1973-05-31

REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUBJECT OF QUESTIONS ON STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE HOUSE-RETRACTION OF CERTAIN WORDS BY MEMBER FOR GANDER-TWILLINGATE

['I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions.']
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with your permission and that of the House to deal with a point of order which has been before the House for the last two days in respect of matters that arose during the question period the day before yesterday when the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) made certain comments.
I have read with very great care what you had to say and what other hon. members had to say, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the government House leader and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In particular, I listened to Your Honour with interest when you indicated there is a collateral problem to the main issue which might invite the attention and consideration of the committee of this House best qualified to deal with such matters, that is, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. Since then there have been some consultations among House leaders which have proceeded reasonably well, as such meetings do, and I think we are at least in agreement that there is a problem relating to statements made outside the House by members of the House touching on proceedings in the House, and the opportunities and means by which such statements may be the subject of comment and discussion and may be dealt with in the House.
Your Honour has ruled on many occasions that the age old accommodation and principle of privilege does not apply. I think I must agree, perhaps without prejudice, that Your Honour is quite right in the strict interpretation of that principle. However, because of the introduction of electronic media and because many statements are frequently made outside the House immediately following what has been said in the House, I think we can all accept the fact that a very real problem has been created. I do not pretend to say what the answer is, but I say there ought to be an answer.
In light of that and the fact I have had discussions with the other House leaders, I would propose, and with the hope that the House might feel disposed to accept it, that Your Honour might put to the Committee on Procedure and Organization as accepted by the House something along these lines, and I offer this as a guide:
That the question of statements by members outside the House with regard to proceedings inside the House, and the manner and extent to which such statements can be dealt with or be the
subject of comment and consideration by members in the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
I only say that I drew this in the widest possible terms in the hope that the Committee on Procedure and Organization, which is now engaged in dealing with questions of procedure and the Standing Orders of the House, might be seized of this matter and, hopefully, might deal with it and bring in some recommendation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm the statement by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to the effect that there have been consultations among us in respect of this matter. I should also like to indicate that we are in agreement with regard to the proposition that the question of comments in the House on statements made outside the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
I should like to make it clear, indeed, to use words I am accused of using too often, I want to make it crystal clear that this is all we are talking about in so far as reference is being made to a recent occurrence in the House. We are not in this context making any reference to the use of unparliamentary language. That is not what we want referred to the standing committee but rather the clearcut question of whether the rule is now out of date which denies to members in the House the right to make reference in questions to statements made outside the House by ministers of the Crown.
I would point out, Sir, that this problem arises not only in the way you indicated a few days ago, namely, in relation to weekend speeches which seem to provide material for Monday afternoon questions, but it also arises during the week. There are occasions when a member puts a question to a minister and gets a certain answer, if he is lucky, on the floor of the House, and then the minister goes outside the chamber to room 130-S, goes on radio and television and says things he did not say here on the floor of the House.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: A revised version.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But because these statements are made outside the House the member, under the rule, is precluded from asking questions about them. I am not trying to solve the problem here but I believe it should be looked at. I think it becomes a bit of a farce for us to have to go through the formula, every time we want to ask a question about a minister's statement, of asking the Prime Minister whether that minister was stating government policy. It seems to me, for the reasons given by the hon. member for Peace River, particularly the electronic age in which we are living, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should look into this matter.
26314-53i

May 31, 1973
Procedure Respecting Certain Questions
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would support the proposal that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, making it clear that we are not in this reference going into the question of the use of unparliamentary language. We feel that is in the hands of the Chair and that we should not deal with that aspect of the matter in the standing committee.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to confirm discussions which have taken place between parties concerning the recent point of order resulting from the last incident.
I should like to say that we endorse the remarks of hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The problem is of course a major one which often causes embarrassment to the Chair and to hon. members. Ministers have got into the unpleasant habit of making statements outside the House which, as is generally known, prevents hon. members from actually giving the impression, let alone the reality of a responsible government reporting on its policy.
We are inconvenienced because of that situation, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt the efficient and profitable work carried out by the Committee on Procedure and Organization will be useful in clearing up the matter, of course, assisted by the advice and comments of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to seize the opportunity to say that the oral question period, which lasts only 40 minutes, is now under review in the committee, with the purpose of improving it according to your pertinent suggestions. Nevertheless, our party deplores increasing use of the question period for rising on questions of privilege which are often unjustified and on points of order, thus depriving many hon. members of their right to put pertinent questions to ministers.
The last incident which took place this week caused us to lose over 12 minutes of the oral question period, with practically no result. We have now unanimously decided that the matter be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that in future committees will be allowed to carry out their tasks and that the oral question period will really be used for the purpose it is meant to serve, namely to allow opposition members to force the government to report on its action, as befits any responsible system.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments on the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River. I certainly underline the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this suggestion is not, in my opinion, intended to deal with the question of unparliamentary language, nor is the acceptance of any such reference to a committee to be regarded as embodying any alteration in the standards that have been accepted by the House.
I would make the further comment that in my opinion the question of statements by members outside the House

embraces more than just the question of statements by ministers of the Crown. It certainly would be improper to have one category of statement made outside the House subject to comment within the House and another category of statement made outside the House not subject to comment.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why I used the word "members".


Mr. MacEachen:: That is why the hon. member for Peace River has used in the wider expression, "by members outside the House". Similarly, the problem in respect of the electronic media applies, of course, to ministers of the Crown, but it also applies to all other members including the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of the other parties who are free, if they wish, to amplify outside the House comments made in the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Not revised as the government did.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We accept the notion of the right hon. gentleman that all the evil rests with this side of the House and all the virtue rests on that side. At one time I thought it was only those at the far end of that side of that House who wrapped themselves in the cloak of virtue, but the right hon. member for Prince Albert is doing that today.
Aside from these comments, Mr. Speaker, we think it might be useful for the committee to look at these questions, and if its members come forward with useful suggestions the procedures of the House would probably be improved.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I never realized before that statements made on television in the extramural performances that take place Erom time to time represented anything in the nature of government policy. What is objected to is the fact that ministers find themselves making one statement in the House that is not in accordance with the facts-I had better be careful what I say because I might arouse the eggshell sentimentalities and feelings of those opposite. I will put it this way. Some of those ministers who indulge in terminological inexactitude on occasion-this is within parliamentary tradition-state things to be true that one can only say are the very antithesis of the truth as represented by them and bring down parliament because this is where ministers should be answering, not revising outside the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the suggestions that have been made by the hon. member for Peace River and other House leaders in reference to the incident which I think has caused much anguish to many of us, certainly to the Chair. I have already mentioned that to hon. members. I have suggested from the beginning that, in my way of thinking, there was more than one issue involved here and perhaps the most fundamental issue was the question of references that might be made in the House to speeches made outside the House by members of the government- or others, if that will please the President of the Privy Council. I had hoped that if we could clear up that difficulty by making it the object of a study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, at the same time we might solve the other problem.

It was my thought that because of this rule, because of the procedural difficulties, there was considerable provocation, and I can understand why the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate felt it necessary at the time to use what in my estimation in any event were rather strong words. That is why I sought his co-operation and assistance to the Chair. But I felt at the same time, and I repeat this, that we should try to solve the other situation at the same time. I do not agree with the suggestion that these are two entirely different problems. This is one and the same problem, and I would hope that the efforts of members of the House to try to resolve the procedural matter which has caused so much difficulty in past months, indeed, in past years, would be supported by every single member, including the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.
I would hope, very sincerely and very deeply, that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate will look at this matter in the same way as I do and confirm the suggestion I am making to him which I have made before that the words used were unparliamentary and that there might be ways of saying what we want to say by using words that are acceptable and in the traditions of the House. It is in accordance with this line of thinking that I seek again the co-operation of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that the motion by the House leader of this party and the response by the other three House leaders come as a bit of a pleasant surprise to me, although I was aware of the motion for the last 15 or 20 minutes immediately before the House opened. I also want to say that this was not done as a result of pressure on my part directed toward Your Honour or to any of the House leaders. It arises out of something that happened earlier in the week and is a mutual effort on the part of hon. members, and I suspect on the part of Your Honour, to have the matter properly dealt with.
Second, what started out as Canada's mini cod war has developed into something much more fundamental and complex. For some time I have felt strongly that when statements are made outside the House, members should be able to deal with them in some way in the House of Commons that would enable the House to express itself upon them and to impose some kind of political morality on all hon. members. The people of Canada should be able to demand of their parliamentary representatives at the national level, not only members of the Privy Council but all representatives, the highest degree of integrity and the highest degree of frankness and openness possible under our parliamentary system. This was the basis on which the question was raised earlier in the week.
I also feel that while the rule preventing members of the House from responding to statements made outside the House might very well have been applicable 100 years ago, today we are living in an age in which, with instant communication, sometimes what is said outside the House becomes more important than what is said inside the House. That, I feel, leads to a degradation of our parliamentary system. As a young Member of Parliament, relatively speaking, compared with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I feel this is some-
Procedure Respecting Certain Questions thing we should all examine in the hope of upgrading it and bringing it into proper perspective in the twentieth century.
The other point I want to make is that I have the greatest respect for Your Honour and the deepest admiration. Without sounding condescending by saying under these circumstances what you might expect me to say, I feel it is impossible for this House of Commons ever to expect to obtain anybody else to preside over events in the House with more capability, stature and dignity than Your Honour possesses. I believe every member of the House will agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: At the same time, I feel that nothing comes easy. To experience anguish and a little broken rest, which not only Your Honour may have suffered during the last few days, may sometimes be necessary in order to bring certain matters to the fore and have them properly dealt with. I do not see how we are going to get reform unless members are willing, within the rules, to stand up and sometimes even take issue with those rules to have matters reformed and brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Frequently during the question period, and now with respect to this particular rule, I find myself in a position that I do not enjoy. Some people enjoy a comfortable pew. I enjoy a comfortable pew too, but sometimes we have to put this kind of comfort behind us and be willing to stand up for things which, in the future, will be of the greatest importance for our Canadian parliamentary system.
I feel that what has happened today will go down in Canadian parliamentary history as an important event, if the procedure committee deals with it as I know they will deal with it. Consequently, I believe I would be cutting off my nose to spite my face if I were not willing, in deference to the House, to make a compromise. In saying this I am not retracting in any way from the substance and essence of the statement I made in the House on Tuesday. In fact, I hope to be able to appear before the committee. With reference to the specific words that are not acceptable within the rules we now have and perhaps may always have, out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and the House may I say that the recommendation Your Honour has made is quite acceptable to me.
I reiterate that I have a great deal of respect for all members of the Privy Council who have very heavy responsibilities, but I will never condone any member of the House not being completely honest in the representations he makes to the Canadian people. I do not view my retraction, as has been said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), as prejudicing any future moves I would like to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. President of the Privy Council.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is a very important point I want to stress in the simplest possible words. The acquiescence of myself and others on this side of the House to this suggestion is strictly on procedural grounds and is not put forward in any way as a conditional offer to any member to observe the rules of privilege. I believe that ought to be understood clearly.

