1969-07-04

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

Mr. Foster: 1.	What plans are there for the construction of a Coast Guard base for the Upper Great Lakes Region of Lake Huron and Lake Superior?
2.	What is the location of the planned base?
3.	In what year will construction be started and when will it be completed?
4.	What is the anticipated cost of the base?
5.	How many ships and how many men will be located at the base?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Consideration has been given to the replacement of the badly deteriorated Coast Guard base at Port Arthur, Ontario.
Plans have been prepared for the construction of the base this year, provision having been made in the estimates amounting to $600,000.
Consideration has also been given to the provision of a small facility at Sault Ste. Marie on presently owned federal property. Plans have not been prepared, and neither time phasing nor magnitude have yet been established.
5.	Not finally decided but unlikely to change appreciably from present, i.e., one ship and approximately seven men.


INDUSTRIAL-SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TASK FORCE
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Who are the members of the Task Force reviewing government programs for Industrial-Scientific research and development?
2.	What are the terms of reference for the above Task Force and when is their report expected to be completed?
3.	Will the above report be tabled in the House?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1 and 2. The task force referred to is an interdepartmental study group. It is not the practice to name public servants doing such work or to make available information concerning such projects.
3.	The report of the study group was not drafted with a view to publication.


YARMOUTH, N.S.-PROVISION OF TERMINAL FACILITIES
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works received a request from the Government of Nova Scotia for the provision of terminal facilities at Yarmouth for an end-loading ferry to operate between that port and a port in the U.S.A. and, if so, when was this request received?
2.	What are the specifications of the ship for which the facilities would be provided?
3.	Has the ship been acquired and, if not, on what basis have specifications been sought?
4.	If the Government of Canada builds new terminal facilities at Yarmouth, will the Bluenose be withdrawn from the Yarmouth-Bar Harbour run?
5.	Has the C.N.R. been making payments to the Government of Canada for the use of the terminal at Yarmouth?
6.	When will the new terminals for the new
C.P.R. service between Digby and Saint John be completed?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. Yes. An informal approach was' made by the Government of Nova Scotia in October 1967 and since then correspondence has been exchanged on the terminal arrangements.
2 and 3. Specifications for the ship and the service are the concern of the Province and the operator. The Canadian Transport Commission is advised that the operator has under construction a ship of 350' length, 55' beam and 14' draft.
4.	No.
5.	C.N.R. in its role as operating agent for the Government of Canada makes no payment for use of the terminal.
6.	Anticipated completion date December 31, 1970.

July 4. 1969
Private Bills
involve a huge amount of money. I shall not read what the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) said, because I have only a few minutes and I wish to deal with other points. In my constituency about 41,000 people speak English-these figures are based on the old constituency-and only 100 speak French. Can anyone imagine me supporting this measure and thereby making it impossible for 97J per cent of my people to get a job in the civil service or obtain promotion? I ask, should I take that position? I do not think that is fair.
Other ethnic groups have been mentioned in the debate. I want to cover a lot of territory in a short time. The ethnic composition of the people in my area is as follows: Those from the British Isles, which include English, Welsh, Scots and Irish, 12,000; French, 2,100; German, 3,500; Italian, 94; Jewish, 25; Netherlands, 765; Polish, 3,000; Russian, 1,306; Scandinavian, 4,100; Ukrainian, 10,248; other European, 2,500; Asiatic, 82; native Indian and Eskimo, 4,100. We are overlooking that aspect of the matter. Now, with the proposed changes to the rules-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills, notices of motions.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be general agreement in the house that we proceed with items Nos. 1 and 2 on the list of private bills, that is, Bill S-32 and Bill S-39, and once those two bills have been disposed of the house would entertain a motion to adjourn.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: that on Bill S-32, respecting The Canada North-west Land Company (Limited), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Ian Grant Wahn: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


BOY SCOUTS OF CANADA
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface) moved: that Bill S-39, respecting Boy Scouts of Canada and to incorporate L'Association des Scouts du Canada, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the house adjourn at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous agreement this house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday.
At 4.04 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
July 4, 1969

appointed by the parliament of Canada, not by the government. He will report to the parliament of Canada and not to the government.
When the purposes of this bill have been approved by nearly all of us in this house, and when this measure is passed, I hope that all of us here will accept responsibility as members of parliament to explain this historic piece of legislation to make sure it contributes as most of us believe it will to the greater unity of Canada and greater opportunity for all its citizens.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few minutes to express some of my feelings on this subject. I feel very strongly about this bill, not because it will make it possible to speak both English and French within the civil service, but because, as a member who belongs to neither the English or French ethnic group, I have a responsibility to the people back in my constituency. This is the first opportunity I have nad to discharge that responsibility during my 11 years in this house and to thank my people for sending me here. There are those who may scoff at this suggestion. However, the experience in my lifetime, short as it may have been until now, is of some very humiliating and trying episodes brought on by people who subjected not only myself but people of my kind to a great deal of ridicule and humiliation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Hon. members must understand that I represent a constituency that is perhaps different from theirs, and I may have to speak a ittle differently from those who have already spoken in the debate. I have to express an >pinion that is not necessarily that which a ot of other people would like to hear. I say his because this is the first opportunity I lave had to thank those people who sent me lere and to express their views.
There are many things I would like to deal vith, such as, for example, the constitutional-ty of this bill. I do not think the government ippreciates the constitution at all. I think hose people who have come to this country from countries whose constitutions have been iverridden would appreciate someone saying o the government that a constitution either neans something or it does not. It is evident hat this government has about as much re-ipect for the constitution as a tom cat has for
Official Languages
morals. I could say a great deal more on that subject, but I shall go on to my next point.
I know what the position of the government is with regard to the bill; I can read the signs. It is quite apparent from tne votes that have already been taken. I know that I should not discuss votes that have been taken, Mr. Speaker, but it is obvious that the government does not want to improve the bill. I do not claim to speak on behalf of other ethnic groups; I can speak only for myself. I tell the house and the country that I am able to think just as members on the other side of the house are able to do. They cannot take this away from me.
This will be a very expensive exercise, and we have gone about it the wrong way if we believe the civil service should be bilingual. I have not too much quarrel with that, but let us bring bilingualism to the people out in the country; let us give them the opportunity to learn the other language. Let us start the program where it should be started, in the little, red school house. I would like the program to be started at this level, rather than flouting the constitution and telling us that it does not mean a damn. We are told that the constitution has been changed once, twice or three times and it may have to be changed again because of this and other bills. I think this is a wrong way of going about it. If we have the money with which to carry out this expensive exercise, let us start it where it should be started. I took five years of French. To what avail? The type of French that was available to me was a waste of time. I might as well have studied the stars, because I would at least have got something out of that. I might as well have studied heavenly bodies, anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley James Korchinski: We have gone about this in the wrong way. The Acting Minister of Mines and Resources wrote an article in my local paper suggesting, lo and behold, that the bill does not require federal civil servants to learn the French language, but in areas where a significant number of people have French as their mother tongue those people will be able to obtain federal services and information in that language. He suggested that perhaps secretaries should have this bilingual ability. Perhaps he has a secretary who satisfies his requirements, but not everybody is entitled to a secretary, especially a bilingual one. Undertaking this program will

July 4, 1969
Official Languages
I was gratified today to hear the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) say he unreservedly supports the principle of this bill, and that there is nothing in the bill of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) need be ashamed. I regret that is not the altitude of all the members of his party, but I am convinced that this is truly his attitude and his party should be proud of the manner in which he conducted himself as its spokesman.
The only exception I take to his remarks, and those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is regarding the alleged lack of effort on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to explain this bill. I cannot imagine any parliamentary proposal which has received so much discussion in the country as has this bill. During the election and since, I suppose there is not one minister of this government who has not spoken about this bill and in all parts of the country. As a parliamentary secretary I have had the opportunity of speaking about it in at least three provinces.
I must say, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I did not find in Winnipeg the same antagonism toward this bill as that reflected in the remarks of some hon. members of the opposition from that province who have spoken during this debate. I did not find that kind of response or antagonism when I spoke about this bill in Vancouver. I did not find that kind of antagonistic response when I spoke at a meeting of Ukrainian Canadians in Winnipeg, a national convention of Canadian Ukrainians.
Contrary to what has been said, allegedly on behalf of certain ethnic groups, it might be of interest to know that Ukrainian-Canadi-an university groups across Canada officially approve of the official languages bill. I think this is an indication of the attitude of young Canadians of all ethnic origins.


Mr. Baldwin:: Will the hon. member permit a question on this particular issue? I am glad he referred to Ukrainian university students. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that a telegram was sent to me as the sponsor of a resolution to substitute a new clause 38 approving the position I took? I am not in any way trying to deprecate what the hon. member said, I am wondering whether he is aware of this fact.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Perhaps I might ask a question of the hon. member. Is he aware-


Mr. Aiken:: Hold on; what's going on?


Mr. Slanbury:: I should be glad to entertain a question from the Hon. Minister of Justice.


John Napier Turner: I should like to know whether the hon. member is aware of the opinion of the committee of this house to the effect that if we proceeded with clause 38 we would do more in this particular situation than we might have done by accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members will realize that there has already been a disposition of that matter and the discussion now is in respect of the motion now before the house.


Richard J. Stanbury: I can say that I am aware of the matter to which the Minister of Justice has referred. The fact is that university students of Ukrainian extraction have recognized, as I presume the house leader of the official opposition has recognized, the intrinsic value of this bill. We may each have different opinions about how best to protect the rights of Canadians whose first language is other than English or French, but the principle of the bill has been clearly approved by these young Canadians. This illustrates the attitude taken generally by young Canadians toward this bill which, I am pleased to say, has been unreservedly approved today by the official spokesman of the official opposition.
Many members who have spoken during this debate have expressed approval of this measure in principle, but some in their remarks have tended to encourage rather than allay the fears they claim exists among Canadian citizens. Let me say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Cardigan that there is a responsibility on members of opposition parties. The hon. member for York South has carried out that responsibility most admirably. There is a responsibility on the part of members who belong to parties other than the party on this side to explain this measure to the people of Canada.
This has been a government bill up to this point because the government has the responsibility of putting it forward. When this bill is passed, as I presume it will be, with almost unanimous approval in this house, it will become an act of the parliament of Canada. Under this act the commissioner will be

July 4, 1969

recognition that one third of our Canadian people from other than English and French origins are to be placed in a lower category".
The Liberals are pushing the official languages act and the N.D.P. blindly supports it.
I am for minority rights. I am for teaching your language of descent in the public schools from Grade 1 and your second language, not compulsory French, on an optional basis where economically feasible and practicable.
The hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield), in their speeches at various stages of this bill, denied everything that is written in that pamphlet; but this was the kind of-


An hon. Member:: Garbage.


Mr. Orlikow:: "Garbage" one of my colleagues says-the kind of propaganda that was disseminated in the province of Manitoba from one end to the other. It was completely unsuccessful in my constituency which has a large ethnic population. Not only were all our candidates elected, but the percentage of the total vote they received ranged from a low of 60 per cent to a high of 70 per cent. The same was true in the provincial constituencies contained in the federal constituencies of St. Boniface, Selkirk, Provencher, Winnipeg South, Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre. We carried or came close to carrying the constituencies of Dauphin and Churchill.


