1969-05-23

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the
honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill S-36, an act to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, in French and in English-Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-200, respecting the expropriation of land.


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

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-201, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
29180-569J


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which 1 gave his office notice. I would like to know what instructions are being given by the government of Canada to our representatives at the Geneva disarmament conference concerning the American draft treaty. Does Canada accept the American draft, or is the government of Canada attempting to obtain more rigorous control and inspection of continental sea bed areas?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for having given me notice of this question. I have informed myself as to the answer. Apparently the draft treaty was tabled only yesterday by the United States. I believe we had been given notice of it in advance; that is, we were shown the text one day in advance. We have had only two days to look at the draft treaty, and we have not had a cabinet meeting on it to consider the position we will take. I understand that the conference will recess today and be reconvened on July 3. By that time we shall have established our position and will be in a position to report on the matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it follows from what the Prime Minister has said that our representatives have not as yet taken a position with regard to this question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is right, Mr. Speaker. We did take a tentative position on the Soviet Draft treaty. The conference is now recessed to permit the members to examine both the American and Soviet draft treaties. It is normal that we will look at both treaties over the next few weeks and see whether we should support one or other of them or come up with a third alternative.

May 23, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
FINANCE	THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



POSITION OF ROYAL SECURITIES CORPORATION AFTER TAKE-OVER BY U.S. COMPANY -POSSIBILITY OF COMBINES INQUIRY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the concern the Prime Minister expressed yesterday regarding the serious consequences which could flow from the take-over of Canadian financial institutions by foreign corporations, I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to make a statement to the house fairly soon with respect to the government's policy, with a view to preventing such take-overs in the future.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to make such a statement except on the occasion when the Canadian Development Corporation bill is introduced. It will be a matter of how much time we have left to introduce it and proceed with it in this session. There is beginning to be some doubt whether we will be able to proceed with all the subjects which were announced in earlier statements by the house leader.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government reached any decision with respect to the question I raised yesterday as to whether or not the right to use the rediscount facilities of the Bank of Canada will continue to be extended to the Royal Securities Corporation in the event of its being taken over by Merrill Lynch and Associates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I referred this matter to the Minister of Finance, who is now in Europe. I wonder whether the acting minister has been given an answer on this question. I have not been in communication with the Department of Finance on the matter.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I have received no information on that matter, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask when we may expect such information, in view of the fact that the matter is urgent.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The minister will be making a statement on this at some time, Mr. Speaker.



WATKINS REPORT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May we expect during this session a statement by the government regarding its intentions with respect to the recommendations of the Watkins report on foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not except for a statement being made, as I indicated in a previous answer, if a debate does arise on the Canadian Development Corporation.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER SALES TO MAINLAND CHINA

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since we have information to the effect that the wheat crop in China has been very poor, has the minister initiated talks with China or does he expect that Canada can make larger wheat sales to that country?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful to the hon. member if he would join me in my prayers to that effect.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister's prayers touch the heart of the Chinese Communists?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will he advise our NATO allies in a few days that Canada intends to withdraw its air division from Europe by the end of 1970, and does he intend also to make suggestions on how this deficit should be made up so that the principle of maintaining the NATO force in Europe at full strength-a policy with which this government says it is in full accord-can be upheld?
May 23. 1969

Kon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence): The hon. member is proceeding on a wrong assumption.


George Harris Hees: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government when it meets with our NATO allies in a few days time to advise them that Canada intends to withdraw our air division from Europe by the end of 1970?


Mr. Cadieux (Labelle):: It is the intention of the government to indicate through me to our allies that we are planning a phased reduction of our forces over there.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Is that not exactly what I asked in the first place, and could the minister not have answered it simply by saying yes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This was a final supplementary question.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the government as yet reached a decision with respect to our troop reductions in NATO as indicated by the President of the Privy Council in London the day before yesterday?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a plan that I will submit to the alliance on Wednesday of next week.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the minister must have certain difficulties in divulging the plans to Canadians prior to his announcement of the plans to our NATO allies, but is there any way the minister can devise to indicate to our allies next Wednesday what our intentions are and at the same time not close the door completely so that this parliament may have some say in the matter before it is finally decided?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am not that ingenious, Mr. Speaker. What I have to do, I believe, is to convey to the allies what the intentions of the government are and at the same time to consult with them on the implementation of the program. I do not think we preclude any suggestions that might come from the allies that there might be other ways of doing things along the general lines we are considering. I find it very difficult, of course, to reconcile the necessity of giving as much information beforehand as I would like to and
Inquiries of the Ministry yet not disclosing the program completely before my announcement to NATO. However, I think the hon. member will be reassured' when I tell him that the recommendations and opinions expressed in this house have not1 been completely ignored in the plan that we are going to submit.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Only 1 per cent.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax-Dartmoulh East):: My question is supplementary to the one directed to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister intend to discuss with our NATO allies Canada's maritime contribution under SACLANT or directly to: NATO?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The first purpose of these consultations concerns, of course, the troops which are and which will be stationed overseas. But this does not preclude discussion of the maritime effort which Canada is making within NATO and I would be open: to any suggestions there.


J. Michael Forrestall: If I understand the minister correctly, then, it is not his intention in his presentation to our allies to raise the matter of the maritime commitment himself.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not necessarily. But again, I think I would be prepared to discuss it.	'


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Are
we to take it from the minister's answer that the government has decided upon a maritime role for the Canadian Forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: If I understand the question correctly, yes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then can the minister get in touch with the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and find out what the committee is doing wasting its time reviewing the maritime role of such forces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and ask him whether he has any comment to make about the accusation made by Premier Robarts of Ontario regard-' ing the dismal lack of action on the part of1 the Ontario government, the reason for

May 23. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry which, he said, is the fact that the federal government has failed to carry out its part of the bargain in the agreements that were entered into between the Ontario and the Canadian governments dating back to 1966.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think it is not a proper question to ask the minister, simply whether he proposes to comment on a statement made outside the house. I do not think the question in those terms is acceptable.


Frank Howard: May I put it in
another way, and ask the minister whether he can advise the house as to what action his government has taken with respect to the federal-provincial agreements relating to Indian Affairs which were signed in 1966 between Ontario and Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is asking for a statement from the minister concerning action taken following an agreement signed three years ago. I would think this is the kind of information which should normally be offered to the house by way of a statement on motions.


Frank Howard: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that on other occasions when ministers have tried to rise to answer questions you have been generous enough to give them an opportunity to do so. The minister has been showing his desire-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel very ungenerous this morning.



FAILURE OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE TO MEET

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact that the federal-provincial committee on Indian affairs has not met for 12 months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The hon. member is asking the minister to confirm or deny that a committee has sat or has not sat. Certainly a question in this form is not in order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will rephrase the question, then, and ask the minister to tell us when that committee last met.


Mr. Speaker:: If the implication in the original question was that the committee has not met for one year, I would think the question should be placed on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. Before doing so however I should like to make a correction in Hansard of yesterday. As reported at page 8941, in reference to deserters from the United States, I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he was aware of the fact that deserters from the United States Army are more or less criminals. Mr. Speaker, the words "more or less" do not belong there. I referred to the fact that deserters were criminals. I now direct my question to the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as a criminal record bars entry into Canada, how can the entry of deserters be justified?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member had better put the "more or less" back in there-perhaps more of the "less" than of the "more".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question. I asked the Prime Minister to give me credit for checking this out with the United States authorities before making the statement I did with regard to the position of deserters. I suggest the Prime Minister should also check it out with the United States authorities. May I ask him this? What does he intend to do about the Canadian law under which the death penalty can be imposed upon any Canadian deserter?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, that supplementary question is argumentative.



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

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. I notice he has been leafing through quite a heavy mail. Could he tell the house whether one of those letters happens to be an order for a substantial amount of wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Robson Muir: May I rephrase my question. I wonder whether the minister could report to the house on any wheat sales that have been made recently, or which are expected to be made in the near future.
May 23, 1969


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is an expression in English, Mr. Speaker, which says one must avoid "killing crops" around the world. Whenever I have good news I will be delighted to bring it to the attention of the house.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce inform the house whether or not it is a fact that written into the International Grains Agreement there is a provision giving Sweden, the European Common Market, Spain and Turkey special privileges in relation to part of the transportation costs which allows them to undercut Canada, the United States and Australia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I had explained to me on a number of occasions in recent months the bag of tricks which can be used, but I would not like to point the finger at any one country in particular.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question. I am not pointing the finger at any one country. The minister read and signed the contract for Canada, and I am asking him whether there was written into it a provision that gave relief on part of the transportation costs for certain countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I signed no contract for Canada. To what contract is the hon. member referring?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You may have signed no contract, but your department or somebody in it did, and you must have read the contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister should inform the house.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is in the house today may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport that is supplementary to those asked yesterday. Can the minister advise the house whether he will be instituting an inquiry into the alarming frequency of railway mishaps, and has he any information to give the house in this regard?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A special
inquiry has already commenced into the most
Inquiries of the Ministry recent accident in New Brunswick. The inquiry is being headed by Commissioner J. M. Woodard, himself a former railwayman, and it is already under way.
In addition, over the past several months consultations have been going on between representatives of the commission and the railways for the purpose of examining all the railway accidents that occurred in 1968 and those that occurred in the first quarter of 1969. Out of the findings of these discussions and the internal inquiry, if that is the appropriate phrase, a decision will be made as to whether a public inquiry is then necessary.
As for the most recent accident, no decision has yet been made on a public inquiry, for the obvious reason that an inquest into the unfortunate deaths must be held, and an inquiry would have to come subsequent to that inquest.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the special inquest into individual mishaps or any possible public inquiry will include an investigation into the adequacy of maintenance and inspection of railway trackage and rolling stock?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is part of the responsibility of the Canadian Transport Commission to do just that, and that is part of the investigation that is now under way.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES POLICY

Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. Now that the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission has stated that he hopes a decision on new transportation policies for the Atlantic provinces will not be too long delayed, will the minister advise the house what progress his department is making in drafting new legislation for an over-all Atlantic province transportation policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there has been a considerable amount of progress. I propose to meet with representatives of the Atlantic provinces on Monday, including I hope the premiers of some of the provinces who may be available. The drafting of the legislation will proceed as quickly as possible following these consultations, with the hope of introducing it very soon.


Charles Humbert Thomas: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Will

May 23, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry these consultations also include discussions on all modes of transportation-that is, truck, rail and water-with a view to arriving at an over-all transportation plan?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister could advise the house if he would make a statement or bring forward the legislation for first reading before the end of June?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that is our intention and hope.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can he now inform the house of the cause of the pollution of the waters of Placentia and St. Marys Bays. I am prompted to ask this question because of adverse publicity given to the Newfoundland fishery by publications such as Time magazine.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, last night I received an oral report from our scientists who are at work in the Placentia Bay area. They inform me that they are now certain that the cause of the pollution is phosphorus, discharged by the chemical plant of the area. The plant has since been shut down. Our scientists are proceeding to carry out further tests.
We are also in contact with the company. It is my understanding that the plant will not open again until 99 per cent or more of the phosphorus that has been going into the water of the area has been eliminated. Meanwhile no phosphorus will be discharged as effluent from the plant.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since construction of the A.B.M. safeguard system has been begun in the United States and since the Prime Minister in an earlier statement to this house said that Canada's attitude to the system and participation in it

would be based on whether it contributed to war or peace, or to the escalation of the arms race, will the Prime Minister in the near future make a statement to this house on the government's attitude toward this system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not leave the impression that we wanted to participate actively in this system. I indicated that the position we would have to take in judging this system would be based on whether it increases the possibility of nuclear arms escalation or whether it decreases it. We have not reached any conclusion on this yet.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister let the house know what the government's attitude is to this system before the house adjourns for the summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the government, I think, would not be very different from the attitude of the opposition. We are not enthusiastic about the system, but this is a defence system being built in another country. Whether it will prevent a nuclear holocaust is a consideration that is in all our minds. But we cannot be pressed into making any rapid decisions about the defence systems of other nations, whether they be the Soviet Union, Japan, China or other countries. We are busy now considering our own defence systems and our own policies for defence.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to assume from the Prime Minister's statement that there has been some modification in the government's attitude as expressed by the Prime Minister during the debate in this house? Was not the government's attitude that it felt it necessary to assess the significance of the measures proposed by the President of the United States and felt obliged to condemn the system if it concluded that the proposed measures taken by the United States are not in the interests of the world peace? Has that attitude changed? Has my right hon. friend decided that this question should be left entirely to the decision of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The position is still the same. We realize it is important to make this assessment. What I am saying is that it is not likely that any moral judgment we might enunciate will have a great deal of effect on the United States position. The moral judgment that we can make
May 23, 1969



could equally well be made by the Leader of the Opposition or by the leader of the New Democratic party. This will be, as I say, a moral decision taken by friendly nations. But debate is going on in the United States, and if their policy is to remain or is to be changed, that decision will come about as a consequence of what is happening in the United States debate and not as a consequence of statements made in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this has become debate. This is still the question period and there are a number of hon. members who are anxious to ask questions. They have been rising dutifully for the last half hour and I am anxious to give them the opportunity to ask their questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the government of Canada were to express an opinion and moral judgment to a friendly nation, is it not more likely that the public officers of that friendly nation would consider more seriously Canada's representations if they were made at an early date before Congress has become involved too seriously in the debate or before a decision is reached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, could speak out strongly and state his position on this matter. We should like to know what it is, because it might guide us in the establishment of the government's position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker,, may I remind the Prime Minister that it was he who suggested that the government of Canada had a moral obligation to express its view on this matter, after having assessed the situation. He said that it would do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since Canada will certainly be affected by any decision reached with respect to the construction of the A.B.M. safeguard system, have any representations been made by the government of Canada to the government of the United States? Are any discussions going on at any level between the two governments regarding this A.B.M. system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that Canada will be affected, but the whole world also will be affected. If the Canadian government had power to
Inquiries of the Ministry make decisions in this area I think we would suggest that the A.B.M. system should not be proceeded with. But we should also have to make a decision to see that the Soviets do not escalate their arms, and to see that they do not build an A.B.M. system around Moscow. But our writ does not extend to the United States or the Soviet Union. Really, the house is asking me to state a moral position. Our position is that the government hopes that no escalation will be embarked upon by either side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was not asking the Prime Minister at the moment to pass any moral judgment. I am asking him a simple question. Have any representations been made by the government of Canada to the government of the United States and are any discussions going on between the two governments at any level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer indicated that the input-if that is the term-into such representations at this stage would be very vague and only of a moralistic nature. Therefore the implications of my statement are that there are no such discussions going on at the present time. When I went to the United States there were exchanges between the President and myself and between some of their officials and ministers and ourselves. We entered into those exchanges in order to gain more knowledge of their case for having an A.B.M. system. We heard this case. Their case rests on their belief that they are not escalating arms; they are trying to respond to an A.B.M. system already built in the Soviet Union. They say they are not trying to embark on nuclear escalation, that that was started by the Soviet Union.
I think each country will have to state what its moral position on this question is. I have stated our position. Once again, I do not think that this will help to solve the debate going on in the United States. It will not help if a prime minister of Canada says to the United States what he thinks they should be doing. There are two sides to this debate in the United States and those two sides are carrying on the debate very vigorously and strongly.