May 31, 1973
Committees of the House


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that was made clear by all members who took part in the procedural debate we had a moment ago. I think there is no suggestion that there is any condition put on what has been agreed to or will be agreed to by the House if I put the motion. I go back to what I said originally. I feel that these two questions which forcibly, because of the circumstances, came together. I felt very deeply that it would be helpful to the House if the matter of substance relating to statements outside the House could be referred to committee, and I think the House will agree. At the same time, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has agreed to retract the statement he had made to the extent that it was a statement which is contrary to the traditions of the House, and I certainly am prepared to accept the explanation of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.
I think we have perhaps managed to establish that there are some norms in parliamentary language which all members would want to observe in co-operation with the Chair, because I am here not to invent rules but to put into force rules which members have agreed to and expect the Chair to put into force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.

[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Penner.
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Jerome.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Whicher.

[Stage Direction]
Third, fourth and fifth reports of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hymmen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, because of the urgency of the matter I wonder if we could have the unanimous consent of the House to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs later this day.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend may be under a misapprehension. I think he is interested in concurring in the report dealing with the augmentation of the committee. That will be the subject of the fifth report which I hope to get the permission of the House to table later this afternoon. The one I have just tabled deals with the estimates.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on motions and table documents in both official languages under Standing Order 41(2) concerning this government's action with regard to the status of women.
As you know, I recently announced my intention to establish an advisory council on the status of women. I would like now to announce the terms of reference for this council, and the names of the members to be appointed to it.
The purpose of the council will be twofold: to bring before the government and the public matters of interest and concern to women, and to advise the government on actions that it deems necessary to improve the position of women in society.
The terms of reference for the council are as follows: to advise the minister responsible in respect of such matters relating to the status of women as the minister may refer to the council for its consideration, or the council considers appropriate.
May 31, 1973

These terms of reference are purposely very broad in order that the council will have freedom to take whatever action it considers necessary. To enable the council to carry out its mandate effectively, provision has been made for a full-time chairman plus two vice-chairmen working on a full-time basis who will be supported by a staff and office. The council will meet as often as it feels necessary, and its first meeting will probably be early in July.
The council will also have authority to publish its reports, recommendations and statements. In this way the council will be in a position to keep before the public, as well as the government, the whole question of the status of women.
In establishing the council in this manner, I am aware that it does not follow the exact recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in that it will not report directly to parliament. However, the main objective in having a body that reports to parliament is to enable that body to make its advice public so that parliamentarians can look at the advice and question the government concerning that advice. By giving this advisory council authority to publish its recommendations and reports, this objective has been met.
In considering whom to appoint to this council, I felt strongly that it must be as representative as possible of all the women of Canada. For this reason, I wrote to women's organizations across the country and publicly requested their assistance in suggesting people who could contribute to this council. More than 200 letters have come back, all with excellent suggestions. The list of names that I am now tabling is made up of the best people available, 28 people from across Canada of varying backgrounds and experiences, all of whom are vitally interested and concerned about the status of women in our country.
I am appointing as chairman Dr. Kate Cooke, who has been chosen because of her excellent understanding of the problems of women in all walks of life, because of her ability to work with and communicate with people of varying backgrounds and concerns, and because of her in-depth knowledge of the situation of women in Canada at the present time. Dr. Cooke has a Ph.D. in sociology and is presently with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. She will be taking leave of absence from the government to fill this position. The two vice-chairmen will be appointed after the council has met.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that as well as setting up this advisory council on the status of women, the government is taking other actions to improve the position of women in Canada. I will be introducing, in the very near future, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code (Fair Employment Practices). The purpose of this bill will be to amend the act so that discrimination on the grounds of sex, age and marital status will be added to other prohibited grounds of discrimination by employers and unions coming under federal jurisdiction. Hon. members may recall that a bill to this effect was introduced in the last parliament; however, there was insufficient time for debate and it died on the order paper. The bill that will be introduced in the near future will contain a number of improvements, specifically in regard to pension and insurance schemes.
Status of Women
I also wish to announce at this time that the regulations under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act have been amended so that all government contracts will include a provision that, in hiring and employment of workmen to perform work under a contract, the contractor will not refuse to employ and will not discriminate in any manner against any person because of that person's race, national origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status.
In line with amendments to the Canada Labour Code, my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will be introducing amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act. These are presently being drafted by the Department of Justice and it is the government's intention to introduce a bill amending the Superannuation Act in the very near future. These amendments will follow the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
In addition, the Treasury Board has developed a new relocation directive with appropriate provisions to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women on the subject of removal expenses for public servants. The new directive will be issued shortly and will replace the actual removal expenses regulations. This does not require legislative action.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister sincerely for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his statement this morning. I assure him that my question of yesterday on this topic was not as a result of any leak from his office, although I understand this government has a propensity for leaks.
My party treats this matter very seriously. The status of women in Canadian life is not funny, is not a joke, is not something for locker room snickers. The subject is not amenable to tokenism. The government, parliament and the political parties must do more than mouth platitudes about the subject. I must say that although I deplore some of the stridency of language I add, gratuitously, that this is quite understandable because of the lack of results women have achieved up to now. The royal commission, after all, recommended in 1970 that the advisory council on the status of women should be established and report to parliament. The government, unfortunately, ignored that good advice and took a different route by appointing what is, in reality, a committee that is to report to the minister. The results will enable us to judge who is right.
Despite what the minister says, in my opinion the terms of reference he enunciated today are much too restrictive. Mr. Speaker, the parties must be serious about women candidates in public life. Surely the twenty-ninth parliament provides splendid evidence of the quality of women Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: The hon. members for Ahuntsic (Mrs. Sauve), Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) and Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) are a credit to themselves and to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 31, 1973
Status of Women


Mr. Muir:: There is something Irish there, too.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: All right. That is tokenism. We all understand that Canada lags far behind most countries in the world when it comes to having women represented in public life. The government's employment of women in senior positions in public life is, I believe, a scandal and disgrace. I assume that this committee will be doing something, even though it may mean quotas, to a limited extent, to end what is a serious and scandalous imbalance in this area. As government and parliament are bellweath-ers in employment practices, I hope that industry, which also has a reprehensible record in this regard, will deal with this matter quickly.
The council is but a beginning. The royal commission recommended:
.. . that the federal government immediately take steps to enter into agreement with the provinces leading to the adoption of a national Day-Care Act under which federal funds would be made available on a cost-sharing basis for the building and running of day-care centres meeting specified minimum standards, the federal government to (a) pay half the operating costs; (b) during an initial seven-year period, pay 70 per cent of capital costs; and (c) make similar arrangements for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
It is a pity that when the minister made his announcement about the composition of the board, although he was specifically requested by women of the Yukon, there is no representation from the Yukon on the committee.
My leader has advocated in eloquent terms the need for the establishment of a human rights commission. I hope this recommendation will be brought forward very quickly by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Speaking on behalf of my party, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the appointment. I hope the committee will become established quickly. I hope its members never let up on their recommendations to the government and that they push this minister until he wonders why he ever made the appointments.
Finally, the minister mentioned pension plan changes. If these changes do not include the right of the housewives of this country to make contributions to and, therefore, to be eligible for pensions under the Canada Pension Plan, that will be a serious gap in the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I can assure Dr. Katie Cooke and the new council they will have enthusiastic support from this parliament if they push the Minister of Labour to the end of his endurance.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party do not welcome this announcement if it is mere tokenism as I strongly suspect. In fact, from examining the 28 appointments it can be seen that it is clearly tokenism as only one male was appointed to the council. This demonstrates the continuing attitude of this government not to take this subject as seriously as it should.

Injustice and discrimination continue in this country in terms of employment opportunities, wage levels and promotion. This is nothing short of scandalous. It is particularly true of the federal civil service where an infinitesimal number of senior positions are held by women.
The recommendation of the royal commission is being avoided by not having this body report to parliament. The procedure being followed will in fact only provide protection for the minister through the council. That is not what is needed. What is needed is parliamentary action and a direct report to parliament.
We welcome the proposed changes in the pension and insurance schemes, in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act. However, we must remember that most of this work has already been done by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and it is unneccessary to do a complete overlap. What is necessary is legislative action and not delay.
I might say I am pleased to represent a British Columbia constituency that has two women cabinet ministers and a woman deputy premier.
I repeat that this is tokenism. We have very serious doubts that all the recommendations of the royal commission will be quickly implemented as they ought to be. This is a poor substitute for action.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, if the creation of an advisory council on the status of women can help change the discriminatory attitude towards women and encourage as well her emancipation and fulfilment, it could prove to be an efficient move.
Though we dislike any type of crusade for the equality of the two sexes, we must admit that prejudice still exists in this regard.
As for us, the Social Credit Party of Canada, who preach with deep conviction the freedom of human beings, we advocate the quality of all individuals, regardless of their race, nationality or sex.
We can only hope that women will contribute even more to the formulation of our laws, the administration of our country and the general progress of society.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing necessity arises out of the revelation that the government has repudiated the basis on which it gained the support of the House, including the budget which gave first priority to the reduction of unemployment and inflation. If the House gives unanimous consent, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That this House does hereby request a copy of a document incorporating the cabinet decision to relegate government action
May 31, 1973

against inflation and unemployment from top priority to number six priority be tabled and that the government forthwith ask for the confidence of the House of this attempt to reverse the previous decision of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the government has suggested regional development will have top priority, and in view of the fact that only 21,000 jobs have been created in all of Canada in the first three and a half years of operation compared to 562,000 unemployed in Canada in 1972, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the annual report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.