Mr. Stanbury:: What bill are we discussing?


David Orlikow: I am trying to tell the parliamentary secretary that there is no need to worry. The people of the country are not so angry they will vote against any party which supports Canadian unity.
I have no hesitation in supporting this bill at this stage. I do not think it is a perfect bill. Members of our party and of the official opposition have moved amendments which I think would have improved the bill. I am a little concerned about the commissioner and his authority, as well as the manner in which he is to report. The one thing which would harm our country or create dissension would be a feeling on the part of any group that the people in that group were not being treated as first class citizens. I said before, and say again, that I did not think there was anything in this bill that did that. However, as members of parliament and as Canadian citizens, it is our duty to guarantee to the people of Canada that their rights are not being infringed by this bill.
Official Languages
I would hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and other members of the government who drafted this bill, who sponsored it and who piloted it through parliament, would assume responsibility for explaining to the people of Canada, as the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State have done, that not every person in Canada must become bilingual and that not every civil servant must be bilingual. They should explain that every person of English origin or French origin has a right to conduct business with the government in his own language, but that not every civil servant must be able to speak French. As the Secretary of State said, the head of the income tax office in Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver does not have to be able to speak French. I say this fact has not yet been explained to the people of Canada.
We, as individual members, have spoken in support of this bill both in the house and outside the house. We have tried to explain to the people precisely what this measure means, but after all we are members of the opposition and the people would not expect us, nor could the government expect us to be treated as representatives of the government. I say to the Prime Minister that he has a responsibility to travel across the country talking about his concept of one Canada and explaining how this bill, as well as similar legislation in the future, help the one-Canada concept. I hope that he would do this in the same eloquent and convincing manner he did it in June of 1968.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to those of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), by way of thanks to the hon. member for York-Sincoe (Mr. Roberts), who served as chairman of the special committee on the official languages bill, and the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), who served as vice-chairman.
Let me say, as one who was concerned with the details of this bill and its passage, how much I admired the work of all the members of that committee from all parties. They did their very best to bring to this house a bill which was worthy of parliamentary approval. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) deserves mention as the chief spokesman for his party on that committee, particularly because of his very constructive contribution to its work.

July 4, 1969
Official Languages
people. I join with the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) in saying that it was a dereliction on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). During the last election the Prime Minister campaigned from one end of Canada to the other for a united Canada. He explained to the people in the key centres of our country that this legislation was necessary to maintain one Canada.
The Minister of Justice went across the country. He did not talk to the ordinary citizens. He made the mistake, I think the Manitoba election proved it was a mistake, of talking to the premiers as though the premiers necessarily represented the people. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) also went across the country. He does not turn me off as he seems to turn off so many members of this house. I did not object to the things he said inside or outside of the house. However, I want to say the representations I received have indicated he is not a very good salesman for this bill, whatever his other problems may be.
I am amazed at the total lack of participation in explaining this bill not just by the Prime Minister, but by virtually every English speaking cabinet minister of this government. If the minister from Manitoba, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) or the ministers from British Columbia spoke on this bill in their own provinces, I certainly did not see any reports to that effect. It is not surprising the people are still confused.
When I spoke on second reading of this bill in May, I said that many of the people in my constituency, particularly the people of nonEnglish or non-French speaking origin, the Ukraines, Poles, Czechs and the Jewish people I represent in such large numbers, had doubts about it. They wondered whether this bill would make them into second or third class citizens. I had no hesitation in voting in support of this measure but I suggest to the Secretary of State, as did the former member for Selkirk when he spoke on October 17, 1968, that the federal government ought not to merely pass this kind of legislation, but ought to promote the cultures and languages of the other ethnic groups of this country, the Germans, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and other groups. This is what the Prime Minister suggested in a press interview at the time he was Minister of Justice.
One of the first announcements the former hon. member for Selkirk made was that his government in Manitoba will set up a task
[Mr. Orlikow.l
force to study what a provincial government ought to do about this language problem. Had this kind of thing been done, we would not have the tremendous doubts which still exist. Five members of parliament from Manitoba voted against this bill at the second reading stage. I do not question their right to do this or their motives. I think they did so because they believed substantial numbers of the people they represent oppose this bill. One of the important lessons the people of Canada can learn from the election held in Manitoba last week is that while the people of Manitoba are concerned about this bill, they are not opposed to it.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The facts are very clear. The Toronto Globe and Mail of Friday, June 27, 1969 in an editorial dealing with the Manitoba election said this:
It is an illuminating sidelight on the man that of the three leaders in the campaign, he alone publicly supported the federal Official Languages Act-[DOT]
They are speaking of course of Mr. Schreyer.
-which is not popular in Manitoba. He had voted for it in Parliament and he was honest enough to stand by his convictions. The Liberals, whose brothers in Ottawa had introduced the bill, and Mr. Weir, who attacked it, appear to have alienated the public by pandering to its prejudices.
I shall not say that our party won the election because Mr. Schreyer stood firm in his conviction that this bill must pass parliament, but I do say that opposition to this bill was used extensively, not just by Mr. Weir but by candidates all across the province, particularly in those areas in which it was felt there was opposition to the bill.
I should like to place on the record part of a pamphlet which was circulated by the Conservative candidate in one of the provincial constituencies which is contained in my federal constituency. The candidate, Mr. Swyst-en, was a candidate in the constituency of Burrows in which the people are probably 80 per cent Slavic in their ethnic origin. This pamphlet reads:
I'm completely against the official languages act which will ultimately make French compulsory for everybody. The official languages act is unconstitutional and discriminates against and disregards the rights of all ethnic groups other than English and French such as Ukrainian, Polish, German, Jewish, Czech, Slovak, Baltic groups, etc. No one language is superior to another.
Right hon. John Diefenbaker stated just three weeks ago about the language bill, "There is a
July 4, 1969

I cannot stress this point too strongly, Mr. Speaker. Members of the opposition have no effective power to obtain the report of the advisory board or the commissioner. They cannot force that report to be referred to a committee of this house, and that is not right. This report ought to be subject to the scrutiny of the appropriate standing committee of this house. That was the gist of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South. If accepted, his amendment would have guaranteed that the report would be referred to the appropriate standing committee of this house. The Minister of Justice was asked to give an assurance that he would not object,, on behalf of the government, to the referral of such report to a committee. I know he cannot give that assurance today and I appreciate his position; but I cannot understand why he did not accept that amendment. I have confidence enough to think that, despite his powers, the commissioner will effectively and efficiently carry out his duties. All the same his report should be subject to the scrutiny of the representatives of the people of Canada, because it is the people of Canada with whom the commissioner is dealing. If he is not scrupulously careful about doing his duty in an efficient manner, there is all the more reason for sending his report to a committee of this house rather than leaving it to the discretion of the government. I do not care which Party forms the government, it should not be left in their discretion to decide whether or not this man's report should be submitted to a committee of this house.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I realize I have probably taken up more time than I should, and the house has been very lenient toward me. These are some of the objections we have to the bill. These are some of the things which we in our party, and members of other opposition parties, earnestly tried to correct in committee. Unfortunately, the government did not see fit to go along with them. We want to see this bill work. We can only hope and pray that the bill will be properly administered once it becomes law. If it is, I do not think there is any question but that it will promote the unity in this country to which we as Canadian citizens look forward.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the aims and principles of this bill have received overwhelming support from hon. members in all parties at every stage at which the bill has been discussed. If I remember correctly, in the vote on second
Official Languages
reading every Liberal member, every member of New Democratic Party, every Credi-tiste member and a very substantial majority of the members of the official opposition voted in support of the bill.
We must realize that in this country there is a good deal of doubt, hard feeling and objection to this bill. I believe to a large extent these doubts and objections are based on misconceptions. They are based on objections by people who have not even read the bill. I do not think anyone questions the fact that there is a good deal of doubt about this bill. One needs only remind hon. members that the former premier of Alberta indicated he would, in all probability, challenge the legality of this bill in the Supreme Court. The present Liberal Premier of Saskatchewan indicated he may challenge the validity of this bill, and the Conservative Premier of Manitoba made it clear that he not only opposed this bill, but that he would in all likelihood take this bill to the Supreme Court of Canada.


An hon. Member:: The former premier.


David Orlikow: The premier until next week. I will come to that in a few moments. The deputy leader of our party, the former member for Selkirk who will be the Premier of Manitoba next week, to whose speech I will refer in a few moments, and I myself gave unreserved support to the basic principles of this bill. We realize it is necessary if this country is to survive as one country. We English speaking people, and I say that as a person who is not of Anglo-Saxon origin but a member of the third force, as it has been called so often inside and outside this house, have been portrayed as people who oppose this bill. This measure supposedly makes us second or third class citizens. I will come back to that in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. We support this bill because we realize unless the French speaking people of Canada, and particularly the French speaking people of Quebec, are made to feel they are equal partners in Confederation the urge to separate will grow rather than diminish.
I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who has had the task of piloting this bill through the house, that the government has not helped those of us who voted for the bill in spite of the fact we knew many of our constituents were confused about it. The government has not helped in getting the message in relation to this measure across to the

Official Languages those civil servants who are not bilingual and who, because of their age, have little prospect of becoming bilingual. We should have liked to see those civil servants more adequately protected. Those who are getting along in years especially need protecting in this regard. I think we all realize that as we grow older we find it increasingly difficult to acquire a working knowledge of any tongue other than our mother tongue. We hoped to see civil servants falling into this category being given a little more protection.
We are not at all happy about the administrative process under which bilingual districts are to be established. We were particularly dissatisfied and unhappy with the government's obvious reluctance to have the people of the affected districts participate in meaningful discussion. When we put our proposals in this area to the government in committee, the government went along with what we said.
We are particularly unhappy with that part of the bill which provides that once a bilingual district has been set up it will remain a bilingual district even though its population changes. That is firmly spelled out in the bill. Once a bilingual district, always a bilingual district-that is what the bill says. In these days people move about quickly and easily from one area to another. We can easily conceive of a situation in which, over a 15 year period, the 10 per cent of the people speaking French in a bilingual area may, because of their mobility and changing circumstances, move away from the area and leave behind, say, 1 per cent of the total population of the area which can speak French. In other words, only 1 per cent of those in the bilingual district will speak French-and the argument is equally applicable to English speaking people in a French area-but the bilingual district will still remain a bilingual district. The government will still have to supply bilingual services in the area for the entire population, even though 1 per cent of the population speaks one of the official languages and 99 per cent speaks the other. We feel that is not right.
This matter was mentioned in committee. We feel that it entails a waste of the taxpayers' money. We do not object to money being spent on bilingual services where they are required and where they will be used. If however, as a result of changing population patterns there is no longer any reason for those services to be provided, then the continued provision of those services entails a

