will do more to unite this country and defeat any type of separatist movement.
There have been nationalist movements in Quebec in the last few years. So far, fortunately, these nationalist movements have not attained any great power. They have made a great deal of noise; they have, in some cases, damaged life and property, but they have not attained any political power. We have seen, however, a serious case of injustice when such a movement has attained power. I refer to the Catholic School Board in the municipality of St. Leonard. The decision was made to gradually take away the right of the English speaking people in that munic-pality to an education in their language. Last year this right was removed for the first year of a child's education, and starting this fall it will be removed for the second year.
The people in the municipality took this matter very seriously, as did many other people in Montreal. I give great credit to Mr. Robert Beale who has been a leader in the attempt to obtain private schools for these people. These are working class people; they are not rich. They have scrimped and scraped and saved small amounts of money with which to rent classroom space, provide books and teachers for the pupils. This they have done on their own.
I am rather amazed that the spokesman for the New Democratic party should set up a straw man by saying we should be debating another bill because other legislation is more important to the people of Quebec. If we had come forward with another bill I think he would have asked why we were not dealing with this bill. This is his usual type of politics.
This bill was introduced and given first reading on October 17, 1968. We are now dealing with second reading. I do not understand how anybody can pretend we are pushing this bill forward because it is a pet project of the Prime Minister. It has been on the order paper for a long time. While listening to members of the opposition I counted the number of bills which have been passed since this bill was given first reading. Forty-one bills have been passed by this parliament

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
since we began our session in September. The spokesman for the New Democratic party said we have not given priority to economic matters. Less than a month ago we were dealing with the bill concerning regional economic expansion. This was one of the major planks of our platform, and the program will do a great deal to help people in Quebec and other parts of Canada who are economically depressed. Therefore, it is incorrect to put forward the argument that this party is trying to push pet projects and give them higher priority than other matters. To say there are priorities greater than those which give our people national and political rights is, I think, to mislead the people.
The people in St. Leonard are very hard pressed, economically, but they are doing their utmost to establish the schools they need. They are doing this because they believe they are right. To say that economic matters always come before other things such as language and culture is, I think, to misread history. How can anybody tell the people in Biafra that they should be reasonable, and economics are more important than their culture, language rights, and so on? If we consider the national problems of many countries we will see that people have felt so strongly about such things as language, culture, religion, and so on, that they have been willing to fight for them despite the economic losses they might suffer.
As the minister said this morning, many people in this country have been waiting 100 years for justice in respect of language and cultural rights. It is about time we did something about this. I enter this debate as an English speaking person from the province of Quebec. I sympathize fully with the English speaking and French speaking people of Canada who have been denied their rights. I refer again to St. Leonard. Many people might say that this example of injustice to the English speaking people is a minor one compared with the injustices perpetrated upon French speaking people during the last 100 years. They are right; there are many examples of greater injustices being perpetrated on the French speaking people of this country.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
But I do not think we can take the attitude that because the St. Leonard situation is less of an injustice, we must tolerate it. I think it is time that we in this country acted, not only through the federal parliament but also through the provincial legislatures, to correct

all these injustices. We should act to turn back the clock of history and try to put right the wrongs done in Quebec and in other provinces, especially in other provinces vis-avis the French speaking Canadians.
Some people might say-and this point has not been raised once in this debate-that they are becoming a little impatient with the French speaking nationalist movement in Quebec. One is beginning to hear some English speaking people in this country say "let Quebec go. We have had enough. Let them do what they want, we will do what we want". That is a very inward looking and unreasonable position.
To begin with, people who talk that way do not realize what Quebec is and they do not realize the value of knowing two languages. I myself have had the good fortune of having lived in four provinces. I went to school in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. When I completed my schooling in Quebec I was behind my colleagues in school in my knowledge of the French language. When I graduated in law I could barely read French and could not speak it at all. However, I realized that if I were to earn my living as a lawyer in Quebec I would have to learn the language of the province, and I did, although with great difficulty. I am far from perfect or fluent in French now, but I can communicate in that language quite well. It was a difficult task. Now, I feel a much richer person because I have acquired the ability to understand and to communicate to a certain extent in another language which is, I would say without a doubt, one of the major languages of the world.
We are lucky to have as our two official languages two languages that are spoken so widely throughout the world. Recently when we went to Belgium with the Standing Committee on External Affairs we came into contact with Flemish and French speaking Belgians. One of the difficulties there is that one of the languages, the French language, is spoken widely throughout the world but the use of the Flemish language is very restricted. It was difficult to convince some French speaking Belgians that they should learn Flemish. However, I cannot understand why Canadians would not quickly reach out for the opportunity to acquire these two very important languages, the use of both of which is world wide.
Now, I want to make it clear that this bill does not seek to impose the French or the English language on anyone in Canada. This
May 16, 1969

was made clear by the minister this morning, but I think it must be stressed again. The Leader the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said that we must do everything to clarify the principle of the bill. I have been trying to do that, and so have many members of this party. I hope that all members of this house, when they speak about this bill in their constituencies, will stress the point that this bill does not seek to impose the French language on English speaking people or the English language on French speaking people.