PRESENTATION OF PETITION REQUESTING STAMP COMMEMORATING FORTHCOMING VISIT OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested to present a petition signed by 778 citizens from my area requesting the authorization and publication of a commemorative stamp bearing a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen, crowned, on her Royal visit to Canada this year. This petition is in accordance with government intentions, as stated by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) on May 15.
Princess Anne THE ROYAL FAMILY


ENGAGEMENT OF PRINCESS ANNE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of importance to this House and to Canadians. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for this motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay):
That this House express its best wishes to Her Royal Highness, Princess Anne, on the occasion of her engagement to Lieutenant Mark Phillips; our sincere affection to Her Royal Highness and best wishes for their continued happiness; and that Mr. Speaker be requested to convey this message on behalf of this House to Her Royal Highness.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to indicate to the House that from my point of view we have more important things to do and the motion does not have my consent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion that has just been proposed is similar to the one I put yesterday which the hon. gentlemen opposite did not agree with at that time. There seem to be those on the government side who, I feel, are interfering with the privileges of the House by hiding their mouths behind their hands to cover their nays when the House tries to express legitimate views on legitimate matters arising under Standing Order 43. I accept, of course, that Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent in order for the motion to be put, but I feel that the privileges of the House are being interfered with day after day by members on the opposite side when they cry no and remain anonymous.
The rules of the House do not permit a secret ballot, but in fact hon. members opposite are succeeding in doing this very thing by not identifying themselves when these votes arise. May I respectfully ask whether the Chair would consider the possibility of asking, in connection with proposed motions under Standing Order 43, firstly for the yeas and secondly for the nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the suggestion that is being made by the hon. member for Leeds and it is one that has been made before. However, the practice is clear: what the Chair is required to do is to ascertain whether there is unanimous consent to move the motion. It is sufficient for this purpose if there is one nay. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to change the practice, call for the yeas and nays and count noses or heads. I think that the application of Standing Order 43 is complicated enough at the present time without making it more complicated.
The problem raised by the hon. member in connection with the present motion is somewhat hypothetical because there were clearly members who identified themselves in expressing a negative response to the inquiry whether
4286

May 31, 1973
Princess Anne
there was unanimous consent under Standing Order 43. In any event, I have noted the hon. member's suggestion and I assume that those who look after rules reforms will want to take it into consideration.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre on a question of privilege.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member opposite say in his remarks just now that I had not concurred in his motion yesterday, which is clearly not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but again I wonder whether there is any point in going into this matter much further by raising a question of privilege. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, would he indicate what it is.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, the question is that the accusation has come from the other side that members on this side, I among them, did not support the motion moved yesterday. I did not detect that either yesterday or today. If there was any opposition it did not come from this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That is not true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface on a question of privilege.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, using the same words as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I should like to make it "crystal clear" that the reason I seconded the motion was to bring it to the attention or the House that no member on this side opposed the motion moved yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because again today, for the last 10 minutes, we have been wasting our time with things of lesser importance, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) stated.
We want to work in this chamber, ask questions of the government, make progress and give accounts to the .public, instead of wasting our time.
Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to everything and it is most regrettable to give such a sad show to the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I suggest to the House that three or four members have now risen on the same question of privilege and, with respect, I do not think anything can be achieved by pursuing this matter further and ascertaining

who said yea and who said nay. The hon. member for Leeds raised a point a moment ago and I would hope we could now go on with the business of the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds is rising on a question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I will only take one moment but I feel it is necessary to rise in view of the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member opposite regarding what I had said. I must draw to the attention of the House that I certainly did not specify that the two members who moved and seconded the motion today were specifically among the nays of yesterday. It was stated incorrectly by the hon. members opposite that I did do such a thing; I simply said it was obvious that the nays came from the government side of the House.


An hon. Member:: No, they did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have to make a ruling at this point that we have to go on with the business of the House. The hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore.


HOUSING
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that this is the last day of a 60-day moratorium on proposed rent increases for senior citizens living in housing operated by Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the Minister of State for Urban Affairs be instructed to advise the House immediately what steps are being taken to ensure that these increases will not now be proceeded with.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; the motion cannot be put.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the reports of deterioration in safety standards on the part of Air Canada, and in particular the facilities at Dorval
May 31, 1973

International Airport in Montreal. I seek consent to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House does hereby request the immediate placement of a committee of investigation at Dorval airport to inspect the haphazard implementation of safety standards as they presently exist.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity to seek unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. In view of the revelation in today's press that regional development will get top government priority, and in view of the admission by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, contained in another unpublished document, that northern Ontario's economic viability has been declining since 1961, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the House directs the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to present within a month to the House a detailed program for the development of the long neglected region of northern Ontario, with specific reference to the establishment of special areas for the development of infrastructures, and to the establishment of Crown corporations for the benefit of our neglected people in northern Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-187, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to define "health" in the Criminal Code under section 251(6) of that statute to mean actual physical or mental danger to the mother and, without limiting the generality of the word "danger", consideration of social and economic con-
Oral Questions
ditions affecting the mother or her family unit shall not be taken into account.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising from a leaked document purporting to be a cabinet document. I would ask whether the cabinet has changed its list or order of priorities and, in particular, whether the attack on inflation and unemployment has been moved from the top of the list, where it was in the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, to number six on the list?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House and the Leader of the Opposition will understand that it is not good practice to comment on documents or exchanges between Privy Councillors of a confidential nature. I am prepared to answer questions on any subject but not on the basis of any document supposed to be leaked.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the order of priorities indicated by the government in the Speech from the Throne and in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance has been changed and, in particular, whether the fight against unemployment and inflation is now number six on the list instead of number one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to that is no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the government
changed its priorities in any respect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government does change its priorities from time to time. We have problems that we look at either on an urgent or essential basis. When we think they are solved or on the way to being solved we put others in a higher priority position. It would also depend on whether they were priorities from the point of view of action, from the point of view of consideration by cabinet, or from the point of view of eventual study by some department. The priorities are of a different nature according to the field of action about which you are talking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his philosophical dissertation. I should like to ask whether he will table in the House the government's list of priorities as it now exists, and whether he denies that the list of priorities, as contained in the purported cabinet
4288

May 31, 1973
Oral Questions
document, does in fact constitute the government's list of priorities as of today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the last part of the question I would answer it first by saying I do not comment on cabinet documents whether they are reputed to have been leaked or not. On the question as to what our priorities are, Mr. Speaker, they vary from time to time, and I hope that the country and the opposition know what they are from time to time. Today our priorities-


An hon. Member:: Do you know?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Today our priorities-


An hon. Member:: What are they? Let's hear about them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to answer any question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition as to what our priorities are at a particular point in time from the point of view of action or from the point of view of study.


An hon. Member:: When is the next election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River on a supplementary question and then the hon. member for Nickel Belt. If there are further supplementary questions on this subject they can be asked after we have completed the first round of questions.


UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if it is now the opinion of the government that it has found itself incapable of dealing with inflation and the unacceptable rate of unemployment and is therefore turning to deal with the consequences that flow from such failures?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Sir.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the highest priority which the cabinet places on regional development, and in view of the admission in the confidential DREE document entitled "Ontario Regional Report" that the incentive program is not sufficient in itself to alter substantially the position of northern Ontario in the Canadian economy as a whole, will the minister tell the House whether he intends to establish a Crown corporation located in northern Ontario in which the people of northern Ontario would have a say?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the preamble to the hon. member's question, I would respond in precisely the same way as did the Prime Minister. I do not propose to comment on alleged leaked documents, if you like. In terms of the substance of the question, we have in every part of Canada, in other provinces, created either Crown corporations or federal-provincial corporations. This is a mechanism which we will be quite prepared to discuss either with the province of Ontario or with other groups within the province of Ontario.


NORTHERN ONTARIO-ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGNATED AREAS-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, since the document in question further states that the problems of northern Ontario are related to the lack of adequate housing, inadequate sewage facilities and a lack of fully-serviced industrial land, will the minister tell the House whether he intends to make a statement on the designation of several special areas in northern Ontario for the purpose of infrastructure?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, all of the matters to which the hon. member has referred will be discussed with the government of Ontario within the next ten days. I believe they are scheduled for the forthcoming DREE discussions I will be having in the early part of June. Certainly, these matters will be discussed in detail at that time.


John R. Rodriguez: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again a number of members are seeking to ask supplementary questions. I have been trying to finish the first round of questioning. The hon. member for Assiniboia can ask one supplementary question, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Compton.