May 23, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



ST. MARY'S BAY, N.S.-DISPUTE BETWEEN SEINERS AND WEIR FISHERMEN

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. What action does the minister propose to take in order to solve difficulties existing between the herring seiners and the weir fishermen in St. Mary's Bay, Nova Scotia, which has apparently resulted in gunfire between the two groups?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair doubts whether this is a matter of particular urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Judging from the reaction in the house there is an indication that this matter ought to be determined immediately. Perhaps it might be wise to allow the minister to answer the gunfire.


John (Jack) Davis: The situation the hon. member mentions is being kept closely under review. There is an unsubstantiated claim that shooting has occurred and the B.C.M.P. has been called in. But so far we have no evidence of anything occurring this year which has not happened in previous years.



AIR POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of water, renewal resources, energy, development and pollution control. My question relates to the installation of instruments in Vancouver for the testing and measuring of atmospheric pollution. Is the government contemplating the installation of this type of instrument in various cities across Canada?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the question about these instruments may have relation to some departments of government with which I could get in contact in order to determine the plans. I will be glad to look at the question in that light.



COAL DUST FROM SHIPMENTS THROUGH VANCOUVER HARBOUR

Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Can
the Minister of Transport tell this house whether any positive assurances can be given

that possible coal dust air pollution will not have to be tolerated in the North Vancou-ver-Vancouver harbour area from coal shipments destined for Neptune Terminals passing through National Harbours Board property?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member this is a question that might well be considered and debated at the time of adjournment.



LEGISLATION


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is directed to the acting house leader. With reference to the bill on off-track betting introduced yesterday, can the house leader say when it is the intention of the government to give this bill second reading? Will the house leader say if the bill after second reading will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We hope to bring this bill forward very quickly. The languages bill presently before the house will be followed by the housing bill and the bill of the Minister of Finance dealing with taxes. These will have to receive priority, but subject to that we hope to bring it forward very quickly and refer it to the standing committee.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the reports of the Elizabeth Fry Society that some women are being kept in solitary confinement in Kingston penitentiary, has the minister checked these reports and is he going to stop this barbaric and inhumane penal practice?


George James McIlraith: The minister responsible checked the situation very carefully. There are four persons in solitary confinement, one at her own request. It will be seen from this that the premise adopted by the hon. member in his question cannot be accepted.



PUBLICATIONS


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-East Richmond):: My question is directed to the
May 23, 1969



Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that Time magazine was granted concessions because the Liberal government was scared of them, is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to investigate charges made in a recent Time edition regarding two members of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Annapolis Valley.


Donald MacInnis: With all due respect, sir, I think the Minister of Justice should consider the statement in Time magazine and the statement made by a former minister in order to clear this matter, because other members of this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in respect to his earlier answer concerning maritime command. In view of the decision the government has made about the role of maritime command, is the minister advising our allies of a change in that role in the meeting to be held next week?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker, not as far as NATO is concerned.



HOUSING


Robert Knight Andras: I wish to reply to two questions posed the other day in my absence. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked a question with regard to the intentions of the government to seek additional appropriations for housing in addition to those now outlined in the estimates. There are two sources for C.M.H.C. loans and advances. One is the estimates which have been approved in the amount of $114 million. The other is statutory votes. These two comprise the capital budget which is approved by order in council and tabled in the house. That amount this year will be $680 million. Over and above that there is $49 million provided in the estimates for grants and subsidies. There is no additional increase contemplated at this time.
29180-570J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand the minister to say that, despite the fact the ceilings are to be raised under the bill which he is going to introduce Monday, there has been no increase in the financial allotments over and above what has already been provided in the figures given to the house?


Robert Knight Andras: If the bill is approved, Mr. Speaker, the financial allotment increase will permit the capital budget expenditures to be dealt with over the next three or four years. This is to give us room to move over the next three or four years. Of the present insuring limit of $11 billion, for instance, a commitment of $9J billion has already been made. An increase to $15 billion will give us that leeway.



THOMPSON, MAN.-AVAILABILITY OF MORTGAGE MONEY

Robert Knight Andras: A question was asked by the hon. member for Churchill, with regard to housing accommodation in Thompson, Manitoba. There are two projects in Thompson. One is a limited dividend project of row houses. That has now been approved by C.M.H.C. and I will be recommending an order in council. The other is a high rise project which will be financed privately. Negotiations for this are now under way.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the minister's announcement concerning high rise apartment applications in Thompson, Manitoba, does this means that present applications to C.M.H.C. for high rise apartments and more mortgage needs will now be approved?


Robert Knight Andras: It means the limited dividend project which has been submitted has been approved by C.M.H.C. The high rise proposal, which is private, is now being looked at and negotiations are under way.



SHIPPING


Frank Howard: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which he may wish to take as notice. Can the minister advise the house of the current position and what progress is being made in the

May 23, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
study embarked upon by the Canadian Trans- [DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
port Commission with respect to the estab-	GOVERNMENT ORDERS
lishment of a Canadian flag merchant fleet?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a very general statement. I trust the minister will not attempt to make the statement now.



SHIPBUILDING


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Central Nova if it is true my department is not participating in a committee to investigate shipbuilding in Canada. The shipbuilding industry has agreed that a committee drawn from industry would be the most effective in investigating shipbuilding in Canada. The department however will be working with this committee in coming to conclusions.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Will the minister say why he stated in this house on March 27 that this committee, including government representatives, was already at work?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary is
argumentative, and I might suggest to the hon. member the original question was probably not put in proper form. I suggest to hon. members that the question period has now expired and we might go on with government orders.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the acting house leader. In view of the fact there have been certain discussions regarding the use of the hour between four and five o'clock this afternoon, and also certain agreements, will the minister take whatever steps are necessary so that provision will be made for any of the late show debates that might be called in that hour?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I prefer to have another hour or two to check out the agreements that were made. I will then take the appropriate steps to carry them out.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, at this point in our consideration of Bill C-120 concerning the official languages of Canada we are deciding whether or not to send the bill to a committee for consideration. We are not deciding the details of the legislation but rather the simple question of whether or not a bill of this type is worthy of further study.
This bill must be regarded as civil rights legislation. In order to have the right perspective we must look at what is happening in other parts of the world such as the United States, Britain and Africa. We should not assume that the demand for enlargement of the rights of minorities will not reach the same fever pitch in Canada that it has in other countries. The facts and the background are different but the human feelings are the same. I believe this bill is a mild forerunner of some of the jarring and traumatic civil rights legislation we may be called upon to consider in this country before very long. If we fail to face up to our responsibilities at this point we will be failing all those who follow us.
The legislation is not in the form in which I should like to see it. Many of the reasons have been expounded by others. Unfortunately the Liberal government has the responsibility for introducing legislation and it has drafted the bill in this way. We must make efforts to put it in better shape, but that does not mean that we can be against it. This does not affect my belief that recognition must be given to the grievances, which have existed for many years, of the French speaking minorities in Canada. It is my belief it would not serve the national interest to try to defeat this bill because it is imperfect. I believe we must accept the principle that minority groups throughout the country should be given recognition and that their desire to have equal rights and opportunities in one country should be facilitated.
May 23, 1969

At the committee stage we must proceed to improve the bill. Some amendments have already been suggested by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and on our side the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) outlined some excellent suggestions and amendments we will propose. As we proceed others will be developed.
The bill deals mainly with French speaking minorities outside of Quebec and English speaking minorities in Quebec. The question is rightly asked, what about other minority groups in Canada, those who speak other languages and want to use them? The bill gives those groups nothing more than a casual nod in their direction, a recognition that they exist and nothing more. The government in fact has done nothing to meet the desires of these other groups to become part of Canada and yet retain their cultural and linguistic identity within the country. This is one of the main reasons there is hesitation about adopting the bill. But it does not make the bill itself and the principle any less valid, nor does it justify my voting against it, imperfect and weak thought it be. The intent is to recognize the longstanding feeling by many French Canadians that they are strangers in their own country.
The government may not be moving in the right direction with this bill nor in the proper manner, but the government members are the only ones who in the next two or three years can move at all and it is better they should move than stand still. It follows, therefore, that I must support this bill on second reading without any reservation whatever as to the principle but with considerable doubt about the details.
There have been many speeches during this debate and I have listened to almost all of them. The views put forward by hon. members have been very seriously considered and every hon. member has been forthcoming in his views. I must say, however, that I found it very depressing when the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) on Wednesday night stood in his place and called others bigoted. I must say that he made what I thought was the most bigoted and provocative speech in this debate. I believe he committed a gross falsehood by calling others bigoted. This does nothing whatever to advance the cause of good will and better understanding in a very difficult situation when many people of good will are trying to represent their ridings, present their views and put forward the very deeply held feelings of their constituents.
Official Languages
The Confederation for Tomorrow conference of all the provincial premiers, held in Toronto in 1967, unanimously adopted the principles upon which this bill is based. A detailed statement of consensus was issued by the premiers at the conclusion of the conference. Similar views came from the federal-provincial conference of 1968. However, at a later conference called by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) it appeared, unfortunately, that the attitudes of some were hardening. I do not think there was any change in the general good will or the general understanding of the principles but rather a hardening because of the way in which the present Prime Minister was proceeding. Rather than advancing the cause of good will and better understanding in Canada, which he led many Canadians to believe he would do when elected Prime Minister, I believe that by ineptitude or carelessness he permitted the situation to deteriorate by allowing positions to harden and old attitudes to be re-established.
I believe that is a tragedy. However, inasmuch as the principle of providing services in the second language in areas of Canada where a substantial minority exists has been established, surely it would be foolish now to abdicate this principle so substantially adopted by those responsible for all the governments in Canada. There were then, as there are now, doubts and reservations about the methods of carrying out this consensus or understanding, but how else could we expect Canadians to react? We have a diverse country. People in one area may have no understanding whatever of the problems of other areas. This is inevitable in this country, and it is inevitable that Canadians will be divided on matters in respect of which they really have no contact. In spite of the difficulties we must try to straighten out, in spite of the doubts we must try to rectify, in spite of the errors made in drafting the bill which we must try to correct, there can be no doubt whatever about the principle.
[DOT] (12 noon)
As I said in the beginning, this bill does: not move very far in the civil rights field. It does not outline a bill of rights for all Canadians, either in a federal statute or embodied in the constitution. It does nothing to alleviate poverty; to bring our native Indians into the abundant life of the late 20th century, or to recognize equality of opportunity for those who speak other than English or French. It does not move against racial discrimination in the broad sense but deals

May 23, 1969
Official Languages
mainly with language matters for one group of people. Because of the diversity of our people and our customs, and because of the many different circumstances in which each minority group across this country lives, we cannot be positive that even the bill as proposed to be amended will meet the intended purpose.
This bill attempts to deal with longstanding grievances of one specific and large group of Canadians. There is no use in my standing here and saying these grievances are imaginary or that a better way can be found if -we wait a while. No doubt a better way will be found, and perhaps another government will find it. There is no use in saying that many other grievances are not covered or that many other groups have been overlooked or ignored. Another government will correct these difficulties and there are more grievances which must be dealt with soon, but we must apparently wait for that day. The government has moved in a very narrow way to solve a very narrow grievance.
Other speakers have pointed out the great problems in many areas in respect of social welfare and civil rights. I do not need to go over them again because they have been well covered. We feel that the government is avoiding these issues and that it is bringing forward other bills perhaps as an excuse for its failure to meet the real problems of poverty and regional disparity.
In spite of all these things we cannot deny that in respect of this specific problem the government is moving, perhaps poorly and weakly, to rectify it. To this extent I feel bound to support the government with the hope that the committee will rectify some of the errors in the bill with the hope that this first move will precipitate others and will encourage further useful legislation to solve some of the problems facing this country. As I said at the outset, I feel bound to support the principle of this bill, and I will vote in favour of it on second reading.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would be most pleased to speak only in French on this bill, but unfortunately it is impossible for me to do so right now, because I do not know the language well enough yet. I will continue my speech in English.
tEnplish]
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) referred at the beginning of

his remarks to events that are happening in other parts of the world and the fact that the same things could happen here. I agree with him completely that if they did the results might be similar. However, this is one of the things this bill respecting the status of official languages in Canada attempts to prevent.
I crave the indulgence of the house while I make a brief survey of some Canadian historical facts as I believe they relate to this bill. In doing so I hope I will allay some of the fears, pointed out by the hon. member who preceded me, in relation to the circumstances of the so-called other ethnic groups.
More than 350 years ago there were Canadians living in North America. Their language was French. More than 230 years ago Canadians were engaged in the exploration and exploitation of the west. Their language too was French. Almost 210 years ago French troops fighting in North America lost a battle to English troops, due chiefly to the superiority of the Royal Navy, and Canadians already settled here for more than a century and a half became colonial wards of Britannia in place of Marianne.
Some years later English speaking people, again because of the fortunes of war, began to settle in Canada, chiefly to the east and to the west of the ancient Canadian heartland along the banks of the St. Lawrence. It was not for another 60 years that my own ancestors arrived here from the British Isles, and not for another 30 years did the event known as Confederation take place.
At the time of Confederation both English and French, the mother tongues of the two great immigrant peoples living in British North America at that time, were given equal status in the federal parliament, in the federal courts, and in the legislative assembly and courts of the new province of Quebec. Three years later, when Louis Riel brought Manitoba into Confederation, both French and English were given official status under section 23 of the Manitoba Act which said that either English or French may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of legislature, and that both languages shall be used in the records and journals of those houses. It also said that either language may be used by any person in any pleading or process in any court of Canada established under the British North America Act, or in any court in the province. So clearly the right of the Canadian government to deal with the matter of languages as it would apply to a new territory was there, and it certainly was not challenged at the time.
May 23, 1969