Mr. Forreslall:: Is that the principle?


William Warren Allmand: The principle of the bill is to provide services in federal institutions for both the French and English speaking people in this country, wherever they may be in sufficient number. The principle is not to force people in mainly English speaking parts of Canada to speak French but rather to provide services in governmental institutions at the federal government level so that French or English speaking persons who approach such an agency or Crown corporation may speak with someone in their own language. What this might mean is that in an area of Ontario where there is a certain number of French speaking people there will be enough sales people and information people at a post office, a C.N.R. office or an Air Canada office to deal with requests for tickets and information in either the French or English language.
The same will hold true in a place such as Chicoutimi or the lower St. Lawrence or other parts of Quebec in relation to the English speaking people. In these areas the English speaking people who are in the minority should have the right, if there are enough of them, to go to these federal government offices and obtain service in their own language. This is all that the bill attempts to do. It says that the institutions in Canada under the federal government must be so established that the French and English speaking people of Canada can obtain service from the federal government in their own language. This does not mean that everybody in that office must speak both languages. It just means that there should be a sufficient number of employees in the office to deal with the public in the language that the public wishes to speak. In some areas this might mean that one out of ten persons must speak French or that one out of twelve must speak English.
Official Languages
I should like to speak now about some of the objections that have been or might be raised against this bill. The Leader of the Conservative party said there was concern about the administration of this bill. He said that he supported the principle of the bill but that injustice could be done if it were not administered properly. I think we all agree with that. Of course, the best of laws can be administered improperly and thus bring about injustice. I think the minister and all the members on this side of the house would agree that if the situation is to be improved, there must be a proper administration of the provisions of this bill. There is no real division of opinion on that.
Members of the opposition parties who spoke also raised the complaint and the fear that perhaps people who are unilingual in Canada-I think they were referring to unilingual English speaking people-might not be able to have a full career in the civil service or in some Crown corporation. It is my feeling that there is provision for that in the bill. I do not believe that any person who speaks only English will be prevented from having a career in the civil service or in a Crown corporation because there is no requirement that everybody must speak French and English. However, there is an implication in this argument with which I think I should deal. It should be made clear that for many years,, whereas a person who could speak only English could join any Crown corporation or any government department and, advance without any difficulty, the person who spoke only French had to learn English to do so. I think it should be a two way street. I am not saying that everyone should be bilingual. I think that in some parts of Canada unilingual people can serve well in the civil service. However, I think that the people who make the accusation that we are forcing English speaking people to learn French if they wish to advance in the civil service should remember that we have been doing that for years to the French speaking people.
The Leader of the Opposition stated that it is not easy to learn two languages. I agree with him; I had to start learning French at the age of 25 and it was extremely difficult But, as I pointed out, it can be done, and when it is accomplished there is a great sense of satisfaction and a great gain.
The Leader of the New Democratic party and the Leader of the Conservative party