July 4, 1969
waste of the taxpayers' money. If the government had accepted our amendment it would not, surely, have detracted one iota from the principle of the bill. We suggested that once the percentage of those speaking French or English in a bilingual area fell below a certain level, there ought to be no further obligation on the government to provide bilingual services which are expensive and which, under those circumstances, entail a great waste of the taxpayers' money.
The bill provides for the appointment of a linguistic ombudsman. This point has been thoroughly debated in committee and in this house and I will not belabour it. It is sufficient for me to say that precisely the sort of man he is to be has not been spelled out. We are sincerely of the opinion that even now the bill gives this languages commissioner excessive powers. We think it would have been much better if the bill had confined his powers to those which are given to a commissioner under the Inquiries Act. We made that suggestion in committee and in this house but again, and I say this with all due respect, we were unfortunate in that the government did not go along with our proposal.
I must be frank, Mr. Speaker, and say that I was far from satisfied with the explanation the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) gave this morning for refusing to accept the amendment which would have had the effect of referring the report of the commissioner to a committee of this house. With all sincerity, we say that that provision ought to have been written into the bill. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the leader of the N.D.P. pointed out this morning, once the report has been tabled there is no effective way for us, so to speak, to get it off the table. It is all very well for the Minister of Justice to say that I or other hon. members on this side of the house may introduce motions saying that this report shall be referred to a committee. What the minister said looks great on paper. We must look at this question realistically and not forget that no matter what government is in power-and another government will be in power in four years time-if the members of the government do not want that report to go to committee, it will not go. The government, having the majority of the votes in the house at its command, can always vote against such motion, and the report will not go to committee. So I say that even though I and others in the opposition may want to see the report, we have no effective way of obtaining it.
July 4, 1969



the two great language communities. The bill recognizes the necessity for providing equal government services at the federal level to all citizens whether they speak English or French. We support the bill because we believe that it can prove to be an instrument to bring about greater unity rather than division.
Having said that, I would not want the house to gain the impression that, because we support certain important principles inherent in the bill we are, therefore, happy about every aspect of it; far from it. We have very serious reservations about the means by which the government proposes to implement these principles. The means used to implement the bill may very well prove to be equally as important to the objects of the bill as are the principles.
We see some very grave and serious dangers arising if this bill is not properly administered. In committee we sought to remedy some of the rather glaring weak spots in the bill in terms of its administrative provisions. It is with some justifiable pride that I say that some of the proposals we made in the committee were accepted. I should like briefly to review for the house the proposals that were made by us in committee and which the government members of the committee as well as the committee as a whole saw fit to accept.
Clause 15 as originally drafted set up the bilingual districts advisory board. An examination of the original clause 15 revealed that the advisory board was given the power to determine whether or not a certain area should be classified as a bilingual district, and this determination could be made without holding a public hearing. We felt that this function was important enough to warrant a public hearing in the area concerned before that determination was made. We, therefore, submitted a proposal to the committee which the committee accepted. As a result, before determining that a given area shall be classified as a bilingual district, the bilingual districts advisory board must now hold at least one public hearing in that area, at which hearing organizations and individuals are free to make known their views.
Clause 24 of the original bill authorized the commissioner of official languages-and make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker; this man is given great powers-not only to carry out the duties assigned to him under the languages bill, but also, the original bill states, to:
-carry out such other assignments and engage in such other activities as may be authorized by the Governor in Council.
Official Languages
We conceived that to mean that, if the Governor in Council saw fit he could authorize this commissioner to carry out practically any kind of investigation, even though it may not be related to his duties under the official languages act. Therefore, we asked the committee, and the committee agreed, to include the word "related", in the clause, and now the bill provides that the commissioner can carry out only those assignments that are related to the official languages act which may be authorized by the Governor in Council.
Clause 25 of the original bill gave the commissioner power to interfere in the affairs of parliament. We felt that this was much too broad a power to give the commissioner and so we had the clause amended. As a result of our amendment, his power now extends only to the institutions of the parliament of Canada and not to the parliament of Canada itself.
Clause 26 (5) as originally drafted provided that, if the commissioner thought fit, he could give his reasons for any decision that he made. For example, if a complaint were made against a department of government or an individual, the commissioner would hold a hearing; but under the bill as originally drafted the commissioner was not required to make his decision known to the department of government or individual concerned. We suggested, and I think properly suggested because the committee accepted our suggestion, that the words "if he thinks fit" should be dropped. As a result of our proposal in committee, the commissioner is now required to make known the reasons for his decision. Before that the bill said the commissioner did not have to inform the complainant of the reasons for his decision. Now, the commissioner is required to notify not only the complainant but also the people complained against of the reasons for his decision. We were happy indeed that the minister and the committee went as far as they did in meeting our suggestions in committee. We were glad to see the changes brought in; nevertheless, we still feel that other changes to the bill could have been made to improve it. We tried to introduce those changes by bringing amendments before this house, but unfortunately they did not carry.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for York South (Mr, Lewis) proposed an important amendment, which was accepted, to the effect that section 107 of the Criminal Code shall not apply to the official languages act. We do not think the government has gone far enough in protecting

July 4, 1969
Official Languages
the French language and culture as a continuing fact in Canada. He stated, and I quote:
This involves no more than the acceptance of reality and the recognition that the French tradition is a great tradition which has contributed and will contribute much to our national life.
I suggest that nobody can validly take exception to a statement of that kind.
We say no one is taking anything away from anybody else and, indeed, the bill guarantees this. No one is denying the contribution made by other groups in this country. To make this point even more explicit, we on this side made a proposal to alter the bill slightly. An amendment was introduced by a member of our party which would have made it abundantly clear-though it is reasonably clear in the bill as it stands-that no one is attempting to deny the valuable contribution which the ethnic groups have made to Canadian life. Unfortunately, our proposal was not accepted. But we believe the bill will do nothing to take away from these people the privileges, rights and honours to which they are justly entitled.
As I said earlier, the bill is unfortunately much misunderstood throughout the country. With all due respect, I suggest that responsibility for this situation lies at the doorstep of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whose complete failure to engage personally in a dialogue with the Canadian people about this measure is a major factor in permitting the amount of misunderstanding which exists today.
The Prime Minister would like to blame the press. But I think the press has done an excellent job in trying to get across to the Canadian people the principles embodied in this bill. The people of Canada did not necessarily want to hear from the press. So many of the things they see in the press they take with a grain of salt. They wanted to hear these things from the lips of the Prime Minister of Canada. He was the man who carried the responsibility for promoting the principles of the official languages bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why he did not promote the measure to a greater extent. Surely, there is nothing in the bill of which he need be ashamed. As far as the principle is concerned, he can be proud of it. Why he did not go out and properly explain the purpose of the measure to the people of Canada, thus avoiding all the confusion and misunderstanding which now exists in the minds of the people, is beyond my comprehension. We on this side continue to be baffled by the Prime Minister's gross neglect in this respect.

We know he cares about this measure. At least, I feel he does. He was the man who conceived it. Why has he not explained it to the people personally? He could have done much to end the unhappiness felt in some parts of our country where this bill has been misinterpreted and misunderstood. The blame for the present situation lies directly on the doorstep of the Prime Minister of Canada. He could have made a major contribution to Canadian unity during the past few weeks by explaining to the people of this country what this bill is all about. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister chose not to do this. Indeed, it seems to us that at times the Prime Minister prefers to leave to the opposition parties the task of trying to explain this government measure. I suggest that is a very strange situation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Far too many commentators, both in the press and on the radio, have treated this bill as an ethnic measure, as a racist bill. This bill does not deal with race but with language; let that be very clearly understood. This bill deals with two great linguistic cultures, with a great partnership of two groups of people, each with its hopes and fears, its aspirations, its pride in the other and faith in the future, in terms of two tongues, two languages. I submit the so-called third force is not a third force; its members belong to one of two great, co-equal first forces. We in this country are united by a common language, which is one of the two official languages. No Canadian can be properly classed as a third class citizen or even as a second class citizen in so far as his rights, his privileges and his citizenship are concerned.
If this bill were concerned with the dominance of French-speaking Canadians, or with those who are commonly referred to as WASPS, over other kinds of Canadians, as some who misunderstand the bill would have us believe, then the bill would not receive support from the members of this party. Neither would it be supported by those of Scottish, Irish or Welsh origin or by those of non-Protestant religious faith. The members of this party are proud to rank in exactly the same order of equality as all other Canadians who speak the French or English languages, regardless of place of birth or line of descent.
To summarize this part of my remarks, let me say that we support this bill because we sincerely and firmly believe that it asserts the essential equality of all Canadian citizens regardless of their origin. The bill is based on the essential equality for official purposes of
July 4, 1969

strengthen the determination of the two language groups in this country to live happily together.
I believe it is admitted by all fairminded people that as a general rule we have got along very well together in the past. There have been differences, as naturally there are bound to be, and this bill may strengthen our determination to live happily with each other. Such an objective, and I take this to be the objective of the bill, certainly cannot be opposed, and it is simply because of that objective that I and the party I have the honour to represent support the principle embodied in this bill.
To further the determination of the English and French speaking peoples to live happily together, the bill seeks to ensure that no matter which of the two official languages Canadians speak they will be able to enjoy the services of the government in their own language. Surely no fairminded person can take any serious exception to that. The bill directs federal government agencies to provide public services in both languages in areas which have been determined by the advisory board to be bilingual, that is, where at least 10 per cent of the people living in these areas speak either French or English or, in other areas, where in the opinion of the commissioner it is practical to have bilingualism. Under the bill public services in both languages will be provided wherever there are enough speakers of both languages to make the use of those languages a workable and worth-while objective. As legislators I think we will agree it is the very essence of good government to deal with all citizens in ways which are clear and unambiguous1, and to the extent that this bill promotes that object we support it.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
However, I would point out that to whatever extent this bill tends to bring about confusion, resentment or misunderstanding as between citizens and their government, we have serious reservations about it. This is one of the reasons we introduced the amendments put forward from this side of the house, namely, in order to clear up areas of confusion and misunderstanding which we believe exist in this legislation. We did not submit our amendments for the purpose of interfering with the principles embodied in the bill. If you examine our amendments carefully, Mr. Speaker, I think you will conclude that not one of the amendments proposed by our
Official Languages
party interfered in any way with the principles embodied in the measure.
The purpose of the bill is not to compel everybody to learn to speak both English and French. That is not its purpose, though unfortunately I am afraid there are some people throughout Canada who have an idea that this is the case. Such a step-I would call it imposed bilingualism-would certainly spell disaster and it is clear there is no such intention inherent in the legislation before us. As a matter of fact, this is confirmed by an assurance from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) himself. As I gather it, the purpose of the bill is to make for a happier relationship between French speaking and English speaking Canadians. The leader of our party has stated, and I quote:
The Canadian confederation will work only if the French-Canadian people do not feel threatened in their development as such.
That is a correct statement. If the bill we are now considering reassures French speaking Canadians, especially those who live outside the Province of Quebec, if it reassures them substantially as to the willingness and eagerness of the people who live side by side with them to understand their aspirations, it will have done a great deal for our country. I was surprised to hear some of those who spoke yesterday on behalf of the Creditiste party suggesting that the bill would have a divisive effect. I am confident it will not.
There is another point which is often overlooked. In this connection I refer to English speaking Canadians who find themselves in what is essentially a minority position. Many of these are of British origin. But for the most part these islands of English speaking people are today largely composed of nonBritish immigrants representative of the "third force group" as we are sometimes fond of saying. This bill seeks to guarantee the provision of federal services1 in English to these people to the same extent and on the same terms as to French speaking people outside Quebec.
I express the sincere hope that our colleagues everywhere will remember that confederation will only work if not only French speaking Canadians but English speaking Canadians wherever they live do not feel any kind of threat to their cultural rights and opportunities for development. The leader of our party has always stated that English speaking people should accept and welcome

Official Languages
and having him forefeit his right to continue speaking afterwards, to speak to this point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, with consent the house can do anything. But I again make the point that I think it is an irregular procedure and I would not like to encourage it. It is obviously a procedure that can be used on other occasions even though it is not particularly correct. Although I appreciate the strength of the feeling of the hon. member for Cardigan, I would encourage the house to allow the hon. member for Champlain to deal with the point when he makes his contribution on third reading.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: He may not make a contribution then.