[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Incidentally, when Manitoba came into confederation the French speaking people there outnumbered the English. But this in no way suggested to anyone that both language groups should not have equal rights and privileges. Later immigrants from Ontario flooded into the country, putting the principle of bilingualism under relentless and continuous pressure. When Riel was executed years later for high treason in the Northwest Territories in 1885, the jury consisted of six men none of whom could speak or understand a word of French. I think that is relevant to our present concern about some of the aspects of this bill.
Professor George F. G. Stanley has written a very good book entitled "Louis Riel". He observes in that book that Dr. Frangois Roy, a psychiatrist, testified on Riel's behalf and was, in fact, the key defence witness and the Crown knew it. Osier's tactics-that is my great uncle-were therefore, to assume an attitude of bellicosity, to browbeat if not to confuse the witness. This passage in the book continues in the following words:
Hard pressed to answer Osier's questions in English, Roy fell back upon his own language, French, and in so doing lost much of his effectiveness as a witness, if only because of the difficulty of translating his evidence in a manner easily understood by the members of the jury.
I suggest, therefore, that history proves, from a very famous trial, that our concern over legal rights is a good one.
Be this as it may, fresh immigrants from central Europe began to arrive in the west. They, too, were allowed language privileges; at least they were allowed to use their mother tongue for instructional purposes in school. Right up until 1916 or 1915, when ten pupils in any school spoke French or any language other than English, the teaching of these pupils could be done "in French or such other language, and English upon the bilingual system". This is to be found in Manitoba Statutes, 60 Queen Victoria, C-26. Then one day in order, I presume, to make things nice and tidy and efficient for the Anglo-Saxon mind of the day, English was made the sole language of instruction in the schools of Manitoba.
In my native province things have changed somewhat for the better since then. Nowadays, under some conditions once again French may be used as a language of instruction in the school and, of course, it may still be used in the legislature and courts of record.
Official Languages
At the present time neither the Premier of Manitoba, the Leader of the Official Opposition nor the members of the New Democratic party are in opposition to the principle of this bill. But let it be noted by the so-called ethnic groups, which in western Canada now outnumber both English and French, that it is only when the French language has enjoyed full rights and privileges that then- own languages have had a chance. Incidentally, it is no accident that the present bill goes out of its way in clause 38 to ensure that "nothing in this act shall be construed as derogating from or diminishing in any way any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this act with respect to any language that is not an official language."
I suggest that history proves gradualism, advocated by several speakers in this debate, to be a mirage. Unless language rights are nailed down by law it is all too easy for a majority, made intolerant by the pressures of temporary adversity or current fears, to abrogate these language rights. That is what the so-called backlash is all about in western Canada today.
Canada is not and has never been a melting pot. It glorifies in a diversity of peoples almost as varied as the magnificent geography that we all enjoy. We on the prairies are different from some of the rest of you. We have a richer cultural diversity. We have our own unique way of looking at things, stemming from the past we have shared together and the things we have done together to make life liveable in one of the most unforgiving climates in the world.
Apart from what we are and what we have become, chiefly by our own efforts during the last 100 years, our geographical position in Canada is quite different from that which was visualized by the Fathers of Confederation so long ago. My own city of Winnipeg, for instance, is no longer the gateway to the west; rather, it is the centre of a potentially rich heartland that faces both the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Sea. If it is a gateway to anywhere, surely it is the gateway to the north.
Because of these things, and because we incorporate joyously many cultures instead of just two, we have always rejected the two-nation theory that has been bandied about from time to time. But there is no logical reason why we in the west should hesitate to acknowledge the legitimate demands of those who insist that French should be an official

May 23, 1969
Official Languages
language. By creating a climate in which French culture can flourish, surely the principle of national diversity is ensured. As I have already pointed out, whenever we dismiss the French fact we must dismiss all the other "facts" too-the Ukranian fact, the Polish fact, the German fact, the Indian and Eskimo fact, indeed, every fact that makes our western region so culturally interesting and rich. By acknowledging the justice of the French fact, however, we infer that there is a need for a means by which the "third force" Canadians, of whom there are so many in the west, can preserve their languages and cultures wherever they are gathered in sufficient numbers so to do. Thus, wholeheartedly and with consistency, we can commend the sort of resolution adopted by the ninth Ukrainian Canadian Congress in Winnipeg on October 14, 1968.1 will read that resolution:
Now therefore be it resolved:
That pursuant to its exclusive constitutional right under section 93 of the British North America Act to legislate in the field of education, the province of Manitoba be petitioned by the Ukrainian Canadian Committee to enact legislation to protect the language and cultural rights of all persons in Manitoba of other than English or French descent by guaranteeing to all such persons, in the districts populated by the respective minorities in such of the public schools therein . .. the right to receive instruction in their respective language as a subject of study and the right to have their language used in such public schools from grade 1-
In my opinion this was a sensible suggestion for the Ukrainians of Manitoba to bring forward. It would be entirely inconsistent and untenable for them to bring forward this resolution if there were not a measure such as Bill C-120. The two things go together and are in my opinion inseparable. The country as a whole has two official languages, and a region or province is justified in encouraging regional languages.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I am convinced that the so-called western backlash has nothing to do with the official languages bill. Those politicians from either side of the house and those public figures who pretend that it has, do themselves and their country a disservice. We need constitutional reform-yes-so that in some way we may have a more effective voice in the west than the one we enjoy at the moment. We want a greater voice in the decision-making bodies of this nation-in parliament, in the Senate, in the boardrooms of our financial and industrial concerns, and on the executives of the labour unions whose decisions affect so many of us today. We are a "becoming" nation, which is

both our glory and our cross. As westerners we want more opportunities to help decide what we become.
These are the things that worry us western Canadians, and they have nothing to do with Bill C-120 which, with amendments, is a completely innocuous and a very necessary piece of legislation. What we politicians of all parties from the west should do, after resisting any temptation to place ourselves at the head of a not so holy and utterly sterile crusade against this legislation, is to press with all our might for economic and constitutional reform that will let the west take its rightful place as an equal partner in this great Canada of ours.
Mr. Speaker, I endorse wholeheartedly the principle of this bill.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more inappropriate time for the parliament of Canada to be discussing the bill before us. Many serious problems face the people of Canada, and most of them have a great deal to do with whether or not we will remain a nation in the years ahead. None of these problems will be solved as a result of either the passage or the debate of this bill.
I represent a constituency in the Atlantic provinces. Regional economic disparity is a fact recognized by the government and by the people of this nation. The most recent unemployment figure from that area indicates that the problem continues to be serious and even chaotic. Yet the government does nothing or next to nothing except to send a new minister down to the region to talk about programs and plans that he envisages will take 15 years before having any material effect on the income and status of the people of that region. In spite of this the government says that we must debate this bill even though by its very nature and content it is questionable whether this institution should even consider it.
The government tells this institution and the people of this nation that it has the competence to produce and enact this piece of legislation even though leading jurists of this nation have expressed grave doubts as to the competence of parliament to deal with the legislation before us. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicates that he and his law officers are of the opinion that the bill is constitutional, an individual of no less stature than the former president of the Exchequer Court of Canada has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is his belief that parliament does
May 23, 1969

not have the competence to deal with this legislation and that it should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling. The three prairie premiers have also indicated their grave concern over the content of this bill and have questioned parliament's competence to deal with it. We have not heard from them since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) indicated that certain amendments to the bill will be moved by the government. It is my hope that when the bill is referred to the committee some of the serious objections that have been made to its content will be explored in great detail.
I am opposed to the principle of compulsion so far as language rights in this country are concerned. At the same time I do not oppose a committee of this house examining in detail the content of the bill as it is placed before us because I hope they will examine in detail section 91 (1) of the B.N.A. Act and especially that aspect of it dealing with language rights. I should like to place that portion of section 91 (1) on the record which precludes parliament from dealing individually and directly with language rights in this nation. Section 91 (1) reads as follows:
The amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other Constitutional Act granted or secured to the Legislature or the Government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools-
This is the important qualification.
-or as regards the use of the English or the French language-[DOT]
If section 91 (1) is construed in a narrow sense, then it is not for us in this institution to make that decision but it is a decision to be taken by the Supreme Court of Canada. In this way language rights are placed in a strait-jacket, as was contended at the time when Prime Minister St. Laurent amended the constitution and added this section to it. If they are placed in a strait-jacket, then we do not have the competence to act on section 133 of the B.N.A. Act which outlines in detail the language rights in this nation.
In answering the Hon. J. T. Thorson on November 22,	1968, the Prime Minister
outlined his and I assume his government's attitude with regard to both sections 91 and 133. But once again the fact that the Prime Minister has taken this position does not means that it is the correct position legally. It only means that this is the attitude of the government in this regard. The only way in
Official Languages
which we can ascertain whether or not parliament can act on this bill is by referring the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the only way in which we will know whether in fact we have the right to alter certain aspects of the language rights in this nation.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I indicated that this is the worst possible time to have a debate on a subject that is giving Canadians everywhere a great deal of concern. Today in the province of Quebec English speaking people who reside there are greatly concerned. A great many people are leaving. A great many commercial enterprises are leaving that province.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How do you know?


Robert Carman Coates: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) asks me how I know. Would he not agree that Industrial Acceptance Corporation has just moved its head office from Montreal to Toronto? This is a billion dollar enterprise. If this is not an indication of what is in the minds of the people I should like to know what other evidence the minister expects to find.
When this debate was initiated some time ago we were told that all the government was endeavouring to do was to give French speaking individuals outside Quebec the same rights as English speaking individuals have in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I am sure English speaking citizens in Quebec would like to know exactly what their rights are today. A bill was proposed in the Quebec legislature with an indication that those rights would be outlined. That bill has been withdrawn and there is every sign that it will never appear again.
The events at St. Leonard have caused concern to all Canadians, especially to those of ethnic origin who have great difficulty in seeing that their children receive an education in the language of their choice. These are the reasons for my saying that Canadians are concerned. The government should have taken notice of this situation by withholding action on the bill now before us until such time as there is clarification of the rights which Canadians using English as their mother tongue may enjoy in the province of Quebec.
I read the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). He drew attention to the deep concern felt by the public servants of Canada who are unilingual.

May 23. 1969
Official Languages
They are concerned about the danger to their future employment and careers from the concept embodied in this legislation. And there is real reason for this concern because all kinds of events are taking place in this country which are most unsettling to English speaking and unilingual people in this nation. Foremost is the fact that they will become second class citizens because they do not have the second language or the capability of securing a working knowledge of the second language.
This limitation does not necessarily arise because they are not intelligent. I have never endeavoured to secure a knowledge of the French language mainly because I know from past experience that it would come very hard for me. At the same time I have tried to the best of my ability to see that my children have a working knowledge which will allow them to become bilingual in the days ahead should they desire to do so. But it is not a question of any compulsion being placed on me by anyone. I hold this view because I believe my children will be enriched by being able to speak more than one language. I have nothing against them or anyone else being able to speak many languages if that is their desire, but I do not think anyone should be compelled to secure a working knowledge of more than one language and I do not think the absence of such knowledge should in any way jeopardize his possibilities so far as employment or promotion in the government service is concerned. I do not like the idea of any more authorities being set up in Canada to make decisions as will be the case when the commissioner proposed by this bill takes up his duties.
Some of the proposed amendments cause me as much concern as does the bill itself. The proposed amendment to clause 9 reads as follows:
Every department and agency of the Government of Canada and every judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body or Crown corporation established by or pursuant to an act of the Parliament of Canada has, in addition to but without derogating from the duty imposed upon it by subsection (1), the duty to ensure, to the extent that it is feasible for it to do so, that members of the public in locations other than those referred to in that subsection-
The reference is to bilingual districts.
-where there is a significant demand therefor by such persons, can obtain available services from and can communicate with it in both official languages.
Where would that lead us if it became law? Surely it is a provision which implies an extension of power well beyond the proposal

embodied in the bill concerning the establishment of bilingual districts.
It is my belief that we accomplish nothing by trying to impose the French language upon Canadians by compulsion. It is my belief that the schism in evidence today in this nation between the two major language groups could become an unbridgable gap if we continue the debate on Bill C-120. It is my hope that the committee, when it is established and considers this measure, will call a good deal of evidence as to the competence of the Parliament of Canada to legislate an amendment to the British North America Act, for this, in my view, is what Bill C-120 does. It is my hope that the committee will recommend that the reference which many in this country have urged should be made to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the constitutionality of the bill in question will, in fact, be made so that we may know whether we are endeavouring to do what is right or, in the alternative, whether we are trying to do by the back door what we cannot do by the front door because it is impossible for the federal government to secure the consent of the provinces to the amendments they have in mind.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, since the outset of this debate, many speakers have stressed the fact that this bill will be welcomed by Canadian youth.
I wish to take part in this debate on the status of the official languages of Canada to express not so much the views of a government member, but rather the views of a 30-year-old Quebecer who, for the last twenty years, that is from the first time he left Quebec, has been asking himself many times whether he is a full-fledged citizen in this country.
Anyone who looks at the situation without prejudice should agree with me that Canadians of French language and culture do not have everywhere in Canada the same opportunities as English-speaking citizens, if they want to live, work and bring up their children in their mother tongue.
This definite situation has existed for quite some time, and it has not varied in spite of the thousands of grand patriotic speeches delivered in the past by men of authority and, very likely, of good will.
Today, this situation must change. Otherwise, I would not hesitate to predict that
May 23, 1969