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
brought up the point that we should be dealing with bills that relate to economic conditions and that a bill of this nature which deals with language rights is not the only answer to regional grievances. The government of Canada has never disputed that. That is why I say a strawman is being set up to knock down. The speeches made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) during the debate on the bill to establish his department made that very point.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The point has repeatedly been made by the Prime Minister that we do not satisfy people in the west or in the maritimes or in Quebec by passing measures that point only in one direction, such as extending language rights in a certain area of Quebec. This point has been emphasized also by the leaders of other parties. The government has tried to do something about this question and it will continue to try. I think this should be made clear and members should understand it.
In conclusion, I urge the rapid adoption of second reading of this bill so that it may be sent to the special committee where it will receive more detailed scrutiny. I think the bill is extremely important for the Englishspeaking minorities in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. I think the people of Canada gave this government a strong mandate to put this measure through, since it was one of the leading planks in the Liberal party platform during the election campaign last June. For the first time the people of Canada returned a majority government because they felt the unity of the country was threatened and that the policies put forward by the Prime Minister would bring about unity. Thus, I feel the government has been given a strong mandate to put forward this kind of measure.
However, let me also make it clear that I do not feel this bill is a full and complete answer. I fully support the initiatives of the Prime Minister in trying to entrench the bill of rights in the constitution of the country, a bill of rights that will contain guarantees in regard to the French and English languages. The bill before the house today deals only with bilingualism in institutions within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Many injustices with regard to language rights-such as the injustice to which I referred at St. Leonard, Quebec-fall within
[Mr. Allmand.l
provincial jurisdiction. School rights and education rights have to be protected by provincial legislation of a kind similar to this legislation. However, I think it would be even better to put these rights beyond the ordinary legislative competence of the federal parliament or the provincial legislatures by entrenching a bill of rights in our constitution, one which would protect language rights, as suggested by the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. If that were the case, no extremist provincial or federal government that wished to crush these rights would be able to do so. I feel that this is really what is required.
I urge rapid passage of the bill so that it can be sent to the committee, and I urge all hon. members to support the bill.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member now permit the question I wanted to ask him?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member rather
brushed off the amendments to be proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). Can he tell us whether these amendments that are being proposed will be fundamental to the bill, or minor?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the cabinet and I do not know what the amendments are. However, my point is that the Secretary of State is the minister responsible for this bill. On second reading we deal with the principle of a bill, not its details. I doubt whether the amendments would deal with the basic fundamentals in the bill. The government is committed to the principles contained in the bill. I can only speculate that the amendments deal with matters that are not basic to the bill. As the hon. member knows, detailed amendments, if they are announced-and I suppose they will be announced by the Minister of Justice on Tuesday-will have to be moved in the committee and dealt with there; they cannot be dealt with in the house. However, as I say, as a backbencher I do not know what the exact nature of the amendments will be.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make some preliminary points prior to getting on to my main criticisms of the bill, but since I have little more than ten minutes before the
May 16, 1969

debate is adjourned I propose to dispense with what I intended to say by way of opening remarks. I would like to say, however, that I, too, was surprised to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), speaking for the New Democratic party, say he was appalled at certain of the conditions that the clauses of the bill seemed to impose upon the people of Canada. I listened to his speech with much interest, and it seemed to me to be a speech intended for the consumption of those in western Canada as well as those in eastern Canada, depending on which part of his speech one read. In other words, it seems to me that the position of the N.D.P. on this bill is one of riding the fence.


Mr. Gilbert:: Do not worry about the New Democratic party.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would never do that because I doubt whether I will live to see the N.D.P. form the government of this country.
In rising to take part in this debate, I fully realize that what I have to say is my own opinion and is not intended to be a reflection on anyone. What I say may be twisted and misinterpreted in an attempt to belittle me as a bigot and possibly a reactionary. However, let me repeat that what I am going to say is my own opinion.
This morning when the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) commenced his speech he said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had already stated this measure was extremely important in the view of the government because it touched the very foundation of Canadian unity. I think he also said that language rights were the very core of unity within our country. I entirely disagree with him on that because I think this bill will become the core of disunity in this country in places where there never was disunity before.
The Secretary of State also said no doubt there is a risk of encountering many petty objections. For example, he said there are people who will object because of a narrow, conformist attitude. It is an unfortunate fact of life in Canada today that anyone who feels compelled, as I do, even by conscience or principle, to question measures such as the one now before us in Bill C-120 runs the risk of being branded a WASP racist. I do not care how I am branded; I feel, as a matter of principle and conscience, that I must have my say.
A disproportionate number of pundits, academics and politicians who prefer theories and paper solutions to hard headed, workable
Official Languages
legislation have blindly accepted the idea that our only hope of national survival lies in trying to legislate unity. This cannot be done. You cannot impose equality of race and language by federal coercion.
These apostles of the B and B commission, whose high priests I might say, are the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, are like propagators of new faiths throughout history, narrow, fanatical and inflexible. They are the evangelists and sole trustees of the latest gospel; those who differ with them are infidels and heretics. To question the dogmatic assertions of one of them is to open the floodgate of their collective wrath. This I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and this I am prepared for. But I believe that it is high time for some plain speaking, for the voice of inexpert, unacademic, ordinary Canadians to be heard on this question of race and language.
The bogey of separatism has been skilfully inflated, the facts of history and of current events so expertly distorted, that ordinary Canadians in many parts of the country have been hoodwinked into believing that massive concession to a minority is the only answer; that the "gospel according to St. Pierre" provides the only way. Bilingualism and bicul-turalism have become what is known as the "in" thing. It is fashionable today to sprinkle French cliches into your cocktail chatter, to talk of total immersion, and to discourse on the need for linguistic equality. We just heard what the last speaker said a few moments ago. Too few of those who have adopted this fad have paused long enough to consider the facts and implications that are the guts of the whole question with which Bill C-120 attempts to deal. For too many Canadians it is sufficient that the "B & B" Commission is popular, and the current "thing" is to be "for" it. But this debate, Mr. Speaker, is not a cocktail party conversation. This legislation is not just an interesting and provocative theory. This debate is a deadly serious discussion of tremendous importance to the everyday life of Canada and every Canadian. This legislation will become a hard and binding fact affecting everyone if it passes through parliament.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Because it affects the whole nation so intimately and so radically, I believe it should not be allowed to be whisked through parliament without there being the most searching and candid examination. I am opposed to this bill as bad law, bad politics and bad public