NORTHERN ONTARIO AND WESTERN CANADA-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS AS FACTOR IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that areas in northern Ontario and in western Canada face a most difficult situation because of the freight rate structure, can this minister, who has a long record of experience with transportation, inform the House what precise action is being taken in these areas to meet this all-important question of revising the freight rate structure?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in so far as my own responsibilities are concerned, transportation is one of the key elements I have been discussing, in association with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, with the provinces. I did have discussions in Edmonton yesterday with the government of Alberta and have been doing so at all the federal-provincial discussions that have been going on. In addition, of course, we have met with the premiers of
May 31, 1973

the four Atlantic provinces and a meeting which was scheduled with the Prairie provinces on transportation for June 7 has now been postponed at the request, I believe, of the province of Alberta.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us what stage the proceedings have reached concerning an electoral reform; is the government still considering the possibility of preparing a bill before the summer adjournment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we still intend to carry on.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister find that the matter has some importance and could he tell us whether he has received representations from the other parties or other Canadian taxpayers asking for reforms, especially as regards the financing of candidates at election time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is possible, Mr. Speaker, but I do not remember any specific representation. It is possible that someone wrote me in that connection, but I do not recall any special communication. We have tried to answer all legitimate requests.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he explain to the House why it is that the government has relegated to the very bottom of the list of priorities the subject of environmental protection, as reported in the leaked cabinet document, when so recently it was such a high priority matter on the government's list?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government has not done that, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On or before May 17, did the cabinet set a priority
Oral Questions
on the subject entitled "Secure Our National Economic Independence" and, if so, where did the subject rank on the list of priorities?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and my colleague have already indicated, I do not intend to comment on alleged cabinet leaks.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that I did not refer to any paper but simply asked whether on May 17 such a priority was set and, if so, what was the numerical priority?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.


AIR CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, on another matter of priority I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact the machinists union has voted overwhelmingly for strike action, is it the intention of the minister to follow the excellent example of his predecessor, the hon. member for Verdun, and personally intervene in this dispute with a view of trying to avert a strike which would result in the tying up of air travel in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member in terms of the excellent job the hon. member for Verdun did as Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I would advise the hon. member that Mr. Gallagher, the conciliation commissioner who came down with a report which has not been accepted, has re-entered the picture. I have appointed him, with the consent of both sides, and he is attempting to mediate the dispute. It is my hope that he will be successful.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the union can legally strike at any time beginning tomorrow and that we could have a series of rotating strikes beginning tomorrow, does the minister personally intend to intervene in this matter and does the government have a contingency plan to meet the situation in the event of a strike?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be aware it is natural that the government is concerned-I am sure the opposition shares this concern-that there not be a strike in this country. We also adhere to the principle of free collective bargaining. The fact remains that if you adhere to that principle the strike weapon remains in the hands of the union members of this particular company. Having said that-and we of this party adhere to that principle and I believe the mem-

May 31, 1973
Oral Questions
bers of the official opposition also-there can be no absolute guarantee that there will not be a strike. All I can do is assure the hon. member we will de everything possible in our role as the government to prevent it.


STRIKE BY FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES AT WINNIPEG-SUGGESTION MINISTER URGE PRESIDENT OF COMPANY TO RE-ENTER NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact there is already a strike of Air Canada employees taking place in Winnipeg and because of the fact that the strike is caused by the refusal of Air Canada management to accept the unanimous report of the conciliation board, will the minister discuss with the president of Air Canada that refusal and urge him to re-enter negotiations in that strike?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is in this government, like all others, a Minister of Labour who has responsibility in that field and if I have to do something I will do it according to the advice given to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North in a moment, if he will resume his seat, and then the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport really understood my question. Surely, the Minister of Transport, through whom Air Canada reports to parliament, has some relationship with the president of Air Canada and can discuss its refusal to accept the unanimous report of the conciliation board with its officials.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary Centre.


POSSIBLE STRIKE OF MACHINISTS-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT OF STRIKE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Labour. Along with any contingency plans the government may or may not have formulated to avert such a strike, has the government prepared an over-all assessment of the effect of such a strike and will it be tabled in the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think we can accept the fact that if there is a strike of Air Canada it will have serious repercussions of an economic nature, as do all strikes under federal or provincial jurisdiction that involve a number of employees. Still, a price is involved in adherence to the principle of free collective bargaining and all we can do is try to avoid the economic consequences. If they become too serious, I point out that parliament is in record as having taken appropriate action in the public interest.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minister. Since neither the throne speech nor its substitute listed any priority or made any reference to the problems of Canada's native people, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could say at what level these problems, including the question of aboriginal rights, are being considered?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, gladly, Mr. Speaker; at the very highest level and I believe they are being very excellently dealt with by the minister responsible.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Am I to
understand then that the question of aboriginal rights is being considered by the minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The whole subject of our native people is one which has been before the government since the beginning of the last parliament. The government's position on all aspects, including the one raised by the hon. member, has been stated from time to time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to advise the House whether the government has now reached a decision on a new international aviation policy, to which the minister referred on previous occasions, which would allocate international air routes between Canada's two major air carriers? If so, can the minister indicate to the House when this policy will be made public and also can he advise when a decision will be reached on the landing rights at Milan, Italy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are still looking into this problem in the department. I do not think I am in a position to say at what moment we will be ready to make any public statement and not for the Milan route either because it has to be decided.


DISCONTINUANCE OF CUSTOMS PRECLEARANCE- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Having regard to the bilateral discussions now taking place in Ottawa, can the Minister of Transport tell us whether the subject of preclearance is a subject of top priority. Can the minister assure the House that after these meetings are concluded we will have any definitive decisions as to the extended air routes and the

overcoming of this problem of preclearance at the Toronto International Airport.


Jean Marchand: As the
hon. member mentioned, negotiations are going on now. I do not have the result of those negotiations and I do not think I should reveal anything which is being discussed at this moment.


INQUIRY AS TO ALLOCATION OF EDMONTON-CALGARY LINK TO UNITED STATES
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and is supplementary. Can the minister tell the House whether the government has reached a decision now on the expansion of western Canada air routes, and particularly the Edmonton-Calgary link to the United States?


Jean Marchand: This is surely one of the preoccupations of the department and is something we are trying to achieve now.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the assurance the minister gave the House on May 17 that he hoped to be able, before the end of May, to introduce the government's bill to amend the Pension Act so as to increase the basic rate of the war disability pension, and in view of the fact that there are only about eight or nine hours left in the month of May, is he now in a position to introduce that legislation?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my department is presently working on the legislation and I hope to present it to the House before too long. I do not think we can get it here before tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether that legislation will follow the recommendations of the joint study group on the basic rate of the war disability pension?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I would prefer not to make that statement at this time. When the legislation is brought in this will be determined.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that in the list of priorities reported today environmental protection apparently is not considered by the government to be as important as bilingualism, does the order of priority apply equally to every part of this country?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: No
comment, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is the minister prepared to table a copy of the report drafted by the Canadian High Commissioner, Mr. A. M. Leith, giving the real version of the events surrounding the killings in Zambia of two Canadian citizens, a report which is rumoured to contradict the remarks of Zambia's foreign affairs minister?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the House will permit, I will make a short statement. I do not intend to table the communication from the deputy high commissioner to me because that is a privileged document. However, I would be prepared to give the substance of the disagreement if the House would let me make a statement now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You are reverting to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To clarify what we are doing now, may I point out that the suggestion made by the minister is that we revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement. I am wondering whether the House might not prefer that we go to the end of the question period, and then have the minister make his statement on motions under the Standing Order which would invite comments from parties in opposition. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 31, 1973
Oral Questions FISHERIES



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO FISHERMEN IN VIEW OF ICE CONDITIONS

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister tell the House what action he proposes to take with respect to requests made to him by the Premier of Newfoundland and the provincial Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland for emergency assistance to help the fishermen who are prevented from fishing because of severe ice conditions?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the income problem faced by the fishermen on the Atlantic shores due to ice is under active consideration.



MANPOWER


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it arises from my recent questioning regarding the troubled Rochdale College in Toronto following which I received a letter from the minister, for which I thank him. Because of the fact that the minister now confirms there is still a total of $110,000 in LIP grants outstanding to individuals or organizations associated with Rochdale, and due to the tragic and deplorable events which are continually taking place at that drug infested institution, I ask the minister to advise the House why his department has not, or in fact is not even considering, any action for the premature termination of these grants?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I went on to say in the same letter to which the hon. member refers that not all those projects which are even remotely associated with Rochdale were located in Rochdale. I think the fact that some tenant may be occupying space in the building or may have some other remote connection does not call for the cancellation of a worthwhile project. Projects are being examined on their merits. I might say that the whole affair is probably superceded by the termination date of May 31, and I do not know at this moment whether any of these will be eligible for extension.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since there have recently been meetings with the Quebec government concerning designated or special

areas which should be announced soon, at the same time as the departmental policy, can the minister assure us that the recommendations or proposals made by the Quebec government will not only be examined but taken into serious consideration?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, obviously the answer is yes. They will get very serious consideration.



LUMBER-ALLEGED SHORTAGE FOR HOME BUILDERS- REQUEST FOR EXPORT CONTROLS

Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the continual rise of shelter costs, and in view of the high percentage of lumber generally used for home building here in Canada presently being shipped to Japan causing a lack of lumber which has raised the price here in Canada some 300 per cent in the last two years, will the minister consider imposing export quotas on lumber being shipped out of this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the question on export controls on lumber is no but, as the hon. member probably realizes, we do have export controls on Canadian logs.



LUMBER-ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF HARDWOOD FOR FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS-REQUEST FOR EXPORT CONTROLS

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the hon. member for St. Catharines and I address it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that his predecessor in the portfolio spent a great deal of the taxpayers' money building up the furniture industry in Quebec and eastern Canada in general for export purposes, and as there are industry reports that they are now short of lumber to carry out their commitments due to this expansion, would the minister indicate whether he is willing to reconsider his stance of no export controls such as we have on copper, natural gas and oil?


Alastair William Gillespie: I understand from conversations that I have had with lumber producer groups, particularly hardwood, that hardwood lumber production in Canada has increased significantly, in fact 24 per cent last year over 1971. The current trend indicates that during the past year Canadian hardwood lumber consumers have received an increasing share of Canadian production supplemented by larger net increases in imports of both hardwood logs and lumber.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, does the minister contradict the reports coming
May 31, 1973

out of Quebec that the furniture industry is short of hardwood lumber in that province?


Alastair William Gillespie: I understand that there is a tight situation, but I have also been assured that Canadian producers will do everything they can to assure a supply to Canadian furniture makers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. Catharines on a supplementary.