Canada itself will change, and we will then see the disruption of the country.
Indeed, my generation and the one that follows do not have the patience of our parents or grandparents. We want the adoption of this bill, because we have waited a long time for it. That is the minimum, as far as we are concerned, and it is time it came about.
The vastness of our country, poor means of communication, isolation, mediocre teaching of Canadian history, a too-often unbalanced competition, have had as a result that, for years, French Canadians and English Canadians have not felt close to one another: either they knew one another not at all or very little, and badly at that, or else, more often than not, disliked one another without really knowing why.
It is easy then to understand why our parents and grandparents nursed so many grudges and prejudices.
Today, communications are much better. The young people travel a lot and the teaching of Canadian history has improved considerably. It is no longer taught, amongst other things, that the bad English encouraged the Iroquois to massacre the French, that the depraved French gave alcohol to the Indians the better to rob them.
Fortunately, my generation and the one that follows hold no grudges nor any prejudices. On the contrary, we are willing to make many concessions. We are willing above all else to pay the price so that Canadians may feel at home throughout the land.
When, in the summer of 1965, a private company made a survey across Canada on behalf of the B & B commission, Canadians under 35 who were questioned answered in a proportion of almost 100 per cent that all Canadian citizens should be able to deal with the federal government in English or in French, as they choose.
I therefore do not hesitate to say that the young people of Canada support this bill wholeheartedly. On their behalf, I urge my colleagues in this house to vote for this bill without reservations, unanimously.
Doubtless, the bill asks a generation of men steeped in prejudices to accept realities they were never ready to recognize. But, on behalf of the country they love, on behalf of the children and grand-children they cherish, I ask them to do violence to their feelings and allow a new generation of young and open minds, willing to forget their forefathers' quarrels, capable of tolerance and respect of
Official Languages
others, to build a united, prosperous and serene Canada.
It is unfortunate that some members are seeking all sorts of excuses to oppose this bill. Whether the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) was too outspoken or not, whether this bill should come before the house before rather than after the bills concerning housing and industrial incentives, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) did not see fit to inform the house earlier of the amendments to the bill whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is in an ivory tower or not, all that, in my opinion, is quite frivolous talk in such a serious and important discussion.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to tell those who have made such remarks and who would be tempted to vote against this bill on such pretences, that the young people of Canada are fed up with all their nonsense and regard them as dusty old reactionaries: the sooner they vanish from the present political scene the better.
I feel there are actually only two questions to clarify about this bill. First, can it be anticonstitutional? Second, can it cause injustices towards unilingual civil servants?
To the first question, I shall answer that, in my opinion, the bill is perfectly constitutional. I think that this bill comes under the jurisdiction of parliament. It is not in any manner detrimental to the rights and privileges granted by virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act.
On the other hand, as the Minister of Justice said in the house last Tuesday, it would not be fair to interpret the constitution so as to freeze, in a way, the use of French apart from the rights granted by section 133. The fathers of confederation conceived a bilingual Canada, a bilingual parliament, and they have drawn up a constitution in which the two languages are on the same footing.
This bill certainly does not betray the spirit of the constitution. Besides, beyond the constitution, beyond parliament, the Canadian people recognize and accept bilingualism in Canada. Gallup polls show that more than 80 per cent of Canadians recognize the principle of language equality. It would therefore be unfortunate if we were to ask the courts for a ruling on the constitutionality of the bill, because such a procedure would inevitably entail long delays.
Such a procedure would greatly antagonize-and I do not hesitate to say so-the

May 23. 1969
Official Languages
young people who want action from the leaders of this country and who are becoming increasingly impatient.
I hope the consultations the Minister of Justice had with several attorneys general have been useful and that the proposed amendments will satisfy the most fearful.
I will not enlarge upon the subject at this stage, because we will have the opportunity to look fully into the bill in the committee. It seems obvious to me however, that the Minister of Justice has done a wonderful job and that he deserves our gratitude.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I think that the propositions suggested as a whole should be accepted by the Western provinces as well as by the province of Quebec and certain Maritime provinces. I do not think that it is necessary to have the bill in its present form with its suggested amendments referred to the Canadian courts in order to have it passed so that it may become law.
As for the second question, in my opinion, no provision of that bill justifies the fears of some unilingual officials who believe that they could not take advantage of the opportunities which they would otherwise have had.
The government has said that it is only from 1970 on that the knowledge of both official languages or the will to acquire it will be required in localities-and this is very important-where bilingualism answers a need. That is the general policy the government will follow for management and administration positions, and the same requirements will apply to promotions within the service in 1975 only.
Therefore, a person speaking English only could still be promoted in a locality where bilinguism is not required. Then, in the next few years, a unilingual person will still be able to take all means made available free of charge by the government to improve his knowledge of the second language. Therefore, if he takes the trouble, he could be promoted in a centre where bilingualism is a requirement.
Do I need to say that at present, it is essential that French Canadians know English to enter the federal public service. All that will be needed for an English-speaking civil servant to be promoted in some localities will be his will to learn French.
Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have complained that televator operators and door watchmen have been transferred because they were not bilingual. To my knowledge,

none of them has lost his job. I do not believe that they were in the government service to be necessarily in charge of a particular door or elevator. If they are working elsewhere, it is because of the circumstances, the same way as a machine operator in a plant is transferred to another job when the plant manager decides to replace his machine and to secure the services of another younger employee to operate it.
If some hon. members are too fanatical to understand that the higher interests of the country demand that those in charge of the central entrance of the parliament buildings, for instance, be bilingual, I cannot help it, but that is the prevailing situation.
In such a case, the government should take its responsibilities and transfer somewhere else the official who is not up to the new requirements. Anyway, the civil servant being transferred should consider himself lucky, as he is privileged over those who speak only French who will never be accepted in the civil service unless they learn English.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words to those who underestimate the significance of this bill. I was surprised that even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) did not grasp all the implications of this bill when he said on October 17 of last year, when the house was considering the draft resolution, as reported at page 1484 of Hansard, and I quote:
Within the framework of Canada's constitutional evolution and of the problems we still have to resolve, this resolution can hardly be regarded as a very significant or decisive step.
It is the Leader of the Opposition who is speaking.
As I have said, it is quite a small part of the over-all question, and from the point of view of the government it is the easiest part. All that is required is the drafting and presentation of a resolution and a bill in this house.
The Leader of the Opposition tells us that all that is required is the presentation of a bill. Yes, only that was required. Yet before that was achieved, many years went by; thousands of patriotic speeches of all kinds were delivered and it took a gallant government and, above all, a resolute and responsible Prime Minister to undertake it.
The need for an act respecting the status of official languages was one of the main conclusions of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The Liberal party, not the party of the Leader of the Opposition,
May 23, 1963

made it one of the planks of its election platform. The campaign of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-not that of the Leader of the Opposition-was centered round that principle. The Prime Minister laid emphasis on the equality of languages in all parts of Canada. He dealt with that subject in all areas of this country, expressing himself in those occasions in both languages. The people, especially the young ones, understood and accepted that.
Far from being an unimportant step, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe this bill is a decisive step that will enable us to really unite Canadians by making them equal partners.
I think that the achievement of linguistic equality in Canada is at this time the most important challenge, the most urgent and most essential task, without which everything else could very well be useless.
Several of my fellow citizens at the present time preach unilinguism in Canada. An important movement advocates Quebec's independence. Obviously many have lost patience and do not want to belong to a country where you have to fight constantly to preserve your linguistic rights.
The hon. member of the opposition who spoke before me put forward the case of St. Leonard. He pointed out the enormous importance of this bill when referring to St. Leonard.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that fine speeches are not enough and that action is required. If the nice words we hear, here and there, are spoken in earnest, it would therefore be normal to put them in writing and to put in our statute books the principles recognized in the measure under consideration. Only the law can protect people's rights.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being one o'clock, this sitting stands suspended until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I was saying, before lunch, that rights can only be protected by law, and I mean by that that it is no longer good enough to make fine speeches. If we are truly sincere and if we truly want to do something positive, it is high time that
Official Languages
we spelled out and incorporated in our statutes the principles endorsed by this bill.
I feel that to approve this bill is the best way to refute the arguments of several separatists. Then, French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec would enjoy the same rights as English-speaking Quebecers, since French Canadians would then feel more at home in every part of the country, and more especially in the national capital. It would then be possible for them to live in an English environment without giving up their cultural background.
As the Prime Minister said on October 17 last, and I quote:
-Those who argue for separation, in whatever form, are prisoners of past injustice, blind to the possibilities of the future.
Let us make the future beaming with possibilities by passing this bill, and the ghost of separation will blur away as this bill is applied progressively.
The main object of this bill is to remove cultural and linguistic inequalities in Canada. It will enable everyone to be on the same footing to develop their talents and use their energy and their knowledge for the benefit of their fellow-citizens.
I would like to recall the words uttered last Friday by the Secretary of State, when speaking to the bill, and I quote:
The bill concerns not individual bilingualism, but institutional bilingualism; that is, the use of the two languages by government services in their dealing with the public.
Members of the opposition have accused the Secretary of State of using extremist language. I wonder how his words could be construed as extremist. Further on, he said in particular that it follows from the principle stated in this bill that:
-all official documents . . . must be published in both official languages.
This legislation. . .
-provides for the establishment of federal bilingual districts in all regions inhabited by both French and English speaking citizens-
In my view, it is only normal to hope that such bilingual districts are established

*
-as long as 10 per cent or more of the population .. . use the minority official language as their mother tongue.
I fail to see anything extremist in that demand.

May 23. 1969
Official Languages
The Secretary of State also said that in the bill, and I quote:
-provision is also made for all departments and bodies of the Canadian government, all federal courts, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies and Crown Corporations to ensure that both languages are used in all their relations with the public.
I feel that it is quite normal-there is nothing extremist in that-to allow a Canadian citizen to deal with his government in his mother tongue.
Finally, the Secretary of State said:
-the bill deals with the appointment and duties of a Commissioner of official languages for Canada ... The commissioner will be responsible for ensuring that the status of both official languages is recognized in practice and that the spirit of the law and the intention of the legislator are respected in their entirety.
I feel there is nothing extremist in asking that there should be some sort of ombudsman of language matters in Canada.
In the course of our history, we have experienced rather difficult times, especially several years ago, when language and education issues arose in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and even in Ontario. I am under the impression that this legislation offers us certain guarantees through the appointment of a Commissioner of languages, who will see that the rights-I repeat-the rights of every Canadian citizen are respected. French Canadians are not asking for a privilege or a favour, but simply for the recognition of a right by this legislation.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning-and I speak not only for myself, but on behalf of all young Canadians who believe in the future of the country, who are proud to be Canadians, and who want this bill to be adopted-it is the minimum and is long overdue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
[English}


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the past two years the cries for national unity across Canada have been increasingly vocal, but it is about time we as Canadians recognize the fact that unity is not achieved by assimilation. It is about time we realized that the only way to achieve unity in our nation is to preserve and promote the inherent diversities of the Canadian mosaic. The French Canadian minority in Canada has a right to participate in the social and economic life of our country. It is the combination of our multi-culture expressed in the two

official languages which preserves the Canadian identity and makes it distinctive from that of the United States. It is also this combination, I believe, which could contribute much to the unity of our country.
For these reasons I should like to say at the outset that I support the principle of the bill and its referral to the committee. I believe that basically and essentially it is a civil rights bill. I think it has been long overdue and that something like this should have been implemented years ago. We must understand the minorities, protect them and most of all make sure that they become involved within our country. If we do not, then I believe we will face a danger at some future time. We have seen the conflict among many minorities in different countries. We see the strife in the United States, in Great Britain and in an exaggerated sense in the country of Nigeria. It is my belief, if we do not do something about situations such as we have in Canada, that something like this could happen here if carried to the extreme.
As I have said, I think that basically this is a piece of civil rights legislation which will guarantee the French Canadians in particular greater equity in participating in the social and economic life of our country. It is basically from this point of view as a democratic socialist that I rise to support this legislation in the hope that it will remove some of the inequities and inequalities we have in our country. I also hope that it will make Canada more accessible to both groups of Canadians. Second, this piece of legislation should help to make Canada more distinct in identity and culture from the United States. I believe it will add to the individuality of Canada as a nation and promote the Canadian conscience and attitude on national unity throughout the world.
I shall try to be brief. I want to support this bill not because I am basically either an English or French Canadian but because I am representative of the so-called third group of Canadians. I believe Canada has an advantage over the United States in that many of the cultures and languages of the third group of Canadians have been preserved because in Canada we are more tolerant in this regard as a result of our bilingual and bicultural nature. In my opinion this ethnic diversity is of value to our Canadian culture much more than is the case in the United States where it tends to go into a huge melting pot. These are some of the reasons I should like to support the principle of the bill before us today.
May 23, 1969