May 16, 1969
Official Languages
relations. I believe it to be unconstitutional, undesirable and, in the light of the other grave problems confronting us, most frivolous.
Aside from my personal belief that this measure is unconstitutional, I think that parliament must give serious consideration and weight to the position taken by several of the provinces that the bill is unconstitutional. We may disagree with the views of the provinces but we cannot take exception to their right to hold those views and their equal right to challenge this bill on the basis of those views. The provincial governments had the counsel of their law officers in this regard just as, one presumes, the Prime Minister and his colleagues had the advice of the principal law officers of the government that this measure is constitutional.
I suggest to the house, Mr. Speaker, that we will achieve little if we adopt the line taken by some of the more fervent supporters of this legislation, particularly some members of the cabinet and of the parliamentary press gallery, who condemn provincial premiers and others as insincere obstructionists when they voice honest criticisms. To criticize or even question, however honestly, this measure is to call down invective and malicious distortion on your head. This is part of the behavior I alluded to earlier.
By adopting an arrogant and arbitrary attitude with regard to this bill, the government has made sure that the bill will be considered with a maximum of emotion and a minimum of mind. Considering what the British North America Act provides, fails to provide and actually prohibits, I question the constitutionality of this measure. My starting point for argument is Section 133 of the B.N.A. Act which reads as follows:
Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.
This Act of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.
Thus we see that both French and English are constitutionally established and are to be used in the parliament of Canada and the legislature of Quebec. The law says no more and no less. Nowhere in the B.N.A. Act is

there any reference that French and English are established as the official languages of the government of Canada. I refer to "government" as contrasted to "parliament", the two being obviously quite different entities. Yet, without a shadow of constitutional authority, clause 2 of Bill C-120 which is the declaratory clause of the bill says:
The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.
Surely it is obvious that this language goes far beyond the language of the original Section 133 of the B.N.A. Act. It must be obvious that it effectively changes the substance and import of this section and that it clearly represents an amendment to Section 133. On that ground alone it would appear, even to one who is not a lawyer, that the bill as presently constituted represents an attempt to amend the constitution, and is, therefore, beyond the power of parliament. This attempt to amend the constitution in violation of constitutional law and practice is emphasized even more in subsequent clauses of Bill C-120. Clauses 3, 5 and 7 merely reinforce the unconstitutional approach laid down in clause 2.
Section 133 of the B.N.A. Act sets out quite clearly and distinctly the official position of the two languages. Any attempt to change this section by a simple act of the Parliament of Canada, is, in my view, unconstitutional.
Another section of the B.N.A. Act explicitly prohibits the federal government from acting in certain spheres. Section 91(1) forbids the government to tamper with language questions. This situation was brought about by means of an amendment to Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act, engineered in 1949 at the request of the St. Laurent government. In part the amended section now reads:
-it is hereby declared .. . the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say-
1. The amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada except as regards. . . the use of the English or the French language-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, in accordance with the special order made earlier this day a motion to adjourn the house at this time is deemed to have been moved and seconded. Therefore, the question is that this house do now adjourn.
May 16, 1969