J. Trevor Morgan: Again my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does he not agree that there is a substantial shortage of lumber for home building here in Canada today?


Alastair William Gillespie: There seems to be a worldwide shortage of lumber at present.



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I wish to ask him whether he will table in the House a copy of the text of the recently negotiated agreement with the United States on reciprocal fishing arrangements.


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, we are prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and I am sorry to interrupt him. I should like to ask him whether he has launched, or caused to be launched within the last two weeks, any investigation into any leaked cabinet document and, if so, would the date of the document be May 17?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say from memory if there has been an investigation on a particular date or in reference to a document of a particular date, but I can say quite candidly that when documents are leaked there is a standing instruction from me to ensure that the departments from which there appears to be a leak are carrying out an investigation within the department to see if they can ascertain the source of that leak. Confidentiality remains the basis on which we think governments should be able to operate in receiving advice from their officials.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in fact such an investigation has been launched
Oral Questions
during the past two weeks with regard to a leaked cabinet document.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would presume so, Mr. Speaker. When I was told this morning that there might be a leak of a cabinet document, I said that we should try to ascertain the source of that leak.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister some ten days ago whether all civil servants were fingerprinted. Since then I have done some ascertaining myself and I believe that to be correct. Was the reason for doing so, now that all civil servants in any category hired by the Public Service Commission are being fingerprinted, to catch and trace down the leaks which are now so frequent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did look into the question and so far as I can recall, subject to refreshing my memory, the answer is no. There is no fingerprinting automatically of all civil servants. Certain categories of civil servants are indeed fingerprinted, as was recognized by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the particular case requested of him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I now take it from the Prime Minister's answer that what he is saying is that there is no requirement that all public servants be fingerprinted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is what is in my memory. If I am in error on that I will want to correct it later today or tomorrow.



HOUSING


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister today in a position to assure the House that the proposed rent increases in the Toronto area for senior citizens, to which I have referred, will not be proceeded with after May 31, which is the end of the 60-day moratorium, and if the minister is not able to give us that assurance today will he indicate whether by tomorrow he will be able to do so?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company is a non-profit organization and I have offered them a proposal to convert their limited dividend housing into public housing and therefore have a 50 per cent federal contribution toward the rent to income scale in

May 31, 1973
Oral Questions
that housing, which I would hope would allow the housing association to maintain its moratorium on rent increases. There are discussions going on between CMHC and the association, all of which are subject to the approval of the Toronto Housing Corporation, but I would hope that would be the result.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Can the minister assure the House that pending the outcome of the present discussions no rent increases will be proceeded with?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the rent, of course, is charged and levied by the association. I hope that my offer to them will enable them to maintain the moratorium on any rent increases.



HARBOURS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works has expressed support for the development of all potential Atlantic deepwater ports, and particularly for the development of Lorneville, and as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has agreed that his department will assist in such development, would the Prime Minister now state that he will fully support the position of these two cabinet ministers and their policies in this regard, and will he also state that he will use the full force of his office to see that their policies are expedited?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can state that quite unequivocally. It is the policy of the government, in fact of all ministers.



FISHERIES


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment in connection with the controversial lobster program at Nanaimo. Can the minister indicate the basis of the directive received at the Nanaimo Research Station, and, if he is not aware of it, cause it to be investigated, stipulating that in order to protect the minister from unwarranted badgering in the House of Commons any comments to the press, Members of Parliament and the general public should be released through the office of the director?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any unwarranted badgering in the House of Commons.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister if he would cause to be investigated this very serious directive which has been received at the Nanaimo Research Station?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this subject was covered, I know at considerable length, in the relevant committee of the House a few weeks ago. I will be glad to speak to the subject if it comes up again in that committee.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE-POSSIBLE WITHHOLDING OF GRAIN BY FARMERS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since the Canadian Wheat Board has raised its export price for wheat by some 20 cents a bushel at the eastern ports and 10 cents a bushel at the western ports, and since wheat prices have strengthened by approximately $1.25 during the past year, is the Board at this time giving any consideration to increasing the initial price paid to western farmers for the wheat they are delivering this crop year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not know of such consideration. I think many farmers would be rather more upset than otherwise by an increase in the current year, and of course the general practice is to allow for a fairly large final payment six or eight months after the pool period is closed. Further, prices are a very volatile matter. There was some decline today. That alone justifies the policy of a large final payment.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that we are coming to the end of the question period and we should have as few supplementaries as possible in order to allow other members to ask at least one question each.


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of the fact that some farmers may hold back marketings until after August 1 in expectation of higher initial prices for the 1973-74 crop year, would this not give grounds for considering a possible increase in the initial price for the coming year?


Otto Emil Lang: No. Farmers know in fact that the total amount of money is the important figure and not the initial price. The flow of wheat into the system is still adequate to meet the Wheat Board's commitments.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the repeated requests from Manitoban Indians for assistance in dealing with the
May 31, 1973

government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro with respect to hydro projects in northern Manitoba, would the minister advise the House what representations he has made on behalf of those Indians to the government of Manitoba or to Manitoba Hydro, and what the results of his representations have been?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I wrote the Manitoba premier concerning this. Last week, during the premiers' visit to Ottawa, when I raised again this issue with Mr. Schryer, his reply was that he was drafting a letter. Not having received it yet, I am still waiting for it.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport on a matter related to a question I asked of him in the House the day before yesterday. Will the minister tell the House whether or not there is existing legislation governing the manufacturing of motor vehicle gas tanks such as to strength, gauge of material, and the welding technique used?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a division of the department is responsible for highway safety and all parts used to build a car are assessed according to established standards.



MANPOWER


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he giving consideration to making a statement early next week informing the House how many LIP projects have been approved for continuation in each province, and the total dollar value of each project?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to convey that information to the House in one form or another when it is available to me. At the moment those figures are not finalized, and I am not sure they are in a form that I could use early next week. As soon as they are available I will see that hon. members are informed.
Oral Questions



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns reports of price rises and price fixing in the wholesaling of gasoline by large companies to independent wholesalers, who in turn sell to the small independent gasoline retailers. I would like to ask the minister if any complaints have been submitted by any independent gasoline retailers or their associations concerning this matter?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, matters of this kind have been brought to the attention of the Combines Branch from time to time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the statement today by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that legislation to increase the basic rate of disability pensions for veterans will not be introduced before the end of May as he predicted, may I ask the President of the Privy Council if he could give the government's assurance that such legislation will be introduced before the end of June?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give that assurance and I think I can. I would certainly guarantee it would be introduced and dealt with before we rise for the summer recess.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of another recent crash of a Sea King helicopter in the Atlantic, at which time the captain and his crew were fortunately rescued, would the minister now look into the matter of the mechanical reliability of these helicopters as brought to light by my question on the order paper?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: This has been done, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS

May 31, 1973



PICKERING-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT STUDY GROUP

Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister tell the House when he is going to announce the personnel of the independent study group for Pickering airport, which he first indicated he was going to set up over four months ago?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House and before the committee, I consulted with the government of Ontario and understand that they will shortly be in a position to announce the names of the members of the board of examination.


Mr. Speaker:: Before returning to motions for the purpose of hearing the statement to be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs the Chair will allow the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte to ask a supplementary to the question he asked previously and then return to motions.



HARBOURS


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister in respect of my initial question. In view of the fact that remarks attributed to the Minister of the Environment in New Brunswick over the last weekend were interpreted as virtually negating the policies of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Public Works, and that only the Prime Minister can clarify this matter which has created a great deal of uncertainty and worry over the future of the Lorneville development, would the Prime Minister please state where this government stands and what help can government and investors expect to receive in making a healthy development at Lorneville?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Quite simply, the Minister of the Environment has already talked to me about this and I understand he has attempted to get some rectification of the way in which his remarks were reported. The significance of his remarks, and I certainly would support him, is that in any development of this kind we must show due concern for the environment and any development which is proceeded with in these places must be looked at from the point of view of the Minister of the Environment.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have reported to the House earlier, the First Secretary of our High Commission in Lusaka, Mr. A. M. Leith, visited the scene of the shooting incident primarily to assist with the arrangements for the recovery and return to Canada of the body of Miss Sinclair and in regard to the search for the body of Miss Drijber. He also took the occasion to speak to the eye-witnesses of the tragedy and to officials concerned. Mr. Leith left Zambia for Rhodesia before we were aware of the contents of the initial Zambian communique. During his journey Mr. Leith received full co-operation from Rhodesian and Zambian authorities concerned and was able to assist in the speedy return to Canada of the body of Miss Sinclair. The information given to Mr. Leith by the eye-witnesses on the Rhodesian side to whom he spoke revealed some serious discrepancies in regard to the Zambian version. For example:
(1)	Mr. Leith reported to the effect that there was no evidence of any provocation for the incident so far as he could determine;
(2)	As to whether the two Canadian girls had been in the water, the Rhodesian police report on Miss Sinclair's clothing confirmed no evidence of water on her shoes or trousers;
(3)	There was no evidence that any member of the party was wearing bandoliers or waterproof gear, and
(4)	There was evidence that more than one gun was used and an examination of spent bullets and bullet marks indicated that the shooting had been directed to three locations on the Rhodesian side.
As I have already reported to the House, I have not been satisfied with the version of events contained in the Zambian communique. On my instructions our High Commissioner brought to the attention of the Foreign Minister the discrepancies between the information obtained by Mr. Leith and the Zambian communique. This interview between our High Commissioner and Foreign Minister Mudenda took place on May 24. Mr. Broadbridge stressed to the Foreign Minister my desire to receive a full and satisfactory statement from the Zambian government immediately. The result of these representations was the receipt of the personal message from the Zambian Foreign Minister which I tabled yesterday. Although this statement expresses the Zambian government's regrets, it leaves a good deal to be desired and I have instructed our High Commissioner to continue to press the Zambian government for a more satisfactory response. When I have received further information from the Zambian authorities I will be in a position to advise the House further.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, a reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) regarding a statement in the letter from the Foreign Minister of Zambia that I tabled yesterday which reads as follows:
May 31, 1973