Some members have made a point about alienation in different parts of the country with regard to this bill. Many people have spoken of the western alienation. This is something at which I believe we should look quite realistically because there would appear to be in the west a latent feeling of alienation and mistrust of eastern Canada. I believe it has become more vocal in recent years because the farm population has faced hardships on account of the lack of grain sales, low incomes and so on. No doubt this situation will become more serious unless something is done about it. I do not believe, however, that basically it is because there is an anti-French Canadian feeling in western Canada. I think it is more a mistrust of big business and of a government that is unwilling to instigate policies of social economic change.
I believe it is unfortunate that people in this house and outside the house take the opportunity presented by this bill to exploit the anti-French feeling. As the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) said, there are essentially two main groups in western Canada who vocally oppose the bill. The opposition comes first from the four western premiers and, second, from a small group of Conservatives, the same people who of course opposed the flag and the Criminal Code amendments and probably will oppose the recognition of mainland China. I do not think this is truly a reflection of the feeling of western Canadians. I believe that most people recognize that Canada is a nation with two official languages.
I do have a few concerns about the bill before us today. First of all, I believe we must be careful when implementing a bill of this nature. We must not go about forcing bilingualism on people throughout the country. If we do this I believe we will run into trouble. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) a few days ago made representations to the minister about civil service employees and employees of the Canadian National Railways, for example. I do not think we should make the lack of bilingualism a handicap to these people whether they are French or English speaking, because it can be carried to extremes. For instance, an elevator operator in a federal building in Regina or Edmonton could be demoted or not get any more promotions because he did not have a second language. These are some things we have to watch out for in the implementation of a bill of this sort.
Official Languages
Another thing that concerns me is that I do not think this bill is the be-all and end-all in regard to national unity in Canada. It is only a part of it. It is only a recipe; it is not the entire menu. It is only a web of a weaving that helps to tie the different groups in Canada together in better understanding and communication. We need complete social and economic change throughout our society.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Taking bilingualism, for example, we are going to have to develop a bilingual program in all schools across the country both in the French speaking areas as well as the English speaking districts. To do this will require more federal aid to education in order to promote greater bilingualism in the schools. If this is done, perhaps we can have what the minister suggested in introducing the bill, a bilingual school in every major city in Canada. This is desirable provided we have federal aid to education and a large enough population to warrant it.
But, as I said before, many other things must be done in trying to achieve and preserve Canadian unity. We need many social and economic reforms to go along with the languages bill. In French Canada, French Canadians must gain control of their own destiny more than they have today. In western Canada we have to do such things as sell grain and get more income into the west; otherwise the people there too are going to feel more and more alienated. We have to recognize the poor and give them greater security with increased housing across the country. Even more important, we have to get people involved in their country and participating at all levels in life. We notice this in particular among young people who want to play some part in the decision-making process. The Indian people want the same thing; they want to have some of the say in decisions that affect their lives. I think these considerations are very important and should go hand in hand with the official languages bill. For Canadians involvement is going to have to be the most important thing.
If we are going to be an independent nation we have to start promoting more Canadia-nism at all levels of our lives. We have to do many things, for example, get more people involved in basic arts, sports and culture and more people participating toward this end. Today social development tends to cater to the elite segment of our society, while participation should be the key for all groups in society irrespective of their origin. All too

May 23. 1969
Official Languages
often funds that are spent in Canada on development of arts, sports and culture are spent on projects such as theaters in Montreal and Toronto that only cater to 5 per cent of the people of Canada. These, of course, are the top income people.
I am very sceptical about the arts centre in Ottawa. We should take care with respect to the type of programming in this centre. I notice that opening night requires a black tie and it is also very expensive. Automatically, many people are excluded from participating. I feel this is scandalous.
We see the same thing in sports. We tend to worship professionalism, the Olympic mania, if you want to call it that. We forget to get people involved in sports-in hockey, softball and other types of sports. In many cities and towns across Canada, many people cannot go to a skating rink because they cannot afford to pay the admission.
Among other things, I think we should set aside a national day for sports and arts in Canada in order to have people in all communities and age groups participating. This goes hand in hand with a bill of this sort, for it gives people a feeling for their country and its place in the world. We should set aside a day in the springtime and get people involved in a national holiday. We could take Victoria Day in order to promote Canadianism. Victoria Day does not really mean anything now to people. Something like this could do much to promote Canadian unity. Instead, Victoria day now represents a lack of imagination by the powers that be in Canada. It is a thing of the past.
I do not want to go on much longer Mr. Speaker, except to say that I support the principle of the bill and I hope it can be referred to the committee as soon as possible. However, I also want to stress again the importance of social and economic reforms and involvement of the people in their country. Otherwise the whole purpose of this bill will be defeated. Many of the speeches made on the bill will be irrelevant because Canada will not be preserved as a nation unless we do things together. With that, Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to add my support to the principle of the bill.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliameniary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am neither of English nor of French origin. I was born in this country the son of European immigrants. I am proud of my origins but, at the same time, I am proud to be a Canadian.

And it is as a Canadian sharing two great heritages that I give my full support to this bill and that I urge the House of Commons and all the people in this country to support it.
It is obvious that the future unity of our country depends upon the recognition of the present situation which results from some historic facts which brought forth two linguistic communities in Canada, one English speaking and the other French speaking.
So that our country may continue to extend from one ocean to the other, this situation has to be recognized by the federal government, in order that our government may be a truly national one, made up of French speaking and English speaking people.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Here is the purpose of this bill: to give equal status to the two official languages in the federal field. I want to point this out. The bill deals only with the equality of the two official languages. It does not grant any superior status to any ethnic group as such. In Canada, where a third of the population is made up of various ethnic origins, neither French nor English, it is the only way to act that is acceptable and suitable.
In my opinion, if the bill is really based on language and not on race, those who are members of the so-called third group must not feel wronged or concerned.
Obviously, the fact that an immigrant is neither of French nor English origin does not mean that he and his descendants will always speak mostly their mother tongue. Most such immigrants and their children speak one of our official languages and sometimes both, although they might still have some knowledge of their ethnic tongue and be proud of their cultural heritage. Most of them speak English for reasons I shall briefly mention later on.
As concerns the Anglo-Saxons who try to question the principle of the bill and allege that it ignores the third ethnic group in our country, they show a lack of information and understanding in connection with the people who are of neither French nor English extraction.
The members of the third group above all want all citizens to have equal opportunities, regardless of their racial origin. In order that the members of that third group, or at least the majority of them, may be confident of the future of this country, we must see to it that every opportunity is provided to whoever has
May 23, 1969

the required qualifications, and who is ready to work in any or both official languages, according to the needs and circumstances.
Most of the people in this third group speak English fluently, as I have said. But English is not an artificial language. It is related to a certain nation and to its culture. However, there is no question of granting special privileges to that group, because its language is used throughout the country as a result of certain historical facts.
But if it is true that the English language belongs to a certain ethnical group, namely the Anglo-Saxon and British one, it is also true that it has played a part as a national language here, which had not been played up to now by the French language. I say this because the knowledge of English has allowed immigrants and their descendants not only to find work but to participate to some extent in the community life, in most of the regions of our country where English is mainly used. This is not the case with regard to French.
French Canadians and all other Canadians consider French as the particular language of French Canadians. The reasons for that are not what they used to be. The French Canadians, who were 70,000 at first, now represent 6 million people, 5 millions of which form the greater part of the population of the province of Quebec. If French and English languages are to be equal in federal activities, then, French must be a national language in Canada as English has been for a long time. It must become the language within a community life for all those who wish to use it regardless of their ethnic origin or religious belief. French must not be considered as the private property of the French Canadian group, no more than English is considered the sole property of the British group.
I am speaking in French today to show that if the French language is to be fully recognized as an official language in Canada, at least at the federal level, it is mine as much as English.
According to the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, as stated in the first volume of its report, equality:
-should not only be that of the two nations that have founded Confederation, but that of their respective languages and cultures, therefore that of all those who speak those languages and belong to those cultures, whatever their origin.
This is, in my opinion, the philosophy on which is based the official languages bill.
Official Languages
Its purpose is merely to assure all our citizens that they can apply to the federal government and its agencies in one of the two official languages, as they choose.
As the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) already stated, the bill deals with bilingualism related to institutions and not to individuals. The government does not intend to force English-speaking people to learn and speak French, or to force French-speaking people to learn and speak English.
And since I am referring to the third group in our country, it must be noted that clause 38 of the bill is to the effect that the legislation does not deprive any other language of its vested rights and privileges. The measure does not take anything away from the many other cultures which have added much to our life. The fact of having in Canada not one, but two languages with an official status has created a climate which increases for other cultures the possibility of their having a valid and assured place.
If the object of the bill is to suppress injustices and to solve problems, it obviously does not intend to create new injustices and new problems.
If the bill proposes the establishment of federal bilingual districts, in which some federal services will be bilingual, it will also be possible to create such districts for Englishspeaking minorities, in Quebec for instance, and for French-speaking minorities, elsewhere in the country. And if the bill proposes the appointment of a Commissioner of Official Languages, it must be pointed out that his task will be to protect the linguistic rights of both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians at the federal level.
It is feared by some that the bill and the government's bilingual policy will adversely affect the careers of unilingual English-speaking Canadians in the federal Public Service.
Unfortunately, those who, at the present time, raise such a point, never or almost never raised it in the past-I mean quite recently-when it was hard, if not almost impossible, for a French-speaking Canadian to be hired by the public service if he had not an adequate knowledge of English and the desire to use that language in his work, and when for a French-speaking taxpayer-too often, in the past-it was difficult, if not impossible, to deal in French with the federal government to which he paid his taxes.
But in truth, the fear I was speaking of is groundless in my opinion. In that connection,

May 23, 1969
Official Languages
I think that the policy of the government is clear. Its policy, according to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has provided that from 1967 reasonable competence in both official languages or the desire to get it, by attending adequate training courses-at the government's expense-should be a criteria when choosing university graduates as trainees in administrative posts in areas where bilingualism meets a need. These same principles apply to both French and Englishspeaking Canadians.
This means that it is not necessary to be fluent in French to be hired, but only to show the will to learn French-at the government's expense-after having been hired. And this will only be required for certain civil service positions where bilingualism is a prerequisite.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
One must not forget that the main object of the public service is to serve the public. And in order to do this, one should have the required qualifications. And when the work to be done requires contact with the public, one of the qualifications must be to be able to communicate in the official language used or preferred by the individual citizen.
Judging from the increasing number of applications for employment in the federal public service from English universities' graduates English speaking graduates are not at all afraid of being victims of discrimination. They are obviously not afraid because they feel as able to learn French, whenever French is needed to hold certain positions, as the French speaking employees have been able to learn English for years in similar circumstances.
There are proofs that our young people recognize the soundness of the principles of this bill. Young Canadians have more faith in themselves and in their ability than some people who have doubts about the future effectiveness of the bill before us.
But one must not forget what the government said, namely that it will not apply this legislation and this policy in an unequitable way as regards present unilingual civil servants or unilingual people wishing to enter public service. Merit will remain the basic principle of public service, and that is corroborated by one of the amendments moved the other day by the Minister of Justice <Mr. Turner).

However, one must not forget that the knowledge of both official languages can obviously enable a better qualified candidate to be superior, as to merit, for holding a position, especially if it is one where he will have to be in contact with the public, using either of the two languages.
It must be pointed out that the provisions of the bill are flexible and will give the time required to adapt the structures and to train the personnel. This is also confirmed by some of the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice.
Once the act comes into effect, it will be applied gradually as our human and financial resources will allow.
It is true that bilingualism at the federal level will entail certain expenditures. But, to my mind, these will not be too high and we will realize that the implementation of this bill will enable us not only to have a country, but to benefit from the advantages of living in a country where the official languages are of world importance. I see that as a positive advantage instead of a crushing burden.
The growth of our economy depends, to a large extent, on the increase of our exports as well as access to the most recent technological developments. As I said, French is a language of international importance. It will therefore enable us to have direct access to foreign markets and technological progress not only in English but also in French.
We also want to remain an independent country. But our powerful neighbour to the south shares this continent with us. To remain independent, we must have a truly Canadian identity and the will to keep that identity alive. The fact of having two official languages and their interplay in our country are two factors that are essential if we want to maintain our identity and, consequently, our independence.
I started my remarks by saying that I was speaking like a Canadian who was the son of Canadians who had emigrated from Europe. Europe as well as Canada have suffered from the effects of misunderstanding, of prejudice and of extremism. We should therefore get acquainted, when we are at school, with the European past and with our own.
Our future depends on greater understanding and more goodwill. We should not only do our best to understand each other but also consider good relationship between both our linguistic groups as a golden rule and an essential policy.
May 23, 1969