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (SI. John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take everyone here to the quiet and peaceful waters of Saint John Harbour, because I want to speak about salmon fishing. This is the third time that I have availed myself of the opportunity to speak on the so-called late show. Both my previous efforts were crowned with success. I know that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) could not be here at this time. I know he is keenly interested in the matter and has suggested that it may be brought up at some later date when he is in the house. Unfortunately, the salmon season has begun. At this time I wish to put on the record a story of hardship existing in the area I represent. I hope the situation will be remedied. Since the minister is not here and since it is late in the week I will keep my remarks brief. When the minister returns to Ottawa I hope he will read my remarks in Hansard and try to remedy some of the matters which officials of his department have overlooked.
It seems that the department has moved too quickly and too drastically in my area in the field of conservation. We are all in favour of conservation. Salmon fishermen of Saint John have always supported any measures that were required. They are in the business of catching salmon in Saint John Harbour and in the Bay of Fundy, and they sell their luscious fish to markets in New York, to the Seig-nory Club, the Rideau Club and to others who can afford it. We do not see it in Ottawa and it is not served in the parliamentary restaurant. Instead we seem, in our restaurant, to invest our money in expensive western beef. If we were really interested we might obtain some of our delightful Saint John River salmon, one of the great gourmet fishes of the world.
There has been in St. John Harbour and its vicinity a fishing season of 66 days. Because of a government edict, that season has now been reduced to 46 fishing days. In other words, the salmon fishermen had five days a week in which to fish. Now, without any notice or consultation with the industry, someone in Ottawa has pressed the button and
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the fishermen in Saint John can now fish only two days a week.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
A year ago the fishermen were told they required a licence. They were told this without any prior notice. Some fishermen made heavy investments in equipment. Some got their gear together, purchased new boats, made plans to share their catches and contracts were set up. They were all set for a good fishing season this year. They were prepared to play their part in the economic life of this community when all of a sudden they were told they could fish only two days a week. This made a very serious impact on their catches. There are days when the water is not right for salmon fishing. I do not imagine too many people in this area know too much about salmon fishing or angling. Those who have tried to catch salmon know the conditions have to be right. Even a southeast wind can make a difference. If it is raining or not the right tide, this will affect their catch.
The number of fishing days has been reduced from 66 days to only 21 theoretical days. This will spoil the markets which have been built up in Boston, New York and exclusive places in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto for this delicacy. These are now going to be lost. Two days a week for fishing will make a difference to the storage of the salmon prior to shipment. Shipping it will no longer be an everyday occurrence.
I hope there will be a reply from a representative of the minister to my sincere suggestion that the government take another look at the situation. I do not blame the government. They are trying to do something. Salmon fishing is on the downgrade, and there is a lack of salmon all over the world. We know the Russians and Japanese are fishing in our waters, but why pick on little old Saint John Harbour?' There have never been any other changes with regard to the east coast. I stand to be corrected on that, but I have not learned of any other restrictive changes of this nature with respect to salmon fishing on the east coast.
I checked with the fisheries critic of the opposition and he has informed me he has no knowledge of any similar restrictions. This is not the west coast, but the east coast to which I am referring. I suggest the government check to see whether this was not too drastic a step taken too soon and without notice. Perhaps from the goodness of their hearts the civil servants might give the fishermen in
8814	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Saint John Harbour an extra day or two as the season progresses.
I want to interject that as far as pollution is concerned, this has been going on in Saint John Harbour. It is nothing new. The few salmon caught in the harbour will not affect the anglers or conservation up-river. I make this humble plea on a Friday night in the hope it will be heard by someone who can protect these fishermen who are doing the best they can for the economic life of our community.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: When the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) raised this matter in a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) on Tuesday, the minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, there will be restrictions to two days for both sports fishing and commercial fishing for salmon in the areas the hon. member has mentioned. This is to permit greater escapement of salmon from the Saint John River which, I might add, is in a desperate condition so far as salmon spawning is concerned.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Saint John River is in a desperate condition as far as salmon spawning is concerned. In fact, the future of the salmon fishery in the entire river is in great jeopardy. It is for this reason that the action was taken to restrict both the commercial fishery and angling for salmon to two days each week between the opening date of May 15 and until an adequate escapement of salmon for spawning purposes has been obtained, or July 12, whichever occurs the earlier.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that if the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has assurance that adequate salmon spawning stock has escaped or will likely escape before July 12, then the department will certainly be prepared to increase the fishing time beyond the two days a week. This is in line with the hon. member's request.
Natural runs of adult salmon and grilse to the upper reaches of the Saint John River system have been declining rapidly during recent years. The counts of salmon through the Beechwood Dam, 85 miles up-river from Mactaquac have dropped from a record 8,334 salmon in 1963 to 1,210 in 1966 and to only 64 last year.
The natural escapement past Mactaquac in 1967 was very limited and the spawning escapement came almost completely from a total of 1,223 salmon and grilse trucked from

DEBATES	May 16, 1969
below Mactaquac and released upstream. Last year Mactaquac Dam formed a complete obstruction to natural upstream passage and the total escapement above the dam of 1,116 salmon and grilse was obtained by trucking the fish.
The spawning grounds upstream from Mac-taquae can support as many as 10,000 to 12,000 spawners and from this there could be a take of 2,000 to 3,000 by the anglers. The 1968 run to the Mactaquac collection facilities totalled only about 2,000 fish, around half of which were taken for hatchery brood stock purposes. It is felt that for 1969 serious efforts should be made to allow 5,000 to 6,000 salmon and grilse to reach the Mactaquac collection facilities. Approximately 1,000 would be used in the hatchery; the remainder would be trucked upstream to provide for natural spawning and some angling.
If this action is not taken immediately, salmon fishing on the entire Saint John River system in the 1970's could be eliminated entirely.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-COURTENAY, B.C. -INAUGURATION OF CARRIER SERVICE