Mr. Woolliams:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say with the greatest respect that perhaps the distinguished hon. member will not want to make a contribution at that tune. I believe he did want to say something and I suspect he will likely withdraw the remarks he made if he feels so inclined. So I hope that with the consent of the house you will permit him to speak, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the disposition of the house is more in favour of the view taken by the Minister of Justice. If there is agreement of the house, the hon. member for Champlain may have the floor.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the following remark, as a reply to the request of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid).
I believe that the establishment of bilingual districts is the basic principle of the bill, and that this is significant. But the hon. member undoubtedly said that French-Canadians, within the province of Quebec but especially outside Quebec, were against the establishment of bilingual districts. That is what took place in the special committee on official languages, and those who are against the establishment of bilingual districts are simply against bilingualism, which this bill attempts to implement. So, I maintain what I said.


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Speaker, I can only say I am very disappointed that the hon. member has not seen fit to withdraw his remarks. I am sure he must realize that the objective of

July 4, 1969
this bill is not the setting up of bilingual districts but rather the establishment of the French and English languages within the government services throughout Canada. I can only repeat that I am sorry the hon. member did not withdraw his remarks.
As I said before, what I would like to do first of all is to speak to the general principle embodied in the bill, but I also feel I would be doing less than my duty if I failed to point out some of the general deficiencies in the bill, despite the surgery which was attempted and in some cases performed in the committee, which will affect the people of Canada. I realize that even for experienced draftsmen it is very difficult to draft a perfect bill. Probably they felt they had done the best they could under the circumstances, but we submitted some proposals in the committee which we felt would improve the bill. As I mentioned at the beginning, some of them were accepted while others the committee in its wisdom saw fit to reject. We are convinced that if those proposals which were submitted by us in the committee and later, in somewhat modified or different form, to the house had been adopted, they would have improved the mechanism and the functional operation of the bill. Incidentally, we suggested that they would probably have made it much easier for the government to administer the bill properly when it does become law.
Third, I wish to draw the attention of the house to some rather specific weaknesses in the bill which we on this side of the house still feel should be corrected. We attempted to correct them by several amendments which we introduced but which, so far at least, have not met with the approval of the other side of the house.
As I see it, the basic principle of the legislation before us is to declare explicitly that English and French will be the two official languages of this country after the passing of this bill, as they have been actually in practice since confederation. I do not think anybody will attempt to deny that since confederation, in fact if not in law, English and French have been recognized as our two official languages. So I suggest it is not a very remarkable feat in itself to have introduced this legislation, but the many experts-and no doubt many experts have worked on this matter-have assured us and convinced me personally that the declaration we now find embodied in this bill which will very soon become the law of Canada will certainly
July 4, 1969

appreciation to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) for the contributions they made to the work of the committee. I found them very co-operative and helpful in many ways. While they were not inclined to go along with all the proposals we saw fit to submit to the committee, they entertained them with quite a bit of consideration and in some cases saw fit to accept them. I will deal later in more detail with that aspect of the committee hearings. I also say without hesitation that the law officers of the Crown were extremely helpful in assisting me to draft some of the amendments we had in mind and put them in proper legal form. To them we also extend our sincere thanks.
In speaking to the bill at this stage I would like to do three things specifically. First, I shall speak to the general principle embodied in the bill and, of course, its several amendments. I say without reservation that I support the principle represented in the bill. In this connection, if you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I want to take very serious exception to the allegation made in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) when speaking in the debate. I notice that unfortunately the hon. member is not in his seat at the moment. He was here a few minutes ago. As reported on page 10803 of Hansard, while speaking to an amendment to the bill which I had the privilege of submitting to the house, namely, that dealing with the armed forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the hon. member said:
I read between the lines, and I see that the competence of the French Canadian is questioned. That is one of the purposes of this amendment.
I categorically deny that there was ever any such intention in my mind or the minds of members of our party in introducing that amendment, that is, that one of its purposes was to question the competence of French Canadians. We have the utmost respect for and confidence in the competence of all the people of Canada, be they French speaking, English speaking or of any other ethnic origin. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Champlain saw fit to read into our amendment such a meaning because it certainly was not intended.
That statement can probably be excused but, if I am permitted to say so, what the hon. member then said cannot be excused. I suggest that it was a direct misrepresentation of what I said during the committee study of
Official Languages
the bill. As reported at page 10803 of Hansard, the hon. member for Champlain continued in these words:
Having sat on the special committee on official languages, I have heard with my own ears what the hon. member who moved the amendment-
That was I.
-had to say and he even stated categorically that French Canadians in provinces other than Quebec were against this bill.
I never said that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Champlain is now in his seat. If Your Honour will permit me to do so, I will resume my seat for the moment and ask the hon. member where he finds in the proceedings of the committee that I ever said any such thing. The proceedings of the committee will show what I said. We were discussing an amendment to the bill, and I said:
I think we have to recognize that there are areas in Canada, particularly in western Canada .. . and probably in Quebec too-but I am referring now particularly to the west-where 10 per cent of the people are French speaking.
I continued in these words:
Now, these people are violently opposed to having a bilingual district established in their particular area.
I said that the people of Quebec were in many cases opposed to having bilingual districts established in their area. This is exactly what the Prime Minister of Quebec said, that we were establishing linguistic ghettoes; but it is not what the hon. member for Champlain said I said. He said I stated categorically that French Canadians in provinces other than Quebec were against this bill. I never said any such thing. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to resume my seat now and ask the hon. member either to withdraw that statement or prove that it was said by me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt because I know the hon.
member for Cardigan feels very strongly on this point, but this is an unusual procedure and I think it would be more proper for the hon. member for Champlain, when he makes his contribution on third reading, to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Cardigan. I think that is probably the more correct procedure to follow.


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether with the consent of the house the hon. member for Champlain might be allowed, without prejudicing the hon. member for Cardigan

July 4. 1969
Official Languages
principles are not only important but will be adhered to.
As I said a moment ago, one of the greatest problems facing the public service is the expression of viewpoints on important issues of this kind. I am very conscious of this problem. If I may be permitted a personal reference I might explain to the house something which I attempted to do in April of this year. When my constituency association had its annual meeting, arrangements were made for a discussion on the policy of bilingualism. That meeting was attended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the executive secretary of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.
During that discussion two points were made which I think are important to record at this time. The first point was that the Professional Institute, and I think other organizations representing public servants, felt that the policy as it had developed up to that time had not really protected unilingual civil servants of long experience and service in the way this was contemplated in Mr. Pearson's statement. The other point, which is equally important, is that the staff associations representing the public service were very definitely of the opinion that there had not been consultation between them and the authorities of the government of Canada in respect of the implementation of this policy, as was contemplated in the statement of Mr. Pearson.
The position in which we now find ourselves is that the policy of bilingualism in the public service, which, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) pointed out the other night, had been expressed in a previous statute, the Public Service Employment Act passed in 1967, will now receive wider application and greater authority by virtue of the passage of this bill. It seems to me quite clear that as we embark upon this very great enterprise of providing greater access to our public institutions to those people speaking either French or English, we must be sure that this aim or policy is not in any sense defeated by the means used to implement it. It is my view that the success of this policy over the next few years and, indeed, over a longer period of time, will depend to a very considerable extent upon the degree of support and confidence it enlists from the public service.
I see no evidence now that it will not have the support and confidence of the type required. There is no evidence that the authorities of the government responsible for

the administration of this policy will be anything but diligent in an effort to make sure that the basic principles of equity and justice, implicit in Mr. Pearson's remarks, are continued in the forefront of the application of the policy.
Now that we have had some experience with the application of this policy and how it can be made effective by virtue of regulations and procedures within the public service, I believe the time has come to review the position of public servants with seniority and experience. Certainly it seems to me that in any case where bilingualism is not an absolute requisite for a particular position in the public service, any preference or special points given to persons with bilingual capability should be balanced off in the case of experienced unilingual civil servants by a formula which takes into account their years of service.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
This policy, to be effective and fair, will have to be one of gradualism. As my colleague the Minister of Justice stated last night, it will have to be applied with common sense and with considerable attention to the position of individuals affected by it. I have every confidence that it is within the power, compassion and authority of this government, and indeed of any government of Canada, to see that the policy is applied in this way. I have equal confidence that if it is so applied it will, as the promoters of this bill hope, contribute greatly to the future strength and unity of our nation.