To sum up, in a few words, the substance of this bill on the official languages, I think it will be simply fair to try and do to others what we would expect from them if we were in their place. They can certainly trust in the future of a country built on such a principle. And it is perhaps, also, a symbol of our present and our real future that the name of our country, Canada, is spelt exactly the same in French and in English.
In order to bring about this future, we must support this bill and continue to work like men of goodwill in order to create a country, a Canada, which will be that of French-speaking and English-speaking people, regardless of their religion or of their origin. A better Canada in a better world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on this important piece of legislation I wish to say that I believe it to be a continuation of the dialogue that has been going on for some time in Canada. I also say with no hesitation that the government is rushing this dialogue, has come to a conclusion on it and in fact is forcing a decision far too soon before the people all across Canada have had ample opportunity to become really fully involved in the dialogue and to understand the full meaning and logic of the aim of the legislation which is that Canada should become a truly bilingual country. If Canada and Canadians accept this decision, then I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I also fully agree with it, but I want to have an equal opportunity to contribute to the dialogue on the bilingual country which we are to become. In my opinion this bill is poor legislation which is being hurried through the house in order to curtail the dialogue before the people of Canada have really understood it or have become involved to a great extent in it.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who introduced the bill, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who spoke on the bill, have all said that the main purpose of the legislation is to create greater unity in Canada. It is my belief that this bill might well do the very opposite. This is why I am so concerned about the curtailment of the dialogue and a conclusion being reached before everyone in all parts of Canada has become fully involved. We are told that this legislation is not being forced down anyone's throat. How
Official Languages
can legislation really be effective if the people of Canada do not understand its spirit? I believe they would have understood the spirit of the legislation if the dialogue had been allowed to continue for some time until the full meaning of bilingualism was understood across the country.
I think there is much truth in what Premier Robarts had to say at the last confederation conference in February of 1969. I should like to read this paragraph from page 227 of the report:
We do not think that the place of the two official languages in Canada can be solved simply by means of directives, regulations, legislation, charters or indeed constitutions. We think that we must take steps of this nature, of course. But we think we must also have in the country a willingness among Canadian people to act in a generous and fair manner in the question of language usage. We do not think it is only a question of legalities. It is much more than that. It is a question of heart. It is a question of conscience. It is a question of attitude, a question of thoughful attitude.
I think that Canadians all across Canada could have drawn the same conclusion eventually as Mr. Robarts has so clearly and vividly outlined in the paragraph which I read had the dialogue not been cut off.
As to the constitutional question, the Minister of Justice said it is a political and not a constitutional or legal question. The minister was very weak in his defence of that argument. I would never seek him as a lawyer to defend me after having heard how badly he defended this legislation. There is no question about the fact that this is a strictly legal and constitutional matter which should be settled by the provinces that make up confederation. Agreement should have been reached on the matter before the legislation was proceeded with. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that such agreement has not yet been reached. Yet the Minister of Justice suggests that this is a political issue which should be settled through politics.
Many hon. members who have taken part in this debate have said that this is a political issue which was settled in the last election. At the time of elections politicians are sometimes inclined to make promises which cannot be kept and are sometimes apt to use any method in order to get elected. There is no question in my mind that during the last election this issue was used as a political gambit as a result of which people throughout Canada have become confused. This issue was presented with no clarity or succinctness.
Official Languages

May 23, 1969
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister suggested that he believed in one Canada. He went out west and said he would hold the line in Quebec. He went into Quebec and said, as he was justified in saying, "We must make room for you in the rest of Canada." But what was done to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) at that time? He was misrepresented all over Canada. No wonder people have such a disgust for politicians, when they cannot resist the temptation to play politics with vital issues which can affect the country for years to come.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) said the other day: "I accept the principle of two founding nations." Mr. Speaker, what ridicule some members of the Liberal party heaped upon our leader when he was going across Canada trying sincerely to bring about an understanding of this issue and made similar statements! And similar things were said by other Conservatives. Now the hon. member for Peel South tells us he accepts the principle of two founding nations. I shall not belabour the point. Unfortunately, it shows that politicians are ready to play politics with the heart issues of this country and to becloud these issues throughout Canada. I am sorry this had to happen.
There is no question in my mind that the bill before us will not lead to unity. Indeed, it is more likely to produce a further distinction between Canadians. I believe the Prime Minister was clear as to the kind of Canada he wanted, and in this connection I should like to quote from Hansard page 8907. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) quoted, in the course of his speech, what the Prime Minister said last October:
Canada had to survive as one national state. Within this state there is no room for special status and there is no room for a degree of autonomy granted to any province which is not available to any other province.
What about the bilingual districts? Do they not fall into the category of special status? They will fall into it very quickly, whether or not the Secretary of State recognizes this.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a legal constitutional issue. Sections 91(1) and 133 of the British North America Act make this abundantly clear. After reading these two simple sections I am convinced that even if it is not a legal, constitutional question it is a moral, constitutional matter and that the government has a moral obligation to seek a full

understanding of this legislation before proceeding with it further.
The Minister of Justice had this to say as reported in Hansard on page 8837:
It is our hope that the provinces will wish as quickly as possible to take steps to achieve the goals which all governments set for themselves at the constitutional conference in 1968. Indeed, we should not forget that the Confederation for Tomorrow Conference convened in Toronto by the Prime Minister of Ontario in 1967 accepted the principle of linguistic equality within Canada for Canadians.
What was the conclusion reached by the constitutional conference of 1968? The Prime Minister spelled it out very well when he initiated the discussion which took place at the constitutional conference held in Ottawa in February of this year. He said this, as reported at page 215 of the report, setting out the final conclusions of the 1968 conference:
Recognition by this conference that as proposed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and as a matter of equity French speaking Canadians outside Quebec should have the same rights as English speaking Canadians in Quebec.
But this does not necessarily mean there should be complete equality throughout the rest of Canada. This seems to me to have been a poor reference for the Minister of Justice to use.
As to the constitutional issue, it seems obvious to me that the constitution of a young and growing nation such as Canada is bound to grow too; it has to make provision for growth. If anyone doubts that statement, let him look at what has happened in the past. The growing tree principle is well established in law. This is the principle the Alberta government encountered in the late thirties in connection with money. The same has to be true with regard to people. The constitution has to grow and it has to make provision for growth, particularly in a country as young as Canada and with so much potential as Canada.
This languages bill will become part of Canadian life, but it allows for very little growth. Perhaps I am thinking in this way because I come from western Canada. I do not really believe so. My father was born in the province of Quebec and there are many relatives of mine still living in that province and enjoying a good life there. I was born in a Russian community in Saskatchewan. I saw those people come to Canada. The Canadian government encouraged them to settle in western Canada. It encouraged them to fight nature in that hard, harsh country, as many
May 23, 1969

thought it was in the twenties and thirties. I saw the energy and the effort those people devoted toward making their contribution to Canada. I saw the desire of those people to become full Canadians. The first generation was eager to attend university. They made a solid contribution to science, medicine, law and agriculture in this country and they have earned their right to participate in the national life to the full; they have earned the right to become full Canadians. This languages bill which will become part of our constitution will prevent them, in today's society, though maybe not 10 or 50 years from now, from reaching their desired goals. This is one reason I consider the present bill to be poor legislation.
Whether we like it or not, this bill will become part of the life of Canada. I accept without hesitation the principle that confederation in 1867 was the coming together of the two founding peoples, the French and the English. I accept this readily. But we must not make it difficult for other people to become full Canadians. If it is the intention of the government that Canada shall become a fully bilingual country, I would have no hesitation about getting with it. But in this case the government should have announced, as a first step, that it was prepared to contribute toward the cost of sending additional teachers to the vast area of western Canada, to Newfoundland and to every nook and cranny of this country where people have no opportunity to learn the other language. In Quebec the same course should be followed.
If it is the desire of the government to make this country fully bilingual it has a duty to give everybody an opportunity to contribute and participate fully in the life and affairs of the country. The bill before us would prevent the people of Newfoundland, for example, from making the contribution they would like to make within the next 10 or 15 years until they become proficient in the other language. It would have the same effect upon the people of Quebec who have not learned the other language. This bill will do the same thing for the people in that vast area west of the Lakehead.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
There is no question in my mind that the first step the federal government should have taken was to give everybody the opportunity to contribute. Then, the government could have introduced its language bill, instead of bringing it in now and ostracizing or putting up barriers against those people who have
Official Languages
worked hard, are eager to contribute and who want unity as badly as those in other parts of Canada. To me, Mr. Speaker, we are making a tragic mistake.
This is not a new experiment. We are going through a period of constitutional reform; there is no question of that. As reported at page 8837 of Hansard the minister said that we must bring national unity to Canada, particularly in this period of constitutional reform. However, I suggest we should be a little more careful about the results of this dialogue.
Many hon. members have said that this bill is an experiment; that Canada is launching itself upon a beautiful experiment. I think that was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and perhaps by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) as well. Indeed, it is always very interesting when scientists contrive to mix a formula and create a positive result. All of the ingredients in the test tube must be apportioned very carefully.
It seems to me we believe that just by placing the two national languages into the test tube we will reach our desired goal. This might be the case if all the other elements in our society were non-contributory. No experiment has ever been done so blindly, so do not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if the desired result is not obtained. The whole purpose of a scientific experiment is to achieve a goal. In order to achieve that goal you weigh each ingredient very carefully, keeping each free from contamination by the others. Only then, perhaps, can you achieve a positive result. In the present situation it is practically impossible to keep all of the ingredients from being mixed together. Consequently, we may find that this particular experiment will not turn out very satisfactorily.
Many people have made derogatory remarks about western Canada's contribution in this regard. We have been called fossils, bigots, uneducated, and so on; I could go down the list. I wish that those who level these accusations would examine the reason that people in western Canada feel the way they do. Some 50 per cent of the people in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta have an ethnic origin that is other than French or English. If anybody doubts those statistics may I refer them to the first volume of the B and B commission report. About 36.6 per cent of the people in the province of British Columbia have an ethnic origin other than French or English. It is, therefore, no wonder that people in some areas of British Columbia find themselves without an

May 23, 1969
Official Languages
equal opportunity to contribute to every phase of development within our great country.
I suggest that once again in that wonderful area west of the Great Lakes the people will find themselves having to fill out forms to determine what kind of Canadians they are. This practice will once again become evident. We will find people in that particular area being referred to as hyphenated Canadians. There is no doubt in my mind that the people in western Canada today are already what they regard as the best kind of Canadians- only one kind. Whether people are born Canadians or are naturalized Canadians, their citizenship is accepted and that is all there is to it. I suggest that this bill will put us back to that difficult period of the late twenties and middle thirties so far as this particular issue is concerned. To introduce this bill at the present time is, to me, a mistake.
With regard to the bilingual districts that are going to be set up across Canada, if we educated the people and gave them an incentive to become fully bilingual then the bilingual districts would not be necessary. Canada would become a fully bilingual country, and proud we would be of that fact. On this question I think Premier Bertrand of Quebec was exactly right when he said, as reported at page 223 of the conference report:
In any event, in practice the entire province of Quebec will be a bilingual district. Conversely, however, bilingual districts in other provinces may quickly turn out to be what, in certain cases, has been referred to as "reserves" or ghettoes.
Since I am quoting the premier I might as well place another statement of his on Hansard. As reported at page 376, in referring to his position, Premier Bertrand said:
-our representatives were opposed to the very idea of bilingual districts.
Premier Bertrand does not feel particularly enthused over bilingual districts in his province. He does not feel particularly enthused over bilingual districts in other parts of Canada, or about the contribution that people of his ethnic group will make to Canadian society in those areas.
This bill will cause disunity at the community level. It will cause unrest at the community level, and this unrest will grow. Having used the word "unrest" I am reminded of the unrest that exists throughout the world today, particularly in the country of our great neighbour to the south. I am also reminded of the unrest that is creeping into our society, our universities, among some of our farmers and the underprivileged in other areas.

I am given cause to wonder at the manner in which this bill is being brought forward. I am wondering whether we really want the bill to be successful in view of the way we are carrying out this experiment. We are running headlong into the experiment without first making a sound financial contribution to the education and enlightenment of the people. If this approach were adopted the people would have a full understanding of what a great country this could become if we were all bilingual.
With regard to the agreement that was reached with Quebec at the conference in 1968, I should like to ask how English Canadian have been treated in that province during the last couple of years. We have all heard about the desire of some people in St. Leonard to have their children educated in English. We all heard about the grant to McGill university a couple of years ago and the difficulty that university experiences because it is regarded as an English university. We have all heard that the minister of culture in the province of Quebec has declared it is wrong for any person in Quebec to take English before reaching grade 9. In western Canada today we are attempting to do the same thing as far as French is concerned but we require a little more help in getting sufficient French teachers.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The educational authorities in Alberta are trying to begin the reaching of French in Grade 1 and would do so if only they could be helped with the cost of the program. Yet a directly opposite approach is being taken by the authorities of that great province which has contributed so much to Canada. I refer to the studies undertaken in Quebec to determine ways in which French can always be maintained as the major language there. That sort of action does not suggest that both languages will enjoy equal status, in that province as this bill suggest they should.
I think there has been much misunderstanding about the conclusions reached at the conference of 1968. Certainly, the western premiers made known in the conference of 1969 that they were opposed to the principle of this bill. There is no question in my mind that the creation of bilingual districts will create ghettos. Some have said to me, "Jack, don't worry about that; western Canada will never become fully bilingual." That is precisely the point, Mr. Speaker.
If the idea behind this legislation is to prevent western Canada from becoming fully
May 23, 1969

bilingual, then I say it is sinful. Western Canada must play its full part in the Canadian political spectrum. Of course, if the commissioner to be appointed under this bill tries to force our people to become bilingual, he may well put their backs up thus defeating the purposes of the bill. I suppose that is why many people have said to me, "Fear not; if they bring bilingual districts eventually to western Canada the people in them will live in French speaking reservations or ghettos." I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is bad to condemn people to live in ghettos or reservations. It was wrong to force our Indians to live on reservations, and our Indian people say that themselves. When they live on reservations they are precluded from participating fully in our society.
Considering all these things, I say without hesitation that unless Canada in some way can become a fully bilingual country this measure will fail completely in its purposes and divide instead of unifying the country. Those living in French speaking ghettos will not be helped by this legislation.
Much fear has been expressed in certain quarters that civil servants will be affected by this measure. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), in several soothing, reassuring statements, has said that it will not affect civil servants. What poppycock is this, Mr. Speaker? Of course they will be affected. Bilingual civil servants now receive a premium of 7J per cent of other salary. The Minister of Justice said, "But you need not be individually bilingual; we are thinking of institutional bilingualism." I ask, if a bilingual public service is not the ultimate aim of the government, why is it paying a premium of 7J per cent of their salary to bilingual civil servants? We all know that the government prefers to have fully bilingual heads of departments. I think corporations in the Ottawa area also prefer bilingual personnel.
The Minister of Justice may say that the government is concerned about institutional bilingualism, but the fact remains that bilingual civil servants are paid 7J per cent extra. I am told that the bilingual preference payment is to be increased. Clearly, there is no question about the direction in which the government is heading. Under this bill senior civil servants will have to become bilingual. It is as simple as that. A reading of clauses 9, 10 and 11 will support my contention. I think clause 36 spells out certain relevant details connected with the point I am discussing. In other words, if you want promotion in the
Official Languages
federal civil service, in the armed service or in the R.C.M.P., or in any agency affiliated with these bodies, you will need to be bilingual. Clause 10(1) reads in part:
Every department and agency of the Government of Canada and every Crown Corporation established by or pursuant to an Act of the Parliament of Canada-*
That wording embraces the Canadian Wheat Board. If the Canadian Wheat Board comes within the terms of this bill you must, of necessity, include every grain elevator in western Canada because the grain elevators work in conjunction with the Wheat Board. Let's not kid ourselves; let us not try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. Let us not play politics with this issue but let us be frank so that we may all understand what this legislation is intended to do. Surely, if a bilingual country was desired we should have made certain the other language was adequately taught across Canada. As a western Canadian and as a member here speaking for western Canada, I say that our people are complaining loudly because they are not being given a full or fair chance to participate in the decision making and policy making in this country. They complain that they do not have an adequate chance to participate in this country's administration and that the government is not aware, as it should be, of the problems of western Canada.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has enunciated our oil problems. I am reasonably familiar with our grain problems and have had difficulty in convincing the government that they are as serious as they are. The people of western Canada complain that the federal government pays inadequate attention to a whole gamut of problems. They ask, how will it help us if top civil servants must be bilingual? They fear that few from western Canada will be promoted to the top ranks of any agency or department of government since few of them speak French. Many of our people have not had the opportunity to learn the other language. Only about 3 per cent of the population of Alberta is French speaking, the figure being lower for British Columbia. Less than 7 per cent of the people of Manitoba speak French, and only a nominal number in Saskatchewan speak the language. Many of our people, as I say, just have not had the chance to fully become Canadians speaking both languages, as this bill suggests they must. Can you blame our people for looking askance at the Minister of Justice even when he reassures us that civil