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) when he would inaugurate letter carrier delivery service in the city of Courtenay which now qualifies under the rules. In his reply the minister said something about doing this when the freeze is lifted. I asked him, why the freeze?
I feel this question is not redundant even after yesterday's debate. The minister did not come to grips with this or any other aspect of the policy of administration of his department. I must admit I have seldom heard a minister sustain a more prolonged and bruising attack than that delivered yesterday. There were moments when I almost felt sorry for him; however, I did feel the attack was justified. It was a natural reaction against what I would describe as the meat axe techniques being used by the minister in respect to the way in which postal services are being carried on in this country.
I think the feeling of shock and dismay which many members and citizens have experienced was typified by the rather whimsical fashion in which the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) launched his attack against the minister. It symbolized some of the shock and dismay which many of us felt about the course of action being pursued by the minister. I had not known the
May 16, 1969	COMMONS
minister except by repute until I met him recently in this building. When I learned of his appointment to this particular post, I expected there would be some acceleration in a cohesive manner of the modernization of the postal services of this country. Instead of this, the minister seems bent and determined that we are going to return to a 19th century level of Post Office services. The situation I am describing is a prime example of what I mean.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have always understood that one of the first principles of a democracy is that there should be equallity of treatment of citizens before the law. But I do not think since I first came to this house I have seen a worse example of direct discrimination against a particular body or group of citizens in this country than this refusal to inaugurate postal service by letter carrier in the city of Courtenay. It is heightened by the fact that the neighbouring community of Campbell River, which is almost the same size, qualified for this service. The two communities were almost neck and neck but Campbell River happened to get under the wire and now has delivery service.
The community of Courtenay not only does not have this service but its lock-box post office is bursting at the seams and its citizens are now paying double the rate for a less fair and less adequate service than that enjoyed by their neighbouring community. It seems to me unthinkable that this sort of meat axe technique, this blind lashing out in some mysterious economy drive or whatever rationale the minister may be prepared to put on it, should take place in this day and age when the government of Canada has available to it the advice and the knowledge of economists and technologists almost without number.
I had expected that we would be moving forward so that our postal service would be keeping pace with other forms of communications that are developing as technology advances. It seems to me there is no possible answer that the minister can give in equity, justice or common sense than to get up and say this letter carrier delivery service will be inaugurated.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes and his implied compliments, in which he repeated some of the sentiments expressed last night by my good friend from Annapolis Valley. I am
DEBATES	8815
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion sorry to have disappointed the high expectations of these people but I can assure them that all of us in the Post Office are doing the very best we can to provide the best possible service under the circumstances.
We have reached a threshold where the increasing volume of mail can no longer be handled with the manual methods that have been the traditional policy of governments during the last several generations. It is in the process of making the change to accommodate ourselves to the needs of our times that we are having our present difficulties, by the way difficulties which are much exaggerated by the hon. members opposite.
With respect to the city of Courtenay itself, as I explained to the hon. member although I did not give him the precise date, on March 1 of 1968, a well known economy drive was launched by the government of the day, and a freeze was instituted in virtually all of the departments in an attempt to limit spending and to reduce the burden of the taxpayers who, incidentally, are the electors of hon. members opposite as well as of members on this side of the house.
As a result of this, Courtenay is one of 24 communities where a letter carrier service is justified under our criteria, but where for lack of funds we cannot introduce it until such time as this freeze is lifted. Until that is done we will simply have to provide the traditional service to which these communities have been accustomed, and it is our intention to continue to do so.
The cost of introducing a letter carrier service is approximately $50,000 per community, and so we are really contributing to reducing the burden on the general funds of government by the amount of $1,200,000. I suppose I could appeal to my colleagues in the cabinet to reduce expenditures by a similar amount in the fields of medicare, old age pensions and welfare, but this I am not prepared to do. I feel that if it were explained to the people of Courtenay that as soon as this freeze is lifted and the funds are available we intend to proceed to implement our program of instituting letter carrier service in that town, they will accept this with their usual good will.