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my discussion of this very important bill I believe I would be less than fair if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) who very fairly and effectively chaired the special committee of the house which studied the bill and reported on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Melvin James McQuaid: It was my privilege to serve as a member of the committee. I say quite frankly to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that I was impressed throughout the hearings by the very fair and impartial manner in which the chairman carried out his duties. For this I now publicly thank and congratulate him. I feel, too, that I would be less than fair if I did not at this time express my
July 4, 1969



been evidenced by speeches made both in this chamber and outside it, is a notable contribution made in my own constituency by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I might say we always feel honoured when distinguished visitors come to our constituency. I am sure that in coming my hon. friend had no ulterior motive so far as the sitting member is concerned.
We are dealing with an important principle of national policy. Undoubtedly there is a general concensus in the country that this policy is sound and will contribute a great deal to the future development of Canada. Policies and objectives are important and vital in many important areas of our life, but the means used to accomplish these policies are also important.
I wish to speak for a few minutes about one group of people which is greatly affected by the policy involved in this legislation. I refer to the public service. The first thing I should like to say is that, as all hon. members know, the public service of Canada is in a unique position in relation to this legislation and indeed in relation to any general policy expounded by the various governments of this country. The very nature of their occupations makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to comment publicly as individuals on policies of this type as they may affect them in their employment.
Having said that, I should also like to express the opinion that we in this parliament are under a special obligation toward the members of the public service who in a very real sense are our employees. These are people who rightfully look not only to government but to parliamentarians to protect them. Indeed, I think it is fair to say-and one could put it stronger than that by saying it is perfectly evident-that the public service of Canada has been one of the greatest unifying forces in the nation. There are many people here in this chamber and certainly in this city who like myself came originally from the far regions of Canada to Ottawa to work for the public service. The contribution the public service has made toward national unity because of its composition, representing all parts of Canada and all regions of government in Canada, has been immense. It is certainly to be hoped that as a result of the passage of this bill this contribution will be enhanced in the future by virtue of the fact that people whose native language is French will feel even more welcome in the public service and as a consequence be in a position
Official Languages
to make an even greater contribution to the life of the nation.
When the policy of bilingualism was first expressed for the government of Canada by the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson in April of 1966 there was in my judgment a general acceptance of that policy by the members of the public service. This judgment has been confirmed by the frequent contacts I have had with members of the public service since that time and more particularly since my election to the house.
There are many aspects to the question of bilingualism and to the application of two official languages. This has already been commented upon in the discussions which have taken place. I do not intend to go over all the ground again. Since I represent a large number of public servants, people who will be and are being affected by this policy, I feel it my duty to call the attention of the house not only to their general approbation of the policy but to some concerns they have about it.
At the time the policy was announced by Mr. Pearson on April 6, 1966, he made a number of detailed comments about its application to the public service. Two of them have always been deemed by the public service in this city at any rate to be of singular and great importance. I now quote from page 3916 of Hansard for April 6, 1966, where Mr. Pearson set out the following as point (e) in his expose:
For similar reasons of equity, the careers of civil servants who are not bilingual and who have devoted many years of their lives to the service of their country must not be prejudiced in any way by measures to develop bilingualism.
The next paragraph, item (f), reads as follows:
The government will consult from time to time with civil service associations concerning its policy on bilingualism in order to obtain their point of view, and to provide them with all reasonable assurances and remove any possible misunderstandings in regard to measures being proposed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In many circles in the public service these statements are referred to as "the Pearson pledge". Because of the singularly important position which Mr. Pearson occupied and because of his long experience as a public servant these two items in his statement were given great value by the public service. One reason the policy of greater bilingualism in the public service has been introduced with so much ease and general acceptance is that the public service believes that these two

July 4, 1969
Andras
Badanai
Barnett
Barrett
Basford
Bechard
Beer
Benjamin
Benson
Blair
Borrie
Breau
Broadbent
Brown
Burton
Caccia
Cafik
Cantin
Chappell
Clermont
Comtois
Corbin
Cote (Richelieu)
Cote (Longueuil)
Crossman
Danson
Deachman
Deakon
Douglas (Assiniboia) Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) Drury Ethier Forest Forget Foster Francis Gauthier Gendron Gibson Gilbert Godin Goyer Gray Greene Groos Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Harding
Hogarth
Hopkins
Hymmen
Jamieson
Jerome
Kaplan
Kierans
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lachance Laing
Lambert (Bellechasse)
Langlois
Laniel
Laprise
Latulippe
Leblanc (Laurier)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard (LaSalle)

Division
 NAYS Messrs:
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Lewis Lind Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen MacGuigan Maclnnis (Mrs.) Mackasey McBride McTlraith McNulty Major Marceau
Marchand (Langelier) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Matte Mongrain Morison Munro Murphy Noel Nystrom Olson Orlikow Osier Ouellet Pelletier Penner Perrault Pilon
Portelance Pringle Prud'homme Richard Richardson Roberts Robinson Rochon Rock Rodrigue Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Ryan Saltsman Serre
Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane)
St. Pierre Sullivan Tetrault
Thomas (Maisonneuve) Thomson Trudeau Trudel
Turner (London East) Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn Walker Watson Weatherhead Whelan
Whicher	Winch
Whiting	Yanakis-138.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against the motion because I oppose the principle of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the Chair put formally the motion that precedes third reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion for concurrence agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gerald William Baldwin: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: As agreed earlier today, the house will rise until ten minutes after two. Members will be reconvened by the bell.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.10 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my understanding that the house has extended leave to proceed at this sitting with third reading of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the importance of this measure has been emphasized by the widespread support it has received from leaders of political parties and of public opinion throughout the country. Included in this support, which has
July 4, 1969

Division
Olson Osier Ouellet Pelletier Penner Pepin Perrault Pilon
Portelance Pringle Prud'homme Richard Richardson Roberts Robinson Rochon Rock Rodrigue Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Ryan Serre
Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane)
St. Pierre Sullivan Tetrault
Thomas (Maisonneuve) Trudeau Trudel
Turner (London East) Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn Watson Walker Weatherhead Whelan Whicher Whiting Yanakis-124.
Nodi
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Justice on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: Some hon. members have been saying one o'clock to the Chair. I wonder whether the vote could be taken now and the house could then agree to adjourn for one hour after the vote is taken?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 8.


John (Jack) McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should be allowed to register my presence in the house today. I did not vote for or against the last motion because I oppose the principle of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this would not be the appropriate time to make a ruling on the hon. member's point of order. We will continue putting the question on motion No. 8. The question now is on motion No. 8, Mr. Horner:
That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by adding to clause 40, the following subclause 5:
''(5) Notwithstanding anything in this act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this act, provided that the applicant has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other language."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that we proceed with this division without the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Groos
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Hogarth
Hopkins
Hymmen
Jamieson
Jerome
Kaplan
Kierans
Lachance
Laing
Lambert (Bellechasse)
Langlois
Laniel
Laprise
Latulippe
Leblanc (Laurier)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind
Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEaehen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
McBride
Mcllraith
McNulty
Major
Manceau
Marchand (Langelier) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Matte
Mongrain
Morison
Munro
Murphy
During the taking of the vote:


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The-Is-lands):: Mr. Speaker, are we not to be called on to vote? We follow the official opposition. I wish to record my vote in favour of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the house I am certain that there will be no difficulty in accommodating the hon. member. The Clerk Assistant is instructed to continue calling for votes in favour of the motion.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you people over there wake up?


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, I have already voted.
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on
motion No. 4 moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MeQuaid):
That Bill C-120, an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by adding to clause 34 thereof the following subclauses:
"(4) Where a member of the House of Commons, on or before the third sitting day next following the day the Speaker of that House tables any report made by the Commissioner under section 33, asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the report as a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, the matter shall be deemed proper to be discussed and shall thereafter be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of the standing order of the House applicable to the subsequent stages of the proceeding.
(5) The annual statement to Parliament made by the Commissioner under this section, when tabled respectively in the Senate and House of Commons, shall thereupon be referred in each House to a committee designated by the Speaker."


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour did not call the nays.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the
motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. MeQuaid) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: We shall now take the deferred votes on motions Nos. 7 and 8. The question is on motion No. 7, Mr. MeQuaid:
That Bill C-120. an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by deleting subclause (4) of clause 40 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(4) In relation to the appointment and advancement in employment of personnel the duties of whose positions include duties relating to the provision of services by authorities to members of the public, it is the duty
(a)	of the Public Service Commission, in cases where it has the authority to make appointments,
(b)	of the authority respectively concerned in the cases of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and
(c)	of the authority concerned in all other cases, to ensure that, in the exercise and performance of the powers, duties and functions conferred or imposed upon it by law, due account is taken of the purposes and provisions of this Act, subject

always to the maintenance of the principle of selection of personnel according to merit as required by the Public Service Employment Act or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada respectively applicable to the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the authority concerned in all other cases."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that we proceed with the vote on this motion without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: He made quite clear the position which we have taken in this house. This is more than a political matter. If the minister wants the basic principles of this bill to be understood by the people of Canada, he should co-operate with those members of parliament from all parties who want to see the bill implemented, and agree to reasonable amendments which will help the people of Canada to understand what we are trying to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River to the motion moved by the hon. member for Cardigan. All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


Some hon. Members:: Shame.

July 4, 1969
Official Languages
committee stage we felt that if there was to be a recommendation from the committee it should be made to an organ of the house, to the committee on procedure, the government house leader or the house leaders of the parties. We felt it should be a recommendation to one of these bodies because it concerned the procedures of the house and should not be incorporated within the statute. At the time the hon. member was willing to accept that position because I think he himself realized there would be a certain rigidity attached to a statutory, mandatory order imposed upon parliament. He would have preferred at that time, as I would-we were at one on this; our minds were ad idem at that time-that parliament be left to its own devices and its own procedure.


Mr. Lewis:: May I ask one follow-up question, Mr. Speaker? I can understand that the Minister of Justice would perhaps hesitate to speak for the government house leader without having talked to him. I ask the minister this simple question: Is he prepared to state on his own behalf that as a member of the government he will do everything he can to see that these reports are referred to a committee of parliament? I put the minister on the spot without any hesitation.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is putting me deliciously on the spot, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is in the interests of the people of Canada and of parliament that public notice and public viewing be given in respect of the commissioner's reports. Having said that, I will draw the hon. member's remarks to the attention of my colleague.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words at this time because of the jeers the leader of our party received from members on the government side when a few moments ago he suggested to the government and the minister piloting this bill through the house that (a) there is a great deal of misunderstanding in all parts of the country about the bill and (b), that all of us must do as much as we can and a great deal more than we have done to make people understand the real principles behind the bill and how it will operate. It seems obvious to me, as it did to the leader of our party a few moments ago, that if we want to do this, the more public airing there is of how the bill will work and how the commissioner will operate the better it will be. Therefore I am all for getting the report of the commissioner before a committee which can deal with it.
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .J
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I say to the minister that he does not encourage those of us who have supported the principle of this bill from the day it was brought in, those of us who have gone back to our own areas and stood up for the bill, unlike his colleagues. I have just come back after participating in the provincial election in my own province in which the provincial members of the Liberal party ran away from this bill and in which the Conservative premier, at least until today, opposed it. We in our party were not afraid to take the same position in Manitoba that we took in this house.


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. I am not attempting to speak for other members of my party from Manitoba, but I want to make it abundantly clear that the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) can in no way apply to me, and I can prove it if he wishes me to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to make a comment on the point of order. May I remind hon. members that we are now considering an amendment to the motion, and interesting though the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North may be I would not want the debate to stray into a discussion of the recent election in Manitoba. I invite the hon. member to restrict his remarks as much as possible to the amendment now before the house.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking much of the time of the house at this stage. I intend to make some remarks on third reading of the bill, which I think will be in order. I am simply pointing out one of the reasons why I think we should adopt the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), namely, the tremendous amount of misinformation and misunderstanding of what we are trying to do that exists. With regard to the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), may I say I was not referring to Liberal members of parliament from Manitoba. I was referring very specifically to the attitude taken by the provincial leader of the Liberal party and by the Liberal members of the legislature as well as the Liberal candidates. I repeat that they ran away from this bill and we did not. My colleague, the former member for Selkirk who led our party to victory, made his position quite clear.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
July 4, 1959



York South which was defeated last night, or in the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), will cure the happy fact that the government happens to have a majority in the House of Commons. The amendment will not cure that. Our argument is that parliament should be left to deal with any report submitted to it and should not be restricted by any statutory framework attached to it.