May 23, 1969
Official Languages
servants will be selected and promoted according to merit?
An amendment to this bill suggests that civil servants will be selected and promoted according to merit, as that term is spelled out by the Public Service Employment Act. But the Public Service Employment Act says that bilingual employees will be given preference. It is that simple. Where is the merit, then? The ability to speak both languages will weigh heavily in decisions affecting merit. The reassurance the amendment seeks to give to some is a false reassurance. We cannot, therefore, in all conscience support this bill. Why should we? We all know of the statements made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). He is to report to parliament on the actions of the commissioner to be appointed who, under the proposed amendments, will be a very powerful individual. He will be able to direct, manipulate and send money out to various regions. The Minister of Justice suggested bilingual districts would receive additional financing to promote and maintain themselves. People living outside of bilingual districts may not receive the same contribution from the federal government to learn a language they have not previously been able to learn. I believe this is completely wrong. When talking to members of parliament from all parties they say, I must support the bill because if I do not then Canada will separate. This bill is poorly understood and I do not think it will have any success in holding Canada together.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I have listened to and read most of the speeches regarding this bill. No one has been able to convince me there is enough strength and meaning in the bill to keep Canada united. Canadians are being asked to place a false hope in this bill. These hopes will be dashed by the waves. The Minister of Justice could logically be accused of attempting to play politics with this bill. A headline in the Windsor Star states: "Turner urges no court test. Challenge to bill 'tragic'." There is a picture of the minister speaking before microphones along with this article. The minister said, if we lose there will be separation; if we don't we will remain united.
A headline in the Toronto Telegram reads, "Turner to provinces: 'Don't kill Bi-Bi.' " I presume this statement is directed to the four western premiers, and more particularly to those who have suggested they are going to
[Mr. Horner.)
challenge the constitutionality of this measure. Let us quit playing politics. Let us continue the dialogue, be frank, above board and open with one another. All Canadians should understand and know the full implications of this bill. In one newspaper article the following appears:
The Prime Minister drew heavy applause from the 3,000 guests in the university arena when he said his government is firmly resolved to contribute to the resurgence of the French speaking minority across Canada.
Statements such as that will not promote unity. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is resolved to make us all bilingual he should give us all an equal opportunity to become bilingual, but he is not prepared to do that. The Prime Minister is prepared to create disunity because he wants to reassert himself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 1968, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced Bill C-120, which is the subject of the present debate. The provisions embodied in the bill are a declaration that English and French are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the parliament and government of Canada, and that all federal notices shall be in both official languages. In addition, the bill seeks to ensure that all departments of the federal government shall offer their services to the public in French and English. One of the important features of the legislation is to ensure that persons appearing or giving evidence before federal judicial bodies may be heard in the official languages of English or French.
In my constituency there are comparatively few French speaking persons. Fort William, in its early days, had several hundred French speaking families of French Canadian origin. However, with the step-up of immigration and the influx from the British Isles and Continental Europe, Fort William became more cosmopolitan in character. The roots of its culture were in many lands. But for all practical purposes, English was the only language in use. Those of French speaking origin became absorbed into the fabric with the rest of the population.
It was fitting and proper that the principal recommendations of the B. and B. royal commission should be contained in the bill because, happily, they are endorsed by the leader of the official opposition, although
May 23, 1969

there has been open resistance to them by some members of his party.
In a recent issue of the Montreal Gazette the editor pointed out that many English speaking Canadians have criticized French Canadians for being withdrawn, living a life unto themselves, behind the barrier of an antiquated provincial autonomy. But if in the future the French Canadian is to be not merely a Quebecker but truly a citizen of all Canada, he will naturally wish to be as much at home anywhere in Canada as he is in Quebec now.
At a Transport Committee meeting held in 1962 one of the then members of the Social Credit group from Quebec asked the then President of the Canadian National Railways, how many held the office of vice-president in the C.N.R. The answer was 16. The president was asked how many of the 16 who hold that office were French Canadians. He reluctantly admitted there were none. No French Canadian, said the president, had been appointed because none had been found with the required qualifications. This exchange, which occurred in the railway committee room sparked a reaction which, I believe, gave birth to the separatist movement which has since made inroads in a province that gave Canada a Laurier, a St. Laurent and our present Prime Minister. It is easy to see that the purpose of this bill is to rectify a long standing grievance among French speaking Canadians.
Ever since my election to the House of Commons 11 years ago I have been a constant advocate of French and English bilingualism, as I consider it to be the very cement which binds the founding races into a united Canada. The languages bill, once translated into legislation, will be not only a unifying force but it will be a potent device, if I may call it so, which will ensure the preservation of our district Canadian identity. I am convinced that its implementation will strengthen the fabric of our nation by easing the effort of understanding each other.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Some members of the opposition have said that the government should have given priority to other business, but what other business could be more important than good will, understanding, and unity within the nation? Others have entertained fears that the passage of this bill would mean that senior positions in the public service would automatically go to French speaking applicants at the expense of English speaking civil servants.
Official Languages
The hon. member who preceded me in the debate expressed his doubt about the wisdom of this legislation which in his view would divide rather than unite. He could not be further from the truth. These unfounded fears cannot be but the product of prejudice or partisanship. I hope neither of these passions will prevail to spoil the general goodwill which, in my constituency at least, seems to be in obvious evidence since French is now being taught in all elementary public and separate schools in grades 7 and 8. Beginning with the school year in September 1969, this practice will be extended to grades 4 and 5. This augurs well for the practical implementation of the spirit of the languages bill in the very young.
The status given to French instructors in public and separate schools by the Ontario government is, in my view, the real hope for bilingualism. If this policy were adopted by the other English speaking provinces, it would go a long way toward ensuring that English speaking pupils would become bilingual. As everyone knows, the bill itself reflects the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that English and French be used in government services relating to the public. In other words, a citizen, when dealing with agencies of the federal government, may use either English or French.
The province of Ontario has already indicated that in areas where at least 10 per cent of the population is composed of people who speak an official language other than the one used by the majority, which in Ontario would be English, all services will be made available in both official languages. In districts such as Thunder Bay and other similar districts dual language services will not be enforced and, therefore, civil servants will not be required to speak both languages. In short, no one will be forced to speak either English or French. On the other hand, the fact is that Canada began as a nation with two basic language groups.
Now, approximately 14,500 thousand people speak the English language, 6J million people speak the French language and about 3 million Canadians of other origins speak a third language in addition to French or English. Of course, these various cultures and languages have enriched our nation beyond compare.
At this point I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for not delaying the introduction of this bill because it relates to a

May 23, 1969
Official Languages
fundamental question which should be decided as quickly as possible. I should also like to commend the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) for his excellent presentation of the bill. A great deal of credit should go also, to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) for his fearless and unequivocal determination to stand behind the principles of the bill and for demolishing any misunderstanding existing in the English speaking provinces that the bill is designed to force the average citizen to speak French.
This bill was never designed to achieve compulsory bilingualism but rather to provide equality of opportunity to use either language in communicating with the federal government. In an article in the Montreal Gazette of May 3, 1969 the Minister of Justice is reported to have said this:
Our policy as set forth by former Prime Minister Pearson in 1964 is that no one should be penalized for not having acquired the second language if he has not been afforded an opportunity to learn it. The key to this policy is that an opportunity will be given to people seeking advancement to acquire a working knowledge of the other language.
It is not necessary that a candidate be already bilingual to obtain a position within the public service in an administrative trainee capacity, which is the general category for university graduates. However, this policy makes it mandatory that any candidate indicate his willingness to learn the other language at public expense. Such a policy takes into account the fact that in certain parts of this country, the opportunities to learn the other language are very limited.
On the other hand, one could raise the point as to whether such a policy will deter English speaking Canadians from joining the public service.
As an answer to that question, I would like to quote the following figures. Since 1965-66, which is the year when this policy was made public and implemented within the public service, the number of English speaking applicants for administrative trainee positions has gone from 1,925 to 3,515 in 1967-68. Furthermore, the number of anglophone applicants for foreign service positions has gone from 697 in 1965-66 to 1,861 in 1967-68, for an increase of approximately 160 per cent over the 1965-66 figure.
This latter example becomes even more significant if one considers the fact that of all the federal departments, External Affairs is perhaps the one where the bilingualism policy has been pursued the most actively.
The public service has been a factor of national unity in the past, perhaps the greatest, because of the national character of its composition. The figures quoted show that so far our policy on bilingualism has not deterred English speaking university graduates, to say the least!
The languages bill, then, is at the core of our guarantee of the equal rights and privileges of our two founding communities.

That sums up the purpose of this bill which, as pointed out by the Secretary of State in his presentation, is to give equality, by legislation, to the two official languages of our country, in so far as the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. There is a definition given by the Secretary of State which I should like to quote:
Indeed this bill is a gesture of faith in the future of Canada, a hope and a pledge for most Canadians, who wish to fix their sights and determine their common objectives well beyond the differences that are threatening to divide us today.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think this quotation should be inscribed in every school in Canada so that the school population may draw inspiration from it. I have heard people ask; why do we need a languages bill? We have been able to do rather well without one for 100 years; why bring this up now? The same was said in respect of the flag bill during the debate in 1964. Individuals said the old flag had served us well. Dire predictions were made that the new flag would divide the country. Happily the results were the very opposite, and I am confident that this bill will do equally as much for unity and the development of a national consciousness.


Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments at this second reading stage of the official languages bill introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) together with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
Mr. Speaker, obviously we cannot be against this bill for the simple reason that pondering over every clause, one by one, as well as over the various amendments proposed by the government, we realize it is what one could call a positive bill in the sense that it acknowledges a factual situation and aims at removing some injustices and preventing others that, unfortunately, have occurred in the past. This bill aims at strengthening the ties of national unity.
In fact, we could summarize the bill under four main headings. First: acknowledgement of French and English as the two official languages of Canada, which is really nothing new and which was already acknowledged in 1848, then in 1867 and embodied in statutes; unfortunately, this was never recognized or respected.
Secondly, as far as judicial bodies, Crown Corporations, parliament and the government
May 23, 1969

are concerned, the bill is aimed at recognizing both official languages in all cases where the general public has a right to use them or where services are obtainable.
Thirdly, the bill aims at establishing certain bilingual districts, under given conditions.
Finally the bill would aim at establishing a so-called linguistic ombudsman post in order to preserve the rights of the people and to see to the enforcement of the act on official languages.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, the bill on official languages is essentially and solely the official recognition of the two languages and their use in certain areas in Canada.
The bill is but a first step towards a bicultural and bilingual country, pursuant to the agreement reached during the recent federal-provincial conferences on the Canadian constitution.
As a matter of fact, at the conference held in February 1968, the right honourable L. B. Pearson, the former Prime Minister, said- and in that, he was supported by the various provincial premiers-that an agreement had been reached in principle. That agreement provided for what the leader of the Rallie-ment creditiste (Mr. Caouette) had already been repeating over and over since 1962-it took six years to get it across-and I quote:
Recognition by the conference, as proposed by the Royal Commission, on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism, that French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec should have the same rights as Englishspeaking Canadians in Quebec, in all fairness.
Such is the essential principle upon which the philosophy of the present bill is based. And that principle cannot be said to be false. On the contrary, we must commend the government for taking a positive step, out of that principle, with the agreement of the provinces in order to protect the rights and the interests of minorities, while protecting those of the majority.
This is a fundamental question. After all, it is nothing new. However, this is not where the problem lies. Those who want a bilingual and bicultural Canada and who want to keep Quebec within confederation are willing to acknowledge as a fact that there are two main cultures in Canada, although there are others, of course, that two languages are used by two majority groups and that consequently, we must fulfil certain obligations, recognize certain rights and a certain language equality and finally establish some areas where both official languages will be used. So, this factual situation has always existed but 29180-571J
Official Languages
was not always acknowledged, and this bill is intended specifically to acknowledge that situation.
The official languages bill may give rise to at least three basically different attitudes.
First, there are English-speaking Canadians, for whom Canada is an English-speaking country, and French Canadians, colonized water carriers.
English-speaking Canadians will not acknowledge as a fact the use and respect of the other official language, no matter what is said or done in parliament. Such an attitude, in my view, contributes to divide our country, and this is truly unfortunate in 1969.
There is another attitude, just as backward to say the least, and it is that of French Canadians who consider Quebec as their country and for whom all our ills must be ascribed to-pardon me the expression-those damned English. In my opinion, such an attitude is just as backward and negative. It can only contribute to divide Canada, build a sham China wall and aggravate economic and monetary problems in Quebec.
There is a third attitude, which I endorse, and it may be defined as follows: To every Canadian, be he French-speaking or Englishspeaking, Canada is a country which must be built on concepts of respect, equality and comprehension, equal sharing, cultural respect, economic respect and responsibility.
This language bill is not an innovation, but rather a protection. It represents an official recognition of both languages and their use in certain parts of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have known many injustices in the past. For example, in 1864, French was abolished in the schools of Nova Scotia.
In 1871, French was abolished in the schools of New Brunswick.
In 1890, the French language was abolished as official language in Manitoba.
In 1892, French was abolished as the language of the administration in North-West Keewatin.
In 1915, for all practical purposes, the French language was abolished in the schools of the province of Ontario. And so on.
And yet, we were beyond doubt a people- Canada-with two great languages and two great cultures.
The honourable Maurice Sauve, then Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, speaking before the Richelieu club on October 19, 1967, about a dynamic nationalism, which