THE GUARANTEED INCOME OF FARMERS OF SAGUENAY-LAC ST-JEAN

Mr. C. A. Gaulhier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question I put to the hon. minister on May 1, I must say that I am very
May IS. 1969
8816	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion glad to see that the parliamentary secretary is here; having been a member of farmers' associations, he is the right man to provide us with a workable solution.
This answer should relate to a question raised at a meeting held with farmers, on April 28, 1969. Four members of the house of commons attended that meeting during which a problem kept cropping up namely that farmers had no official representatives with the responsible authorities; they urged us to ask the minister whether he could allow them to be represented on the task force.
They wanted to know whether the minister would accept the setting up of a negotiating committee made up of delegates of the Dairy Commission and of the representatives of the agricultural organizations and would let farmers be heard before the official dairy policy were announced.
We feel that the hon. minister and his parliamentary secretary should give an answer to the farmers who put the question, so that the possibility of establishing a negotiating unit might be considered.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
They criticized the government for not allowing them to give evidence and to discuss dairy policies at the level of the C.F.U. organization. The parliamentary secretary knows all about the work of the C.F.U. and that is why I asked the Minister the following question:
Could the Minister tell the house whether it is his intention to allow the C.F.U. in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area to be officially accredited as the negotiation unit for questions regarding our area, especially as far as the guaranteed income of farmers is concerned?
It does seem to show that I saw things eye to eye with the farmers. Where their income is at stake, it seems normal that they should have their say when their share of revenue for a dairy year is being decided upon. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is willing to tell the house whether some formula has been devised to provide closer discussions between farm organizations and the Dairy Commission or the department represented here by the Commission. This should be the first step towards an agreement between the farmers and the Dairy Commission which has final decision as to what it will be able to offer to milk producers. The Commission determines also the income those farmers may expect for the coming year.
I simply wish to direct my question on the specific aspect, of establishing a negotiating

unit so that farmers will be able to discuss and to participate in the formulation of the government's dairy policies.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), I think he knows as well as I do that the government, when discussing farm policies or any change in these policies, never fails to take into consideration, all recommendations coming from farm organizations.
I would like to point out to him that he missed a very good opportunity to let the population know that their representative is a member of the committee on agriculture.
So, in that capacity, along with a few other hon. members, he might have explained the beneficial effects of the Canadian Dairy Commission, which negotiates directly with farm associations.
In the May 7 issue of La Terre de chez-nous-not so long ago-the new farm policy was announced. On page 12, the Quebec Federation of Manufactured Milk Producers explains the beneficial effects of the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is said that such results were obtained due to the commendable cooperation of the Federation of Manufactured Milk Producers.
I suggest that the hon. member should explain to his constituents that good results were obtained, that considerable work was done, and that the Federation of Manufactured Milk Producers co-operated.
After all, the president of the Federation of Manufactured Milk Producers, who lives in the Saguenay region, is a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Dairy Commission.
If such co-operation is required, it is because the hon. member for Roberval was a bit concerned when he was asked that question, and he did not know that those who were asking it were members of a committee who happens to have negotiated the decisions taken by the Canadian Dairy Commission.
The hon. member for Roberval, every time he attends the meetings of the committee on agriculture, expresses, I think, worthwhile opinions. I would ask him if it is possible, as we have a role to play as members of parliament, whatever the party we belong to, to try to say a great deal of work is done, because farm associations are not in a position to criticize us when they cannot understand our policies.
May 16, 1969

Those who are not on the government side are in a good position to use those criticisms, but we must try to explain our policies and all the work that is done to our farm associations. So, I can say, Mr. Speaker that the hon. member for Roberval could have been a good member of parliament, because in the-


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


Florian Côté: -committee on
agriculture-


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


Florian Côté: It is perhaps a good thing to know.


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



TRADE-WHEAT-STATIONING OF SALES REPRESENTATIVE IN MAINLAND CHINA

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on May 8 I posed a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in which I asked him whether the Canadian government would consider stationing a permanent sales representative of the Canadian Wheat Board in China once diplomatic recognition has been achieved. Of course, the motive I had in asking the question was that at the present time procedures are in process to recognize China diplomatically. While these discussions are going on, I think the government should be talking about stationing a permanent trade mission in China because this is one of the largest potential markets in the world. I believe it is one of the markets on which Canada should capitalize for the benefit not only of ourselves but the international community as an entirety.
I congratulate the government for undertaking diplomatic manoeuvres designed to recognize China, but I also criticize the government for the long time it took in considering such a move. I think this should have been done years ago. I know that as a new member, particularly a member of the younger generation, I find it unbelievable that there still are members of parliament who say we should not recognize China diplomatically. I am very disappointed, particularly with some members of the Conservative party. I think their attitude results from nothing but intellectual constipation. I believe they are so far out of touch, it is beyond comprehension.
I think we should establish a trade mission in China for two reasons. First, I believe
DEBATES	8817
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion there is a domestic reason. I believe the biggest problem on the prairies today and in the farming communities is lack of cash. We need an immediate source of cash and some long range planning as well. I think in China we have a market which must be pursued. I think the Chinese economy today is better organized than it has been in years past. I believe we have there a potential market among the 600 million or 700 million people. I think we should take advantage of this opportunity to build up a trade market, because I believe eventually the other nations of the world will become interested in this area.
Secondly, I think China is very valuable politically. About one quarter of the world's people live there and I think we must bring them into the world family. I think it is insane to believe otherwise. One way to do this is through diplomatic recognition, but there must also be as much trade as possible. It is my opinion that there should be a comprehensive trade program. It would be insane not to do something like this because if we leave these people outside the world community, we will only increase the danger of world trouble and world insecurity.
I should like to stop here and ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to comment on the idea of establishing a permanent trade representative or mission in China. This is only a start on what I would like to see in the way of more trade and cultural exchanges between our countries. In this way we can improve not only our own conditions and give more security to our own economy, particularly that of western Canada, but also create a more harmonious international community.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there would appear to be some slight confusion in the use of words. The hon. member refers' at times to a "trade commissioner" and at other times to a "Canadian Wheat Board representative". There is a difference. Of course, it is too early to announce what form the Canadian mission to Peking will take if and when the Chinese Communists accept Canadian recognition. It might be a bit premature to say this afternoon who the mission would include but it would seem normal that it would include a trade commissioner such as we have in many other countries of the world.
In the meantime my hon. friend is aware that we have trade commissioners in Hong Kong. One of them was recently at the Canton Fair. So there is knowledge from Hong
May 16, 1969
8818	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Kong in respect of the economic and trade situation in China.
With regard to having a representative of the Wheat Board in China, this would be a matter of Canadian Wheat Board policy and in due course we will see what it is. In the meantime, as is also known, the Wheat Board is in contact with potential buyers in China. Just recently the assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Lawrie was in Hong Kong where he met with an association called the Chinese Resources Commission or something like that, which represents the Communist Chinese government in wheat trade matters.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)