Mr. Hees:: You sound like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the amendment would get the report off the table of the house and into a committee.


John Napier Turner: The house may send it to any committee of its choice. This procedure has always been adopted by the house, namely, leaving the house the master of its own procedure. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), who is a parliamentarian of great experience and usually sticks up for the rights of the house in all his flushed vigour, knows that this is a very proper precedent to maintain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister should take his tongue out of his cheek.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I simply say the minister knows perfectly well that the government does not want these reports examined by a committee of the house and will not have any of them examined by a committee. Why not be honest and say that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is right.


John Napier Turner: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with remarks, which perhaps went beyond the scope of the amendment, as to the treatment the government has accorded this bill since it received first reading. I do not believe any bill has been the subject of so much consultation across this country, within and without parliament, with the provincial governments and interested institutions and bodies. There have been over 29 amendments, some introduced by the government as a result of consultations with the provinces, some introduced by members of the opposition of all political parties. There have been 29 amendments, fully dealt with and accepted.
Official Languages
We have attempted to adopt a reasonable attitude in dealing with this bill because, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands recognizes, it is a bill of great sensitivity; it is a bill that has provoked a good deal of controversy in certain quarters; it is a bill that labours under some misunderstanding. We intend that the commissioner's report be public, that it be placed on the table of parliament. But we want to leave it to parliament in its good judgment to deal with the report, just as is the case in every other area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: Hon. members may not like it, but I am sticking up for parliamentary privilege and the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: You are just doing what the Prime Minister told you to do.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


David Lewis: I have already spoken on the amendment and I am not trying to speak again. The minister will recall that this matter was discussed in the special committee.


John Napier Turner: Yes.


David Lewis: At the end of those deliberations I moved a motion that the committee recommend to parliament that these reports be sent to a committee of parliament. That motion was ruled out of order on the ground that our terms of reference did not permit us to deal with that matter. I am not going into that question. At the time I moved my motion there was expression of support for it from members of all parties on the committee. I now ask the minister a very simple question: Can he undertake, on behalf of the government, that as long as this government remains in office, until the next election at least which may be a year, two years or three years away, the reports of the commissioner will in fact be referred to a committee of parliament, and that the government house leader will undertake to do this? That is a simple question.


John Napier Turner: It is a simple question which is difficult for me to answer at the moment without consulting my colleagues, and the house leader in particular. The hon. member is perfectly correct. At the

July 4, 196S
Official Languages
question. He and the government want this legislation to be a success. I assume they want it to be understood, appreciated and supported in those areas of Canada where, to say the least, at the present time it has not been welcomed. I cannot imagine any better way of having this whole question examined properly than by sending the reports of the commissioner to a committee where members will be able to ask questions, call witnesses and make a report to the house which can be discussed by the whole house. The result would be twofold. There would be publicity and there would be no feeling that the commissioner's reports were made in secrecy and that persons were adversely affected behind closed doors. This would also give members of this house the opportunity to become fully familiar with the operations of the commission, its activities, the commissioner's duties and how he has discharged them. They in turn would be able to go back to their constituencies and remove any fears which now exist regarding this legislation.
I hope the government will give serious consideration either to accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River or suggesting some alternative procedure which will assure the house that when the commissioner's report is received it will be fully discussed by the members of this house in order that we may have all the facts and in order that suspicions, whether justified or unjustified, can be fully investigated.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was originally before the house, as introduced by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), amended with his consent by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and then amended again by the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I said I would be prepared to consider and reflect upon it.
The official languages commissioner will be in effect a servant of parliament. He will make his report of any adverse investigation to parliament under clause 33 of the bill. Under clause 34 of the bill he will be required to make an annual report to parliament. After very serious reflection we decided we would take the position that we should recommend to the house that the amendment be rejected, for this reason: The House of Commons is master of its own proceedings.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Amazing!


John Napier Turner: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says that the house i: master of its own destiny. He also knows, o! course, that the government, having a majority in the house, can always decide what disposition is to be made of a report that is laic on the table. What does the present administration intend to do with the commissioner': report when it is tabled?


John Napier Turner: I canno' say-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the problem.


John Napier Turner: -because that will depend on what the parliament ol the day intends to do with it. But nothing ir the subamendment of the hon. member foi
July 4, 1969

upon how it is administered. This legislation, which we support, can have a unifying influence in Canada. It could also be the subject of acrimony and have a divisive effect if it is not properly administered and, even more important, if it is not properly understood.
There is a great deal to be said for having machinery set up whereby any reports the commissioner makes under clause 33 will be discussed by a committee of this house in order that the whole question may be thoroughly aired. I should not need to tell the government that there is a good deal of suspicion about this legislation. Personally I think the government has done a lamentably poor job of selling it to the people of Canada. For a government that talks a good deal about involvement, consensus and participation, this government has done very little about selling this legislation. I except here the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who I think has made a valiant attempt, but on the whole the government has done a very poor job of explaining this legislation to the people of Canada.
In many areas of the country this legislation is misunderstood and, unfortunately in some cases, misrepresented. The government ought to be trying to do a selling job. There has been a breakdown in communications between the government and the people of Canada in respect of the purport of this measure. I want to say also that this situation has not been helped by the inflexible attitude the government has taken in regard to the amendments that have been discussed during the report stage.
I do not want to discuss the amendments now as I would be out of order, but certainly some of them were reasonable and would have improved the legislation. We heard a most specious argument advanced as to why they should not be accepted. The Minister of Justice dealt with the amendments with his usual charm and urbanity, but I have the feeling that behind his pleasantry there is a very firm iron hand which indicated to him that no changes or amendments are to be accepted irrespective of whether or not they improve the legislation. If that type of ruthless arrogance is continued in the administration of the legislation this act, which could be a great forward step in Canada, will have a divisive effect. Therefore I am at a loss to understand why the government should not be prepared to give an assurance, and even put it in the legislation, that the reports of the commissioner will be sent to a committee
Official Languages
so that there will be the fullest possible discussion and the widest possible understanding of what this is all about.
We are not going to have public hearings for those adversely affected. There will be some suspicion as to what has happened when reports are submitted which adversely affect some people, perhaps based on tittle-tattle and malicious gossip. There should be the fullest opportunity for a complete airing of any complaints. Certainly the best way to obtain that kind of airing and understanding of a misunderstanding that might arise would be to have all reports made under clause 33 sent to a committee of the house. I think the government should consider very seriously the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
I know the minister will say it is not usual to put instructions to the House of Commons in legislation. The fact remains that what will happen is that these reports will be tabled in due course in the House of Commons but there will be no opportunity to discuss them under Standing Order 26 because they will not be matters of urgent importance. Questions may be asked from time to time. Even if we take one of the allotted days, this will mean just a formal debate with the minister closing it at the end of the day. What is needed is a dialogue in respect of the report. What is needed is a forum in which there can be informal discussions. A committee could call the people adversely affected and could have the benefit of the opinions of witnesses who are concerned with the particular items in the commissioner's report. That can only be done by having these reports sent to a committee of the house.
We would have preferred, of course, to have an appropriate standing committee named. This amendment calls for a committee designated by His Honour the Speaker. That would be the second best choice. In whatever way the committee is appointed, particularly in the initial stages of the administration of this legislation, surely there ought to be provision made for discussion of the reports and for the widest possible understanding of them. We automatically send reports in respect of other activities of the government to committees for discussion. Why not send these reports to a committee? I make the plea, not on any political ground but for the government's own sake, that hon. members opposite accept this amendment.
I congratulate the minister on having done a very masterful job of studying this whole

July 4, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry REQUEST FOR TASK FORCE REPORT


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this question really relates to a question asked a few moments ago of the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the task force on agriculture. I should like to know when the task force might be reporting to the government.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the task force expects to report before the end of this year.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport, who in his last reply to a question of mine demonstrated his capacity to get to the bottom of things. Can he advise whether, as a result of his upgrading, progress is being made on the provision of new facilities at the Charlottetown airport, where there is a unique situation.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything new, in addition to what I reported a few days ago. An examination is being made of the airport facilities to see what is there, but that examination is not completed.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the genial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A few days ago I asked the minister a question concerning an extension of the area of the auto pact. I asked him whether he had discussed with the affected trade unions the specific proposals presented by the Canadian government, and he said he would look into the question.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations in respect of the auto pact in general but not on the question of broadening-I	was going to say
"broadbenting"-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: I think you are bringing vaudeville back.
[Mr. Olson.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Jealousy on the part of the hon. member! The subject of broadening will be fully surveyed in the coming months. Representations will be received from everybody who wants to make a contribution and I hope the unions will make theirs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, July 3, consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill, and Motion No. 4, Mr. McQuaid, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am rising because I had hoped the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) would be making some comment in respect of why the government apparently is rejecting the amendment now before us. Last night we received no indication concerning the reason the amendment of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was opposed by the government.
It seems to me there is a good deal to be said for the merit of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It suggests that the statement to parliament made by the commissioner and any report that may be made by him under clause 33 should be referred to a committee of the House and also to a committee of the Senate. I would be interested in knowing what the government's view is. When the amendments were being discussed the other day I thought the minister was prepared to give some consideration to this. He has not indicated to the house at all why the government has now decided to reject these amendments.
[DOT] (12 noon)
When this legislation was first introduced the hon. member for York South, in pointing out the views of this party, indicated that we support the principle of the legislation. At that time the hon. member said something with which I wholly concur, that the value of this legislation will be largely dependent
July 4, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we might revert to motions' to allow the minister to make a statement.


Mr. Salesman:: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. While thanking the minister for his lesson in French, in view of his responsibility to industry may I ask him whether it is his intention either to see about refusing export permits for natural gas or to make representations before the National Energy Board on behalf of the manufacturers of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is hoping that I will say whether or not I am in favour of a two-price system for gas. As usual there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the argumentation. I shall consult with the minister in charge of energy to see whether the two of us can develop some kind of an answer.



TORONTO-FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CONSTRUCTION OF DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the approval in principle by the Toronto board of control for a domed sports stadium for metro, and in the light of the decision to approach the federal government for funds should approval be given by plebiscite in December, will the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the federal government to give favourable consideration to assisting financially in the construction of such a domed sports stadium-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question should be placed on the order paper.



PENSIONS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I directed a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The acting minister said that he would take note of the question and have it answered at the earliest possible opportunity. Following that I was advised by two departments to try the President of the Treasury Board; so I shall redirect my question to him now. In view of the appeal received from the Naval Officers Association of Canada, what immediate steps can the government take to update to an adequate level the pension benefits of 29180-6861
Inquiries of the Ministry long service pensioners in Canada's fighting forces, and their wives and children.


Mr. Speaker:: If I did not say so when the question was asked earlier, I should have said that this is a question which normally should be answered by way of a statement on motions.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister make a statement on motions, perhaps on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I am not sure whether the house will be sitting on Monday and Tuesday-


George Harris Hees: It will be sitting.