Last year a Canadian and a Zambian lost their lives in your country in the cause of strengthening our relations.
So far as we can discover, the incident refers to the deaths in an automobile accident of a Zambian who was in Canada on a training program and a Canadian whose house guest he was at the time. The Zambian, Robinson Chibundi, was a superintendent of the Zambian police force, and had arrived in Canada August 23, 1972 to participate in a three-month training program. Over the Labour Day weekend, superintendent Chibundi and a fellow Zambian police officer were the house guests of a lieutenant of the Hamilton police force, Michael Pauloski, who was also on the training program. Lieutenant Pauloski, members of his family, and the two Zambians were returning from a football game on September 4 when Lieutenant Pauloski and Superintendent Chibundi were killed in an automobile accident.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister has decided to make a full statement on this issue following a report submitted to him by our High Commissioner on the facts concerning the death of two Canadian girls. I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that as my colleague the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) has noted, there seem to be many questions unanswered and up until now there did not appear to be considerable activity on the part of the Department of External Affairs with reference to this matter.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians travelling abroad have a right to the fullest protection that the Canadian flag can afford. This can only be assured if further efforts with reference to redress are made and the strongest possible protests are launched, perhaps at the United Nations.
There are many questions that I should like to have answered. With respect to the circumstances surrounding these deaths we have already had a report given by a reliable and comprehensive reporter from Reuter, who gave us certain facts a few days ago. The government does not seem to have conducted any inquiry into that report. These facts are substantially different from those which have been given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Zambia. I should like to quote from the Reuter report the following paragraph:
The front page story, which the newspaper said was the result of a week's investigation-
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the reporter has been able to make such an investigation quickly, surely our Department of External Affairs could have done likewise.
-said that "about 50 people watched in horror" while five Zambian soldiers shot dead Christine Sinclair, of Guelph, Ontario, wounded American John Crothers "and then sniped for nearly two hours at Marjan Drijber hiding behind a rock in the Zambesi river."
The article continues:
According to the Star, all witnesses to the incident had been "cowed into silence" and "indications in Lusaka are that President Kaunda has had the truth deliberately kept from him by his security forces with the connivance of members of his cabinet, including Mr. Grey Zulu, Minister of Defence."
External Affairs
And, later:
"During all this several Zambian policemen and plainclothes officers looked on in silence." The report said the Zambian troops were in a state of high agitation, sweating profusely.
And a further paragraph from the report reads:
When objections were made to the uniformed police and plain-clothesmen looking on, one reported that the fact that the person was a woman made no difference because the Black September movement had used women to blow up Israeli airliners.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, these facts brought out by a reporter should have been looked into by the Department of External Affairs. Other questions, as well, come to mind and it seems to me that the minister should look into them. In the letter which was tabled yesterday, sent by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Zambia, these sentences appear:
Besides, we have several Zambians who have trained or are training in Canada. Last year a Canadian and a Zambian lost their lives in your country in the cause of strengthening our relations.
Having heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we now know what the last sentence means. Nevertheless, I am disturbed by those sentences. It is said that several Zambians have trained or are training in Canada. I do not know if these Zambians have been trained as managers of corporations or as soldiers in certain camps. I wonder, if they are still being trained in Canada, what action the government is taking, now that these two girls have been murdered. Will the action to be taken by the government be swift and decisive, or will the government wait until the High Commissioner returns and gets information from the same person who wrote this personal letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
In this matter we want more than regrets. We do not want excuses from the government. We want compensation, and we have not yet heard anything of that nature. It seems to me that these questions and many more will have to be answered. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) has been pressing the government day after day, without success. We have received a partial report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope that, since he has been asked these additional questions today, he will be able to satisfy not only us, in this Parliament, but all Canadians.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, the incident to which the minister referred in his statement was tragic in the sense that two young Canadian women unnecessarily lost their lives. It could be doubly tragic if we were to allow that unfortunate incident to affect our relationships with Zambia, which, after all, has been friendly, without first determining the facts of the case. I appreciate the efforts of the government in first ascertaining those facts before determining its course of action.
We provide substantial aid to Zambia on a regular basis. We have provided emergency aid to Zambia, to help that country overcome difficulties encountered as a result of the closure of its border with Rhodesia. We have trained Zambian policemen and military personnel in this country. I have received suggestions, both direct and veiled, that perhaps this kind of assistance should be stopped

May 31, 1973
External Affairs
because of the incident to which reference has been made. I hope the government will not act on that basis, and that the government's actions will not be dictated by the obvious and normal human desire for revenge in instances of this kind. If two or three Canadians had been killed, for example, in the Kent State incident in the United States, there would have been outrage but certainly not demands for separation of relationships from the United States. There would have been demands for an official apology from the government of that country and perhaps for compensation, but certainly not demands for punitive action. I think it is only proper, even though Zambia is not one of the world's most powerful nations, that we should treat that country in the same way as we would treat any other nation with whom we have friendly relations.
I think it was unfortunate in the extreme, given the potential for adverse reaction in this country, that the government of Zambia did not see fit to communicate directly with our government on the issue and provide it with facts at its disposal directly, instead of operating via press releases. I think it is also unfortunate that in its initial reactions to this incident, the government of Zambia made statements which now would appear clearly not to have been in accordance with the facts.
I hope our government will insist that the government of Zambia issue an official apology and a full explanation of the incident. And, if that full explanation seems to warrant it, I hope our government will demand compensation for the families who have suffered this tragic loss. Certainly, until such time as we receive a satisfactory answer from the government of Zambia, our own independent inquiries through our embassy officials there should continue.
I think one final point must be made. This tragedy should have brought home to all Canadians forcefully the results which flow from the kinds of tensions which are produced in this world by racist regimes. Borders are closed, and armed troops patrol those borders. These tensions are a result of policies pursued by certain countries which are unacceptable to us as a nation and unacceptable to the United Nations. I hope that that is the lesson that Canadians have learned from this incident.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs just made leaves us somewhat puzzled, althouth the minister seems to demand a more exhaustive investigation than the report submitted by the Zambian government.
I think we should demand more than that in order to know all the facts involved in a situation we looks like a double murder.
Many Canadians are wondering about that, particularly those who are planning to go abroad. We need to feel secure when we travel in other countries, either as tourists or official representatives. And when such tragedies occur, we need to know all the circumstances. In the present case, some families have lost dear ones, and I agree with my colleagues who urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to insist that those families should receive some compensation.


Mr. Hales:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask permission to say one or two words about this tragedy, particularly as these two girls come from my riding?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that the House agrees. I expect hon. members are familiar with subsection 3 of Standing Order No. 15. However, if it is the will of the House that the hon. member be heard, he will be recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and hon. members of the House. I will not repeat what has been said concerning this tragedy. I am wondering why it has taken this government 16 days to make a statement in the House, and not a complete statement, at that. We are still left in doubt about the true facts surrounding this tragic incident. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) will give to this House early next week a full and complete report on this tragedy. I also hope he will be able to say what compensation may be forthcoming to the families of the two Canadian girls, in addition to covering many other points that I do not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing as they have already been mentioned. We must not delay this matter any longer. The longer the government lets this matter stay in limbo, the more questions will be asked and the more serious and complex will become this political issue. So, I seriously hope that early next week the Secretary of State for External Affairs will give us a more comprehensive report.

Message from the senate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-6, An Act respecting Centre Amusement Co. Limited, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the usual Thursday afternoon, now almost evening, question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River on the usual Thursday point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to ask the government House leader if he has managed to maintain his priorities for the legislative program between now and the end of June. I do not suggest this is the order because that may be embarrassing, but I understand we are to deal with housing,
May 31, 1973

capital punishment, bilingualism, family income legislation, electoral boundaries, Immigration Appeal Board and legislation relating to the Olympics. I ask this as complementary to the question with regard to the business of the House for this week and next. In light of the fact tomorrow is June 1, the minister might like to keep the House acquainted with his views as to what he wants done.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the business for today and tomorrow has already been announced. Hopefully, it will be concluded early next week. We will continue our discussions. On Tuesday, I would like to call the report stage of the national housing bill, to be followed by the residential mortgage bill and the fisheries development bill. Thursday and Friday must be opposition days. Hopefully, within that week there will be a day designated to deal with the Ways and Means resolutions tabled this week. The following week will probably be taken up with consideration of the tax bill or bills and an Immigration Appeal Board bill.
With regard to the list of legislation that the hon. member has mentioned, certainly all of that is on the priority list to be dealt with before the summer adjournment. I would like to look at the list to see whether anything has been omitted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the President of the Privy Council indicate when summer begins on his calendar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should add to the list the veterans legislation. The summer adjournment will begin when these bills are completed.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In light of the commitment made by the Prime Minister each year since 1967, may I ask the government House leader whether the bill on the limitation and control of election expenses will be presented to parliament during this coming month.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It will be presented. I am not sure whether it can be dealt with completely before the summer adjournment, but it will be presented before that time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps Your Honour might want to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere first.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in answer to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), has stated, if I have it right, that from now until the end of the session, a legislation on election expenses would be introduced according to what had been announced in the speech from the throne.
I realize that he will talk about it, but I would like to know whether the government leader anticipates that this bill can be considered and whether we will be able to pass it before the end of this session, or whether it will be introduced only for consideration during summer?
Business of the House