HOUSING-REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, on May 8 I directed a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In substance, the question asked the minister whether he would make any amendments to Bill C-192, the housing legislation which was recently introduced. I am very happy to see the minister take his place in the house, and I should like immediately to congratulate him on his appointment as minister responsible for housing. He did a very effective job in the department of Indian affairs, even though new legislation was not forthcoming. Nevertheless, he was at home in that department and his efforts in that regard may initiate action to help the Indian people.
I hope the same will be true in respect of housing.
I do not have to recall the events in respect of the housing crisis. You will recall that during the election campaign in June of last year one of the platforms of the Liberal party was a massive housing program to meet housing needs in Canada. In September, because the crisis continued, this government set up a task force on housing. That task force reported in January of this year and we are anxiously awaiting action on the recommendations of that task force. There seemed to be conflict in the cabinet, the result of which was that the Minister of Transport in charge of housing resigned. Apparently this was because of differences that minister had with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We now have the present minister in charge of housing.
The Prime Minister indicated there was no crisis in housing, and this precipitated a special debate on housing some two weeks ago. Members of this house have looked at


Bill C-192 and have found that it is merely a housekeeping bill and a capitulation to financial institutions across the country. This resulted in a caucus and a request that the minister bring in amendments to this bill.
Hon. members realize that their efforts in the past were effective in respect of action on the part of the Postmaster General-we did receive amendments to the Post Office Act- and also in respect of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) regarding the Estate Tax bill. Hon. members saw shortcomings so far as Bill C-192 was concerned.
This bill does not have provisions in respect of low income families, a decrease in the price of land or a decrease in interest rates. Hon. members have attempted to persuade the government to seriously consider these three matters.
It is my understanding that the minister has just completed an emergency course in housing and is now ready to go ahead with Bill C-192. I am sure he is anxious to rise in his place and support members of the house and the people of this country by presenting some of the amendments he intends to bring forward in respect of Bill C-192. I am sure he will not repeat that performance we witnessed today in respect of the languages bill. Surely, he will not wait until this bill goes to the committee to rise in his place and tell us his ideas about the shortcomings of the bill and the amendments he proposes. The minister said he would approach this matter with an open mind, and as a result of his past performance I am sure he is anxious to answer these important problems.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I tender my apologies for being late and not hearing the opening of the hon. member's remarks. I got caught in a traffic jam as a result of the construction going on along Wellington street. I hope the hon. member will forgive me. I should like to thank him very much for his kind remarks regarding my new assignment and my involvement in another department for the past ten months-an assignment I very much regret leaving.
The hon. member has used the word "crisis". Under the present circumstances I think this is a word which needs defining. Quite frankly, I prefer to state that in the area of housing this government is very deeply concerned. I hope I can do something to alleviate the situation.
Amendments to the National Housing Act will be brought before the house as soon as
May 16. 1969
the official languages bill debate is completed, I hope sometime next week. We will then be ready to file the bill, move lor second reading and refer it to the committee. The hon. member has expressed hope that some additional information may be forthcoming at this time. Without being evasive I should like to say I am not in a position to advise him about these amendments at this time. I will be in a position to advise all hon. members of this
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion possibility, and will do so as soon as I possibly can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Pursuant to standing order 2(3), this house stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 20, 1969, at 2 p.m.
At 4.39 p.m., the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



Tuesday, May 20, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Caccia.