May 23, 1969
Official Languages
I support, and which I found quite interesting at that time, said:
-the fundamental problem facing Canada cannot be solved solely through constitutional reform since it is actually a problem dealing with the relations between English and French Canada.
He said also:
But what seems more fundamental to me is to determine whether English Canada will finally agree to share with us the power it has in the fields of business, finance, industry, politics, in the public service, and in social and cultural life.
Then he was more explicit:
As French Canadians, what matters most is to know whether English Canadians will agree to yield to us part of the ground they occupy almost exclusively in every area of Canadian life.
Mr. Speaker, such nationalism incites us to collective and individual fulfilment. We have definitely passed the survival period. We want to explode on the world, to take part fully in our society. And this desire for participation is irreversible. We want to live a positive, open nationalism, sensitive to the influence of the outside world, determined to achieve freedom and security for every Canadian. We want an economic nationalism which will give back Canada to Canadians. That is what concerns us in practice.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
But to achieve this, Mr. Speaker, one must feel at home in Canada. A great many Canadians no longer feel at home in Canada. This is a regrettable thing to discover, but true to fact. For instance, French Canadians do not feel at home in Ottawa, the Federal capital. It is sad to have to say so today, when discussing this bill on languages. Especially in the public service-French Canadians are not at home and have never been. I shall prove it beyond all doubt, if I have time.
Bilingualism is the price to pay to have a Canada at peace with itself. If Canadians are not ready to pay that price, at all levels of administration and management, if they are not ready to respect one another, to have equal rights and duties, that is because, fundamentally, they really do not want to have a Canada.
There is no alternative. The bill on languages meets with the wishes and needs of all Canadians and reflects the image of the Canada we want to have. This bill is a first step, but we must not delude ourselves.
What is really happening? What do we find, Mr. Speaker? French Canadians who leave Quebec to settle and work in another 
province automatically lose the rights and privileges they enjoyed in their native province. The same thing does not occur when English Canadians come to live in Quebec. In Quebec minorities are respected.
The other provinces should respect minorities just as fairly, otherwise national unity is all rot, and this bill nothing but a political day dream and a great exercise for intellectuals.
Therefore, let us shake hands instead of tightening our belts. Let us understand one another and live a real dialogue, not one of the deaf, as has been the case since the beginning of Confederation.
In principle,, if not in fact, French Canadians could not be heard in French in civil courts and even in criminal courts, although these come under the federal jurisdiction and should have been bilingual long ago.
The official languages bill is intended to correct the two unfortunate situations I have just described, and so much the better, Mr. Speaker.
It took a long time for the federal government to understand the problem and then to act. Meantime, many injustices and many disappointments occurred, but today the official languages bill deals with those absolutely unbearable situations and injustices and tries to remedy them. That is an excellent thing. However, let us hope now that it does not come too late.
In his own country, the French-speaking Canadian who leaves Quebec for another province is like an exile, an outcast, though he has no immigration or customs formalities with which to comply. In practice, he feels like a stranger everywhere in Canada. There again the languages bill solves part of the problem.
But we realize all the importance-and the question boils down to that-of the unlimited and deeply human understanding that will be needed to apply such a bill, otherwise it will fail completely and there will be nothing left to hope for.
But let us talk about bilingualism instead. It is more complex than the brief definition given in the dictionary, that is the coexistence of two languages in an individual or in a country.
It is obvious that the languages bill is not a bill on bilingualism, but solely a legislation aimed at having both languages recognized.
We must immediately lay the foundations of a bilingual country and that is why we must know where this policy will lead us.
May 23, 1969

It is obvious that the phenomenon of bilingualism is not necessarily of the same nature or import whether individuals or nations are involved.
One can be bilingual by personal choice, due to intellectual, material advantages, etc. but it definitely remains that bilingualism is a wealth for a country while unilingualism in Canada is an idea which can no longer be considered from the English as well as from the French point of view.
The unilingualism of a far too great number of Canadians and officials has given rise to anomalies and injustices even in Quebec. It has given rise to two great solitudes. Without doubt, one of those solitudes, the French one, was able, in this manner to ensure its survival, and even its self-achievement as an ethnic group.
But as nothing urges the other solitude, the English one, if not its own interest, to speak French, most English Canadians usually learn French only to the extent that it helps them to communicate with inferiors. For instance, it is the unfortunate situation that prevails in the public service.
Mr. Speaker, the only persons that are bilingual in the public service, are clerks and ordinary employees whose mother tongue is French. Those who speak English or other foreign languages have high managerial or administrative positions and are not bilingual. They do not deal with the public.
That is the main problem, the weakness of the official languages bill, Mr. Speaker: it will oblige all public servants and employees who deal with the public to be bilingual. Nothing indicates that something will change. The bill will not affect the administrative and the managerial levels of departments and Crown agencies, in order to give French Canadiens the positions they are entitled to. That is a grave danger of which the official languages bill does not make any mention at all.
At the administrative and managerial levels of the public service, the working language is English and French-Canadian employees can only reach such levels if they are bilingual.
Unilingual English-speaking employees, for their part, may easily, and often through favouritism, obtain managerial and administrative positions where salaries exceed $17,000 annually. They are therefore among the better-paid and their chances for quick promotion are very good.
This is the truth. And this is what I learned from the numerous questions I have put on
Official Languages
the order paper-close to 80-since the beginning of this session; and the replies can only be official since they were supplied by the government itself.
Two vast solitudes, two great official languages which are ignored by the high officials of the civil service!
There is one danger. We are to set up bilingual districts, where people-


Mr. Deputy 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.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with private members' hour, I understand there has been an arrangement that we would proceed with one bill, namely, order No. 10, page 34 of the order paper, and then we would proceed with some of the questions set down for the adjournment debate. I am not clear as to which questions are ready to be proceeded with, but there is at least one. I wonder whether, in view of this arrangement, we require to use this hour for the consideration of private members' business. I ask whether we could continue the debate on the bill now before the house, either before or after dealing with private members' business. I wonder whether there is any disposition to do this, with a view to trying to finish the official languages bill today.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there has been no consultation whatever with regard to this matter. First, I do not know how many questions are to be dealt with in the adjournment debate, and second I do not know how long it will take to dispose of the private members' bill with which we are dealing. Therefore, I do not think we can agree to the suggestion put forward by the Solicitor Genera] (Mr. Mcllraith).
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment, not on the matter of continuing debate on the languages bill, because I believe there is objection to that to my right, but just to comment on what the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) said about the arrangements that have been agreed upon. I think it will be found that

May 23, 1969
Private Bills
there is general agreement for us to call the private bill which is No. 10 on the order paper, Bill S-31 in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Stewart), and to give it second reading without debate so that it can be referred to the appropriate committee. Then, the arrangement was that we could take any of the questions to be raised on the adjournment debate if both the member and the minister concerned were here. So far I know of only one question in relation to which both the member and the minister are here, namely the one of hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He is ready with his question and the Solicitor General is ready with his answer. There may be others by the time that one is over, but this is what has been agreed upon thus far.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) took the position that there was no agreement to that. Does he disagree with the latter proposition as put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There was consultation in connection with proceeding with a certain private members bill and then proceeding on to the late show to dispose of a number of adjournment questions. That was agreed upon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If that is agreed, I might also inquire whether there is unanimous agreement that orders Nos. 1-9 on private bills be stood so that we can proceed with order No. 10. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: And I understand there is also agreement to the order of business outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay) moved: that Bill S-31, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 40 and in pursuance of a special order made earlier this day, a motion is deemed to have been made that this house do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 I addressed a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) asking him whether his department was giving consideration to implementing in some of our correctional institutions new techniques in dealing with prisoners, which have been developed and which are being implemented by a group located in the department of psychiatry at McGill. It is an interesting but sad fact that the program is being implemented not in a Canadian correctional institution but in the Clinton institution in New York State.
The problem of how to deal with people who break the law, who are convicted and sentenced to correctional institutions, is one which has concerned the people of Canada for a long time now. There have been a number of royal commissions, parliamentary committees and special committees which have looked at the question. There has been the Archambault commission and the Fauteux royal commission which is now dealing with the problem of corrections. Parliamentary committees have looked at the problem of Canadian corrective institutions and their inmates and have agreed that our correctional institutions have been dealing with the problem too much in terms of incarceration and punishment, in terms of keeping people who have been convicted locked up with little or no programs of work or rehabilitation. There has been unanimous agreement that if we are to change the trend, if we are to rehabilitate prisoners instead of simply punishing them, we have to find new methods of rehabilitation. Among these new methods is one calling for the increased use of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, teachers and a whole team of ancillary staff.
When the public have asked why these modern methods are not used more we have been told that it is extremely difficult to put
May 23, 1969

this kind of program into effect because Canada is very short of the skilled and trained personnel which is required. One merely needs to look at the reports of the Solicitor General on correctional institutions to see that there are only a very few psychiatrists, psychologists and social service people on the staff. I know I am not far wrong when I say that there are only one or two full time psychiatrists and very few part time psychiatrists working for the department. So, I was shocked and chagrined to find that a team from McGill University has been working since 1966 at the Dannemora clinic at the Clinton Institution in New York State some 80 or 90 miles from Montreal. Who are these people? They are people who have been working at the department of forensic psychiatry at McGill. I am certain they would be able and happy to work in Canadian institutions, such as St. Vincent de Paul and other institutions around Montreal, if they were given the opportunity and the physical facilities as well as the feeling that they were wanted and needed.
I have with me some of the material which was prepared by the New York authorities indicating how happy they are to have an opportunity to use a trained and skilled team which we, ourselves, ought to be using. Let me just quote very briefly from some of the statements which they made about the program:
On June 21, 1966 Governor Rockefeller signed into law a bill permitting the Department of Correction to establish a psychiatric and diagnostic clinic at Dannemora as part of Clinton State Prison-
-the purpose of the clinic is to provide "intensive physical, mental and sociological diagnostic and treatment services", including "pre-parole diagnostic evaluation-and scientific study of the social and mental aspects of the causes of crime". -the clinic can become a laboratory for new treatment methods that might be used in all correctional institutions. It can also provide new and better methods of training personnel and thus become a centre for advanced training or a model for training in other institutions.
They go on to say:
An important feature of the new clinic is that it is to be run in co-operation with McGill University, located in nearby Montreal. McGill will prepare the plan for an "ideal" treatment centre, participate with the State and with other universities in furnishing the treatment, design the research project, and have general responsibility for the research. McGill's participation is to be under the direction of Bruno M. Cormier, M.D., director of the McGill Clinic of Forensic Psychiatry.
This is great for New York State, but in the light of our shortage of skilled and

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion trained personnel why is this scheme not working in our institutions in Canada?
They go on to say:
The initial McGill group will consist of one psychiatrist, three psychologists, two social workers and one group worker. (These services will, of course, be on a part time basis).
Why were these people not encouraged to work in our institutions which are so woefully lacking in staff?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this important question but I must confess that I find he is considerably misinformed. The gentleman at McGill University to whom he refers is a part time employee of the Canadian penitentiary service. He put forward this experimental scheme which is being tried at Clinton in New York State. This is, of course, an interesting and, I believe, very important experimental program. But I should add that we have a similar program running in Canada, though the hon. member chose not to speak about it. It is being carried out at the Springhill institution. It is true it is being done on a somewhat different basis because there are two views as to how the program of therapeutic communities should be administered-whether they should come exclusively under the control of the psychiatrists or whether control should involve the other forensic sciences on an equal footing. Subject to this change, we are doing the kind of work of which the hon. member has spoken in the Springhill institution.
The gentleman the hon. member speaks about has written to the department and has requested that one of these programs should be started in one of the institutions in Quebec province. This matter is receiving attention but no decision has been taken as to whether another will be started within the penitentiary service. If an affirmative decision is reached, I am not prepared to say it would be established in one of the Montreal institutions. We might start a scheme in one of the other institutions across the country because the penitentiary service is a nationwide service, and it is not necessarily valid to say that an experimental program such as this must be carried out in a particular province to suit the consultant who wishes to administer it. These things have to be evaluated carefully.
May 23, 1369

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion But the point I wish to make is this: We already have this type of experiment under way at Springhill; we are following the one at Clinton very closely, and we are also considering starting another.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted-


George James McIlraith: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether hon. members would object to continuing the public business.


Mr. Bell:: We cannot go back on that, now.


George James McIlraith: Why?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We had some speakers here who expected to take part in this debate but they went for a walk. I do not know how we could go back having had the adjournment debate.
At 4.16 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, May 28, 1969