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order affecting all hon. members. It has to do with the business of the House. According to Standing Order 58(14), as of midnight tonight, all estimates of the House will be deemed to have been passed. The standing order reads:
Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
Today there are 11 standing committees and one special committee of the House meeting, with just a couple of exceptions, for the purpose of examining estimates. For example, four committees met at 9:30 this morning to examine estimates and two at 11 a.m.; four were scheduled to meet at 3:30 p.m. and two are scheduled to meet at 8 p.m. today. It is with regard to the meeting scheduled for 8 p.m. that I base my point of order.
The estimates of Information Canada are to be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. These estimates will be examined for the first time at eight o'clock. That means the members of that committee will have a maximum of four hours to examine the estimates of this very important government agency. In fact, if the House adjourns at 10:30 and the committee adjourns at 10:30 as is the custom, we will have approximately two and one half hours to examine the estimates of Information Canada. I might point out that when the supplementary estimates were before the House, the vote under the heading Information Canada for $19,000 was voted down by a majority vote of the House. This must have indicated to the government there was less than satisfaction in the House with this government agency and the substantial amount of government funds that have been earmarked for expenditure by this agency.
I realize that Your Honour's first reaction will be that no rule of the House is being violated or broken. That is true. However, this is certainly a flagrant violation and abuse of the rules of this House. Members of this House have the responsibility of examining the estimates. Government expenditures amounting to $20 billion have been referred to the standing committees of this House for examination and scrutiny. If committees are meeting simultaneously with the sitting of the House, and that is another argument, my grievance is this: The government should have referred the estimates of Information Canada to the committee before two or four hours prior to the deadline set out in Standing Order 58(14). We can only conclude that the government does not want this agency to receive the kind of scrutiny it certainly warrants under the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: When the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) were being examined by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, we were informed that we could not examine the minister on the Information Canada vote because, for some strange reason yet unknown, the estimates of Information Canada were to be dealt with by another standing committee, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. Consequently, we were denied the oppor-

May 31, 1973
Business of the House
tunity of examining the Minister of Labour on the estimates of Information Canada. The only opportunity that we will have to examine the estimates of this particular agency will be at eight o'clock this evening. This will be our first and our only opportunity, because by midnight tonight, under the Standing Orders of this House, all estimates will be deemed to have passed.
I appeal to Your Honour, as custodian of the rights and privileges of the members of this House, to take this matter under advisement so as to ensure in future that when the government manages the business of the House, especially supply and reference of estimates to standing committees, it takes into account the very specific provisions of Standing Order 58(14) and sees to it that all hon. members are given ample time to examine all of the estimates which are placed before the standing committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council on the same point of order.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, on February 27 last the estimates of Information Canada, along with all the other estimates, were referred to the various standing committees. For three years now, the estimates of Information Canada have been referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. This was certainly the case while I was chairman of that committee over the last four years.
Second, the government does not control those committees. It does not have a majority on those committees. It is the combined opposition that controls those committees by virtue of its controlling vote. The committees make their own decisions as to what departments they call. Each committee has a certain number of hours allocated to it, the total time available divided evenly among them, and it is possible for the committee to use this time as it sees fit. I do not think that the charge that the government has deliberately attempted to hide the estimates of Information Canada is valid, because it is, as I say, the committee that controls its own time and sets its own schedule and agenda.
The last point I want to make is that it was at the behest of the government, and at my insistence as the parliamentary secretary having some responsibility for committees, that the committee decided to hold hearings tonight on Information Canada. According to the chairman of that committee, no indication had been given by members of the opposition that they wished to consider those estimates. They had among themselves made their own decision as to which departments and agencies they wanted to examine. I think if anyone is to be found at fault, it is not the government but the members of the committee, members of all parties in the House. The members of that committee have had no direction from the government in terms of what the committee shall call or what it shall do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The member for Regina-Lake Centre on the same point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that some efforts have been made to schedule committee meetings in such a manner that the situation we have had in the past where a number of committees are sitting at the same time will not occur, and I must say I appreciate those efforts. But what has been happening over the past two weeks in two committees of which I have personal knowledge is that there has been a strange inability on the part of both the government party and the official opposition to assemble a quorum. This occurred just 30 minutes ago when a meeting of the transport and communications committee was cancelled. Only two members were present, the hon. member for Skeena and myself; no one was there from the government and there was no one from the official opposition. Some 30 officials of the Department of Transport were sitting waiting. The same thing happened in the privileges and elections committee. On two occasions, it was unable to meet because of a lack of a quorum. I find it passing strange for a member of this House to complain that we cannot deal with estimates when the fact is that committees cannot get quorums.
I urge the government and the House leaders of all parties to revert to a practice we tried two or three years ago, which was for the House not to sit for a full week while committees met two or three times a day for the entire five day period. A great deal of work was accomplished. I suggest a modification of that practice might be to have the orders of the day question period, and then have House recess until the next day. This procedure could be followed for an entire week. Perhaps a week out of each month over a period of three months should be devoted to committee meetings, and most of the work of hon. members during that week would be on committees. I hope that the committee on privileges and elections will be able to get a quorum tonight.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and also on the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Cochrane is rising on the point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot is rising on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because the committee that I have the honour to Chair has been referred to by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. I think I should point out that it has been standard practice for committees to schedule meetings at 3.30, on the understanding that the committee may meet later than 3.30 if the question period in the House of Commons continues past that point. Today has been a rather unusual day to begin with, and even now the question period is not over, or least we have not reached orders of the day.
I could see trouble arising today at 3.30, since a lengthy question period in the House is still in progress. This is why today, after consultation with the vice-chairman of the committee, the minister and others concerned, we decided that the best thing to do would be to cancel the
May 31, 1973

meeting of the committee. I regret very much that the hon. member was there at 3.30, but the question period was not over at that time. It was not a question of getting a quorum in the committee but rather whether the committee should meet.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I waited for half an hour.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, may I assure the hon. member that as chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts I do not take direction from the government as to the business to be heard. As far as any decision to hear certain departments is concerned, this decision is arrived at through consultations with other party members on that committee. As a matter of fact, there are so many different departments and agencies referred to this committee that it is impossible to examine all their estimates in the course of a year, much less in the time we have been given.
As far as the hearing tonight with regard to Information Canada is concerned, there would not have been an opportunity to examine these estimates at all had it not been for the fact that we disposed of one item of the Secretary of State's department yesterday. This left us with time to examine the estimates of Information Canada, since it happens to be an agency that is important and should be examined. However, there is certainly not time to hear from all departments. I point out to the hon. member for St. John's East that at the present time he is not a member of this committee, so therefore is not in a position to know what has taken place up to now. As I say, it has not been possible to schedule any other meetings to hear from this particular agency.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Egmont on the same point of order.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. With respect to the basic question that was touched on by the hon. member for Cochrane namely the increasingly difficult situation in which we find ourselves each year with very limited time to deal with so many departmental estimates, particularly when government expenditure is increasing every year, would it not be possible for the procedure and organization committee to give this matter some priority of examination in order to introduce a formula that would be a good deal more workable than the present one set out in Standing Order 58(14)?
On a more practical note, I am sorry that the government House leader is not in his place, but earlier he said that he would give consideration to the referral of annual reports to various committees in order that the basic work done by committees of scrutinizing government expenditures and programs could continue. If the government House leader could give us some assurance that these reports would be referred to committees, presumably some of the pressures referred to by hon. members on both sides of the House would be relieved. I think it is important that the House have a much better opportunity to examine the workings of government departments than it has under this present prohibition.
Business of the House


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it seems that a number of factors have emerged all of a sudden. The matter of the Committee of Transport and Communications having a meeting scheduled for 3.30 this afternoon to consider the estimates of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, and other committees having just this last day to consider estimates, brings us to the point that I think we might want to consider altering the Standing Order that demands that the estimates be deemed to have been adopted by the end of May. We might want to provide additional time to do this cleanup work and also to do a very much better job of considering the estimates. If we do not move in that direction ourselves, we shall be open to some rather serious charges of completely disregarding the expenditure of public funds.
I am not referring only to the Committee on Transport and Communications, but that is the one of which I am a member and in respect of which I am particularly concerned. I wonder if I might put forward the suggestion, not to seek consent to it now, but so that the House leaders might discuss it and come back later today with agreement on a course of action. I suggest that Standing Order 58(14), the one in question, be amended for this session so that instead of today, May 31, being the time when estimates are extracted from these committees automatically, whether they have been considered or not, we extend the time to June 15. This procedure would give the committees another couple of weeks to do a proper and thorough job of considering all those estimates with which they have so far not dealt. Perhaps that might get us out of a very awkward situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, now that the government House leader-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let me say to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), in view of my ruling in respect of other hon. members wishing to speak on this point of order, he may not speak now. Hon. members are allowed to make one contribution and that is all. I regret to have to take that action.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was merely rising to invite the government House leader to respond to my suggestion, in view of his earlier indication that he would consider the proposal to refer the annual reports, in order that we might clear this impasse and make the work of the committees more effective.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the point raised earlier, by the Leader of the Opposition, as to whether there would be some arrangement or extension in respect of a particular committee, namely the Standing Committee on Regional Development, that committee has reported and has completed its study of the estimates. It was in respect of that committee I had promised consideration.


James Aloysius McGrath: What about the motion?

May 31, 1973
Official Languages


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is not a motion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, he did not put it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 58(14) states:
In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
Several hon. members have taken that Standing Order to mean that at the expiry of today the estimates of any particular department, more particularly the ones to which the hon. members refer, shall be deemed to have been passed by the House of Commons. This is not so. The relevant words are "shall be deemed to have reported". It is open to hon. members, at a later stage in this session, to challenge the particular estimates they wish to have challenged. I think the Chair might also say that hon. members are anticipating what may happen this evening when a meeting has been called to consider the estimates of a particular department or division of government. That is something I think the House cannot do. The estimates have been referred to the committees and until these come back, either as a result of the provisions of the Standing Order I have mentioned or in some other way, we should not interfere.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to determine whether or not there would be unanimous consent to the proposal I put forward earlier, namely, that the Standing Order be altered so that June 15 becomes the deadline, without proposing that there be any debate on it.