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


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin that we will have to yield to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker I was very respectfully going to draw to your attention the fact that you cut off the President of the Treasury Board in the middle of a sentence. I think he should have had the opportunity to complete that sentence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister did not appear to complain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try again. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister any plan to change the policy of the Dairy Commission to allow the retention of more butterfat quota in the prairie provinces.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a great deal of representation to set up regional quotas. We have decided we do not like to set up the kind of program that would inhibit interprovincial trade within Canada.

July 4, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
I wish the hon. gentlemen would get together.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio did bring the question to my attention. As I have indicated, the original question was directed to the Minister of National Defence. My information is that he has an answer prepared for that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether this matter is also being discussed with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, in view of the unemployment that may result from this stop work order?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. Last night during the late show as appears at page 10835 of Hansard the hon. member for St. John's East stated that the fishing industry in Newfoundland is poorly managed. Will the Department of Fisheries and Forestry investigate these very serious allegations and take any action which may be necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the debate might be resumed at ten o'clock.



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister advise the house whether he intends to bring forward a supplementary estimate or, if not, what other procedure is to be followed, to enable parliament to decide on the grant of $150,000 being contracted for by Senator Keith Davey to employ a number of prominent Liberal Party workers on his fishing expedition into press, radio and television?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of detailed expenditures is a matter for my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then Mr. Speaker, may I direct the question to the President of the Treasury Board?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, he has referred to a committee of the other place. It has not been the practice of this house to try to exercise detailed control over their affairs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it not any longer the practice of the government to seek the approval of the house on estimates of money being expended?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been the practice and will continue to be the practice to seek the approval of the house in respect to parliamentary appropriations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the government intend to bring forward a supplementary estimate in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there has not as yet been any request made either to the government or to this house for supplementary moneys to carry on the operation of the Senate for the current fiscal year.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Max Saltsman: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is with reference to a question I asked yesterday. Is the minister prepared to take action against the anticipated rise in natural gas prices in the west? He answered with his trade and commerce hat yesterday, and said, no. Today in his capacity as minister of industry, concerned about costs to industry in Canada, would he put that hat on and answer the question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I might have to see my doctor. I was not aware that I might suffer from schizophrenia.
The question raised is a very complex one. I do not think I could answer it in just a few sentences. The price of gas indeed is going up, but there are regulatory agencies in the provinces, on the production as well as on the consumption side, to keep a check on that. The Canadian Energy Board has responsibility to make sure that the gas exported to the United States is surplus to Canadian needs. It must make sure also that the price is "just and reasonable". I am informed-there is no distinction between "told" and "informed" in French-that at the moment, in some cases anyway, the price of gas going to the United States is at a higher level than-
July 4, 1969


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Sfes, Mr. Speaker. The temporary minimum security institution at Springhill is being closed on September 1. The institution, when it was created, was on a temporary basis. Since that time two other minimum security institutions have been created in the area. The prisoners will be transferred to the other ninimum security institutions in the area.


David Orlikow: I wish to ask the minister if :hat is the institution he told me about a month ago, that is being used to test new treatment facilities for psychiatric care?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. The institution referred to in answer to the question a month ago was the medium security penitentiary at Springhill.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Solicitor General advise if there are any current plans for closing any other minimum institutions at this time?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. This particular one at Springhill is a mat' er of there not being enough inmates to require the services of that institution. There are three minimum security institutions in the maritimes. Two will adequately service the inmate population.



FARM MACHINERY


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenl-Essex):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the government does not appear disposed to making a policy statement until the information is received, I ask the minister when he anticipates the reports of the task force on agriculture and the Barber Commission will be completed and provided to the government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an indication of when that study will be completed because, as Dr. Barber has pointed out, there have been some significant changes in the pricing patterns in farm machinery in North America and as related to Europe, for example, in the last two or three months. He indicated in an interim paper he prepared for the Canadian Agriculture Congress that he wanted to look deeply into it. Indeed, members of this house asked that it be done. This of course makes it difficult to predict when his study will be completed.
Inquiries of the Ministry OFFICIAL LANGUAGES



WILLINGNESS OF QUEBEC GOVERNMENT TO ACCEPT FEDERAL GRANT FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it is prompted by an article that appeared in yesterday's press. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the government of the province of Quebec has indicated its willingness to accept what amounts to a conditional grant from the federal government to assist in financing English language education in the province of Quebec?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have that information. This question should be addressed to the Secretary of State, as it comes under his jurisdiction. He might answer when he is in the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is to the Minister of Supply and Services. Notice of this question was given a few days ago by my colleague the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. Can the minister say when a review of the Tracker and other contract programs involving Fairey Aviation of Canada will be completed?


Mr. Speaker:: I forget what the reaction of the Chair was at the time the question was asked originally. If the question was allowed, perhaps the minister might answer now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the question was allowed last week. In fact two questions were allowed at much greater length-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister does not reply twice; he may reply once.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question was directed to the Minister of National Defence. My understanding is that his parliamentary secretary has an answer.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This involves the roster system again, and statements made by some ministers that they will bring questions to the attention of other ministers. At page 10706 of Hansard for June 27 the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt said:
Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Supply and Services.
10844

July 4, 196S
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



DISCUSSIONS WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of housing. I wonder if the minister will tell us what are the results of the consultations he had with various financial institutions on the subject of mortgage moneys and interest rates?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I had useful meetings with the representatives of the banks on Monday, the insurance companies on Wednesday, and the trust companies yesterday. We covered a wide range of subject matters, including emphasis on measures to be taken as a result of amendments to the National Housing Act. The financial institutions are now in a better position to enter more actively into the residential housing market, and I believe have an obligation to do so. I talked to them about the possibility of increasing their lending for modest housing, even though that might mean some reduction in lending for luxury homes. We talked about further measures to improve our relations and the contacts between us, and we agreed to meet at least twice a year with more formal and precise agendas in order to make these meetings more meaningful.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May 1 ask whether these financial institutions agreed that the level of interest rates fixed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was sufficiently high, or is it to go higher?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the National Housing Act amendment freed the interest rate at which N.H.A. insured loans can be made. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation set its own direct lending rate, for the present time, at 9 per cent. I think this will have some influence on the activity of approved lenders.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is he seeking for the government new sources of revenue through the device of delaying income tax refunds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is similar to one asked yesterday

although, as I recognize, it is in a somewhal different form.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport! Since the minister this morning made a statement about air safety with respect to air traffic controllers, will he be in a position to make a statement within the next few days about another aspect of air safety? Allegations have been brought forward in this house concerning complaints that pilots of Air Canada and other air lines have been given permission by Department of Transport officials to fly up to 150 hours a month.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are no such pilots to our knowledge. Certainly there has not been any such permission given.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member was whether a statement would be made. The second part of the question was ruled out of order some days ago.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Would he take note of the straightforward way that the minister answers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -and try to do a hell of a lot better-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must again seek the co-operation of the hon. member to look to the direction of the Chair.


George Harris Hees: He can teach you a lot!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENITENTIARIES


David Orlikow: wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General, and ask him whether the minimum security institution at Springhill is being closed? If so, what arrangements are being made to deal with those inmates who have been so successfully treated in that institution?
fuly 4, 1969



ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS TO THE LAKEHEAD AND VANCOUVER

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: VIr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, [n response to questions asked yesterday the ninister advised the house that he will investigate the allegations of the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that the pool has space at its terminals at Vancouver and the Lakehead and that only half the required lumber of box cars are being allocated for initialling. He replied that he would investigate and inform the house of his findings. Has le been able to do so and, if so, what are his findings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not have that information yet. I shall be in Winnipeg on Monday, obtain the information, and report to the house on Tuesday, when I am here.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the statement of the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has a direct bearing on the telegram sent by the commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board to which the minister replied yesterday, will the minister investigate the allegations of the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and advise this house on Monday whether enough box cars will be allocated to those terminals to fill the space there?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I will be in Winnipeg on Monday. I will try on Tuesday to do as the hon. member suggests.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON DELIVERY QUOTA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now assure us that farmers of western Canada will be able to deliver the five bushel quota, or in the alternative, that in view of the sale just made, which means a few million dollars, quotas will be increased to more than five bushels?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have answered similar questions almost every day for the last few weeks. There is nothing to be added. As you yourself might say, Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical. I have read
Inquiries of the Ministry on a number of occasions declarations by the chief commissioner of the Wheat Board to the effect that the five bushel quota will be met by the end of the month.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister, on motions, at some time in the near future will list the delivery points in western Canada that are down to as little as a two bushel delivery quota, and that have no hope of reaching the five bushel quota?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker I keep in touch with these things on an every-day basis. I have the latest figures before me at the moment. I will be glad to send to my hon. friend information about the number of stations on three, four and five bushels.



ALLEGED PADDING OF ORDERS TO SECURE BOX CAR ALLOCATIONS

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister investigate allegations of the Canadian Wheat Board that certain elevator companies are padding their numbers of shipping orders in order to secure box cars they are not entitled to?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will add that to my shopping list for Monday.


Gerald William Baldwin: When for?-next Christmas?



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Transport is now in a position to answer the question I asked last Friday. The acting Minister of Transport took it as notice.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member's question has to do with the number of passengers being carried on the Prince Edward Island ferry. In the hon. member's absence a few days ago I explained that we were quite prepared to examine the matter and to see whether we needed to change the present pattern. The problem seems to arise from the fact that the passenger-to-car ratio is not steady. In any event I am having the whole matter looked into to see whether we can make changes that will enable us to accommodate more passengers.

July 4, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, I have not studied the specific exchange between the government of Quebec and the Gabonese Minister of Education, but I heard from the Quebec authorities themselves that the Minister of Education had stated that no agreement or treaty was involved but a mere exchange between both governments. Therefore, subject to examination as to what took place exactly, I cannot inswer the first part of the question.
As for the second part, the meeting in Ottawa between the Gabonese minister and the Canadian minister led us to conclude that the relations between Gabon and Canada were satisfactory, and we hope that they will remain so.



RHODESIA-INQUIRY AS TO WITHDRAWAL OF SANCTIONS

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the policy announced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in respect of future treatment of Indian people is based on the concept that white is right, is the Prime Minister considering withdrawing Canada's sanctions against Rhodesia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. It contains allegations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not only is it not in order; it is very low.



WHEAT-SALE TO PERU-CONTRACT WITH RUSSIA

Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question I attempted to direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce yesterday, and ask him whether the Wheat Board has recently completed an important wheat sale to a South American country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly happy to say that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -the Peruvian Minister of Finance is coming to Ottawa today in order to conclude governmental negotiations. I am having lunch with him in a few minutes and
[Mr. La Sailed
will be making an announcement at that time, making known certain details. I might add that this is the largest sale of Canadian wheat made to a Latin American country in recent years. I might also add that the sale was facilitated by the new credit arrangements for developing countries indicated in the discussion of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce estimates earlier this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Albert B. Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have there been any recent developments with regard to the balance of the wheat contract with the U.S.S.R.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to add on this at the moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this sale, hopefully, will mean that space will be available for more shipments, will the minister advise me if I can take to the meeting to be held in the northern part of Alberta on Sunday, which the minister unfortunately will not be able to attend, some useful information to the effect that a great number of box cars will be made available to that very depressed area so that farmers can meet their quotas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he read at page 10784 of Hansard a declaration of the chief commissioner of the Wheat Board.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have read it. That is why I asked the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Read it slowly.



WHEAT-SALE IN AREA OVERSOLD BY ARGENTINA

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of current reports that our competitor, Argentina, has oversold its wheat supplies to some of our competitors and that there is a vacuum in that situation, will the minister or his officials look into the situation and see if Canada can dispose of some of her surplus in that area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is bidding on that sale as well as on all others.
July 4, 1969

report, and in view of the unconfirmed leaks that are made from time to time as to what is in reports can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not this report will be made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the leaks will have to remain unconfirmed until the government decides whether it is in the interests of both parliament and the country to make the report public. It is a task force report and is meant to inform the government of certain attitudes and recommendations. It is not intended primarily for publication.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Is the government considering issuing a white paper, at least with respect to the recommendations. It is not primarily for publication, intends to implement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The government may want to implement certain recommendations made by the task force, if they are found useful. I hope that parts or the totality of the task force report will be published by the government, but I do not want parliament to regard that as a commitment until the government has studied the report. I repeat that task force reports are for the government, whereas royal commissions make reports for publication.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister at least indicate whether the task force will recommend that the government be less secretive in its approach to public affairs?



WATER RESOURCES


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In order to help get an effective nationwide anti-pollution program underway, is it the intention of the government in the near future to make available low interest rate loans to those municipalities and industries that wish to instal the expensive machinery that is necessary to remove pollution from waste, in the same way as the government made loans available to industries that wished to commence war production during the last world war?


Edgar John Benson: find that an interesting suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is the minister's usual way of brushing off these matters. Does the minister mean that he is going to give the matter serious consideration?


Edgar John Benson: I consider seriously all suggestions made by my hon. friend.


George Harris Hees: Then may I ask a further supplementary. Would he be straightforward and answer my question? Is the minister going to give this matter serious consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Is the answer yes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: I will write you a note.


George Harris Hees: Just say yes, like a plain, ordinary human being.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I just wonder whether the Chair might have the co-operation of the hon. member, so that the Chair has an opportunity to recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


George Harris Hees: Say it like a man; don't mumble.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the question I asked yesterday concerning the agreement passed between the governments of Quebec and Gabon was ruled out of order, and having heard that the Gabonese Minister of Education had officially met the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), here in Ottawa, may I ask the Prime Minister if that agreement, which had first been discussed in Ottawa and was passed in Quebec city with the Gabonese Minister of Education, is approved by the Prime Minister or by the Canadian government?
Moreover, I would like to ask him if, after that meeting with the Gabonese Minister of Education, the relations between Gabon and Canada, severed in 1967, are in the course of being re-established, if that has not already been done?

July 4, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry takes the position that the total expenditure on research and development should be raised to the level of 2 per cent of the gross national product by 1972?


Mr. Speaker:: I think we are getting
involved in a subject which is very wide in scope at this point; it is akin to a debate and I would not think that the further supplementary is in order.


COMMUNICATIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Some time ago I asked the President of the Treasury Board a question about the appearance of Dr. Solandt before the Canadian Transport Commission. The minister gave me an answer privately but I think the matter is of sufficient public interest to justify an answer being given in the house.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Speaking from recollection, Dr. Solandt appeared before the Canadian Transport Commission at the request of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. He went there as chairman of the Science Council of Canada and his remarks were addressed to advocating before the Transport Commission an increase in expenditures on research and development in Canada generally. That was the purpose of his intervention, as well as to testify to the good record of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada in this particular field.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has promised the house for a number of months that he will make a statement on motions concerning the government's general science policy, will he now undertake to make such a statement in the house some time next week?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I know the house has a limited agenda ahead of it and I am not sure it will be sitting all next week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: A further supplementary to the minister arising from his answer on the subject of Dr. Solandt's appearance before the Canadian Transport Commission. Do I understand that Dr. Solandt appeared as chairman of the Science Council in support of further research and in support of an increase in the rates charged by

the Bell Telephone Company to enable the company, as it claimed, to do further research?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Dr. Solandt made it quite clear in his statement-unfortunately I do not have a copy with me-that he was not offering an opinion or evidence in relation to any increase in rates-whether this was necessary or not-on behalf of Bell Telephone.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether he has considered the propriety of the chairman of a government board appearing before another public body at the request of, and in support of, necessarily, a private or public corporation asking for favours from that public body?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure I would agree that the applicant in this case was seeking favours. I reject the dialectic used by the hon. member. Dr. Solandt appeared at the request of Bell Telephone Company to offer expert evidence in relation to the research and development effort being put forward by Bell. He was not asked to address himself, nor did he address himself, to the question whether or not a rate increase was necessary or desirable.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that we are becoming involved in a debate. We are now discussing matters that have already happened. This is clearly debate, and I suggest that this type of question should not be asked at this time.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister with respect to the task force on information which was appointed last August. In view of the importance of the assignment given to this task force, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report and, if not, can he give the house any indication when he does anticipate receiving a report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have received a report and it is now being considered by the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the importance of the
July 4, 1969

air traffic controllers has been the point at issue between the controllers association and the department for some years. They have complained about the fact that there are not enough of them to do the increasingly important and expanding job. Why it has taken the department until now to realize that they have to start getting more people and training them for this important job, God only knows. I just do not understand this long delay. I hope that the minister and the department this time will really undertake the job of recruitment and training with an eye to the next decade or so, because the job is an important one, the training requires time, and I hope there will be a sufficient work force to do the job properly.
The second point I want to make is that I do not know why the second volume of the Robinson report is being tabled only today. I suppose it has only recently been received. As a matter of fact, I am ashamed to admit that I had forgotten there was a second volume which parliament had not yet seen, even though it is almost three years since Judge Robinson was appointed. I hope that the figure of 75 per cent of the recommendations which have been implemented is not merely a quantitive figure but also a qualitative one. You can implement niggling things that do not mean anything and have them add up to 75 per cent. From what air traffic controllers have told me I have a strong suspicion that the arithmetic is of that kind and that some of the really important matters about which Judge Robinson was concerned have not yet been implemented.
Finally, I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that there is still a great deal of objection from residents in the area to the proposed extension of one of the Toronto runways, and those of us in the Toronto area at least who are in the house have received briefs from an association that is deeply concerned about that. I hope the minister will meet with these people and satisfy them that whatever is to be done is essential, necessary, and will not be done at the expense of their comfort and welfare.
The matter of the air traffic controllers has taken far too long, for a start at least, to give us a sufficient work force to assure not only the safety of the people travelling by air but also to ensure that the welfare of the air traffic controllers themselves will be protected and that their lives will not be darkened by overwork and overanxiety.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but since he is not in the house I will put a different question to the Prime Minister asking him whether he has replied to the letter from Dr. O. M. Solandt dated January 6 concerning science policy. In view of the fact that Dr. Solandt's letter has been published in the Science Council's report tabled in this house, will the Prime Minister table his own reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will look into the matter. I must confess that I am not familiar with the letter to which the Leader of the Opposition has just referred.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board arising out of criticism concerning the past year contained in Dr. Solandt's letter. Can the President of the Treasury Board say if the Science Council has now received approximations of federal spending on science for 1969-70? At the same time can the minister assure the house that the Science Council will be given the necessary information next year early enough for it to be of use to the council in the manner indicated by Dr. Solandt?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think Dr. Solandt was addressing himself rather more to the general problem of the lack of adequate statistics in Canada relating to expenditures on research and development. The Science Council has had and will continue to have made available to them all the figures that the government has in relation to its expenditures on research and development. I think Dr. Solandt was concerned rather more with the general lack of information from government channels in relation to expenditures on research and development outside the government sector.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is clear that Dr. Solandt was critical of the role of the government in this matter and I hope the minister can give us some assurance that the situation is being corrected. May I ask whether the government
10838	COMMONS
Report on Air Traffic Control Policy
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
In order to ensure that an adequate number of new controllers will be available to meet the increasing demand and also to alleviate the current shortage in some regions, the Department of Transport has begun a more intensive recruiting campaign with the immediate objective of engaging an additional 70 trainees over and above the normal number in the department's continuing training program. Other plans call for a further increase in the department's air traffic controller strength in order to keep up with the development of new airports such as those planned for Montreal and Toronto. Detailed studies are under way also to determine the best types of new equipment that should be obtained so that our controllers will have the most advanced and efficient technological aids at their disposal.
I can assure the house and the Canadian public that the Department of Transport will continue to give the highest priority to matters of air safety, and I am confident that through the measures I have outlined, and with the continuing co-operation of the controllers, we will preserve and enhance the enviable record that Canada has achieved in this field.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house welcome the statement just made by the minister with respect to air safety in general and air traffic controllers in particular. This has been a matter of great concern in the press and elsewhere by members of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association. The matter has on various occasions been brought before this house by myself, the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and others. I think we are all delighted to see that the minister has fulfilled his undertaking to make a comprehensive statement in this regard; this is pretty good.
I should like to make one or two comments on the minister's statement. We are very glad to hear from him that plans are under way for greatly expanded airport facilities to serve Toronto and the southern Ontario region, which is by far the most densely populated region of Canada. Arrangements have already been made for the Montreal region. I hope that in the near future the minister will be in a position to give the

DEBATES	July 4, 196
house details of the expanded arrangement for Toronto and southern Ontario becaus there has been a great deal of interest am debate in that part of the country in thi regard. 1 hope the minister will hurry up hi planners so he can give us details in thi respect at least when the house reassemble in the fall.
With respect to continual consultation oj the matter of air safety between air traffi' controllers and officials of the Department o Transport, this is an excellent move. I an glad to hear that arrangements are under wa; with regard to detailed studies that are to b carried out with respect to equipment am various arrangements for proven safety con ditions. But I suggest to the minister that thi matter could very well be referred to ou Standing Committee on Transport and Com munications in order that the committee cai look into the question during the comini session of parliament.
There has in the past been some suggestioi that departmental officials have brushed asidi some of the suggestions of the air traffic con trollers. I am not suggesting this is correct but one hears these allegations and I think i would clear the air if everybody concerned ii these matters were brought before the trans port committee. Those who have complaint or alleged complaints about air safety coul< then present their case to the committee. I would be extremely helpful if the Air Traffi' Controllers Association in particular could di this. Officials of the department should bi able to present their views to the committee together with any other interested and knowl edgeable parties. The transport committee after hearing the views of people concernet in this question, might very well be able t< make many worth-while suggestions.
If the program is to operate in the way ii which the government suggested it woult operate-it has not operated too well so far- this would be a good opportunity for one o: the major committees of the house to aecom plish something useful and substantial in thi coming session.


David Lewis: Mr. Speak er, I think I can meet the rule requirement that you have drawn to our attention on ; number of occasions because I have brie: comments on only two or three points.
First, I often wonder why it takes so lonj to get under way something that obviously needs to be done. The inadequate number o:

Friday, July 4, 1969