An hon. Member:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The Liberals say no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That this House,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition 
and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following Principles for achieving the foregoing:
(1)	that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will pe first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;
(3)	that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
(4)	that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal Public Service, will be entitled to apply for any job that has been identified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willingness to become bilingual;
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the Public Service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
(9)	that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the Public Service to bilingual positions;
do further approve the Government of Canda, and, in particular, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned Principles; and
(ii) do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the Public Service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French Language Units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the Governments of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual character of the National Capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the Public Service by members of both the anglophone and the francophone communities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne indicated that our government would ask Parliament to "confirm the basic principles of our program for bilingualism in the public service. The resolution now before this House sets out those principles, together with further measures to achieve greater use of the French language in the public service.
Since we must this session deal with quite a few national concerns, I am sure hon. members will allow me a few moments to relate today's resolution, and the govern-
May 31, 1973

ment's official languages policy, to other major legislation proposed in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, in one way or another, every government since Confederation has sought to enhance national unity in Canada: to remove the irritants which divide us, while strengthening the many links which join us. Like many of its predecessors, this government understands that national unity is not to be found in an immutable formula chiselled in stone. The quest for Canadian unity is not frozen for all time in any one track or single direction. The pace of modern change is too rapid for that; our country is too large and diverse for that.
In Canada we have two official languages; a number of proud provinces and regions; many thriving cultures. All of us rejoice in our diverse identities, and are vigorously determined to retain them. Hence, achieving national unity will depend on meeting different priorities in different areas. Our challenge is that it now depends on meeting many of them at the same time.
The throne speech has proposed measures to improve urban life, and to widen opportunities for western Canadians; to deal with many economic and regional expansion problems; and with what some call "the language problem". They are all on our agenda for this session; we will deal with them all with equal vigour. For as we well know, if the essential needs of any major group or region are consistently ignored, in the long run there may not be a Canada for any of us.
Mr. Speaker, in relation to national unity, today's resolution has an extra dimension because it concerns the Public Service of Canada. Our public service develops and applies the whole range of federal policies affecting the lives of all Canadians. This puts it in constant touch with the people, in intimate contact with their everyday concerns. The public service must be acutely sensitive to the needs of Canadians, so Canadians will feel it is their public service; and so the public servant will feel himself involved with the whole.
The policy of the government is to attract the most capable and competent people to our public service. We cannot do this, and the Public service cannot adequately serve all Canadians, unless it is increasingly representative of the two language groups.
Why do we have two official languages in Canada? In my opinion, not primarily because of any historical founding rights, though they are important to many people. Not, certainly, because those two particular languages are superior to any other. We are not dealing with historical abstractions or cultural preferences. We are dealing with straightforward political and social realities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And a stark reality of our country is this: there are about 16 million English-speaking Canadians, most of whom speak no French. There are about 6 million French-speaking Canadians, a majority of whom speak no English. If only because of sheer force of numbers, either group has the power to destroy the unity of this country.
Official Languages
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker: two numerically dominant language groups, both of them prevalently unilingual. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) reminded us last December:
These facts leave Canada with only one choice, only one realistic policy: to guarantee the language rights of both linguistic communities. They are the facts which have dictated the government's bilingualism policies, and the principles which must apply in their application in the public service.
Mr. Speaker, this concern with the two official languages is a very old one here in parliament. My right hon. friend from Prince Albert has cited this himself. So perhaps he will remember how vigourously John A. Macdonald denounced any attempt-in Macdonald's words- "to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other." "I believe", said Macdonald, "that would be impossible if it were tried-and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible". Impossible, of course, because neither the French nor the English-speaking Canadian is going to throw himself, or his language, into the sea. Foolish and wicked, because to make one language inferior to the other, even by default, would implant a core of implacable dissatisfaction at the heart of our country.
You know, many of us take language pretty much for granted, much like breathing. But that is exactly why limiting a person's use of his language can cause in him such a trauma, because you are interfering with something almost as basic as breathing. The Pearson government accurately stated a number of years ago that:
.. . language is at once the extension of the individual personality, and an indispensable tool of social organization: fail to recognize the linguistic rights of either French or English-speaking Canadians, and their will to preserve Canada will be seriously weakened, if not destroyed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for more than a century now many French-speaking Canadians have been saying, "That government in Ottawa, that's not my government . .. Why, it doesn't even speak my language". That is the kind of frustation that fed separatism. So the federal government finally said to the people of Quebec, "Look, keep faith in Canada. Things can be changed. We'll implement the B and B report, and bring in the Official Languages Act. We'll get the public service people to look over their recruitment and personnel policies".
"We'll get Ottawa and Hull, with Queen's Park and the people in Quebec City a bit enthusiastic about making the capital more bilingual, a more open city, a more national capital. Because Quebeckers have to feel at home in all of Canada; and certainly in our federal government."
Now, so far the people of Quebec have kept the faith. They rejected separatism when it was raised as an issue in the elections of 1968, 1970 and 1972. But the federal government must keep the faith too. All of us, working together, have got to show once and for all Ottawa can speak in the French language and can reflect the values of French as well as English-speaking Canada. This we must do, because we want to stay together as one Canada. Thanks to all parties in this House, we have our basic tool, the Official Languages Act. But we always have to ensure we are using it in the very best way we can. And that is part of what today's resolution is all about.

May 31, 1973
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, let me explain quite clearly the major reasons for this resolution. Some have asked: "Why is Parliament being asked to debate? Why is Parliament being asked to vote on it?" Others even say, "Why did the government even bother drafting it? Isn't all of this already in the Official Languages Act?"
Well, I will agree on one point. Nothing in today's resolution deviates from the spirit or letter of the act. But, we are not debating the act; we are debating the public service official languages program. It was criticized and it caused uneasiness on the part of public servants because of the way in which it was applied or allegedly applied. That is why we want this Parliament to know the way in which we want to apply it. That is why we want the public service to know what the guidelines are and that is why the unions in the public service have been also consulted on this. The program itself has evolved remarkably in the past four years. More than almost any other recent measure I can think of it has required constant adjustment, constant improvisation and constant experimentation. After all, what we are doing in our public service has never been done before, at least not in Canada. All of us, the government and treasury board, the Public Service Commission and staff associations, have had to take a chance on the methods we thought best. And we have had to be willing to refine and even change some of our techniques and to try new ones in the light of our experience.
I am happy to say that we recently reached something of a watershed in this rather hectic effort. The results have been evaluated. And the new guidelines we promised last September, well before the result of October 30, are now embodied in a firm set of principles-that is the first part of today's resolution-and in further concrete measures- that is the second part-which we expect to pursue with consistency for some time to come. Hence today's resolution presents to this House several new, basic developments in the way we are implementing the public service languages program. Every part of the resolution carries the full support of the staff associations, and was developed in full consultation with them. I was certain that the House would want this opportunity to express its opinions as well. After all, all parties in the House support the goals of the Official Languages Act. Along with the government, the Public Service Commission and staff associations, the House is a full partner in this vital enterprise.
There is another reason for bringing forward this resolution. The government's language policies are intended to benefit all Canadians. But it is primarily our public servants who have to live, in a very personal sense, at the cutting edge of this fundamental change; who have to bear much of the burden for us all. We owed it to them to spell out more precisely, as soon as we could, the specific conditions of the program. To do so has been a primary purpose of this resolution.
During the past few years, I have felt a great deal of sympathy for any men and women in the public service who at any time may have felt personally threatened. I also understand the concern of public service candidates who want to know more precisely whether a second language will be required of them in a few years time.

Today's resolution should help clear the air, certainly not by slackening the pace of our program but by making both the requirements and guarantees far more tangible, concise and precise than before. In this sense, the resolution is a matter of simple fairness to those most directly involved. It can help ensure that a vital instrument of national unity, the Official Languages Act, shall not become a tool of disunity.
My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), will be explaining in some detail both the principles embodied in the resolution and the guidelines which flow from them. In the near future, I hope that he and I may also meet with the senior officials of the federal public service to discuss with them the substance of this resolution and to ensure an understanding of the objectives involved. I can think of no area where understanding and co-operation at all levels of the public service are more important.
There are just a few important points I should like to make now. English speaking Canadians often forget that a majority of French speaking Canadians are not bilingual-they too are unilingual. An Anglophone takes it for granted that he can work in the public service of his country, in his national capital, using his own language. A Francophone cannot. That is obviously unfair and must be changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But let us also remember this; We do not repair one man's house by removing the bricks from his neighbour's. Hence, I am speaking of both Francophones and Anglophones when I state my determination that our language policy must never be a barrier to any Canadian wanting to work in the federal public service.
[ Translation]
If Canada's public service is to offer real equality of opportunity, as many public servants as possible must be able to work in their own language. It was certainly never the policy of the government that most public servants need to become bilingual to enjoy satisfying careers. On the contrary, our intention is to enable most of them to remain unilingual if they so desire.
Obviously, this will not be possible unless they can communicate in their own language with their supervisors, and with their central departmental services; the reference library, let us say, or the personnel branch. Which means a certain number of central service and supervisory positions (as well as some of those dealing with the public) will have to be held by bilingual men and women.
There are more than 250,000 public service positions in all of Canada. We estimate that about 25,000 of these must be held by bilingual officials to permit most other public servants to work in their own language. (I'm told that something like half of the 25,000 posts already are filled by bilingual persons.) By designating just these specific positions, I think we've found the best, least disruptive way to enable Canadians to work for the public service in the official language of their choice and to ensure that the federal government can serve every Canadian in his own language.
May 31, 1973

f English]
To summarize, we do not seek a public service in which most men and women are individually bilingual. This approach would obviously be the wrong one since the vast majority of Canadians do not speak two official languages. Rather, we wish to create a public service that is functionally bilingual-that is one in which most men and women will be able to work, to function, in whichever official language they choose.
Let me assure the House that we have not the slightest intention or desire ever to impose a second official language on any Canadian who does not wish to speak one. While the phrase may sound a bit awkward, there is really nothing mysterious or frightening about what we call "functional bilingualism". It will not take anything away from anyone. It will give something very desirable to all of us, to the Canadian speaking only English and to the Canadian speaking only French. It will give us a public service in which all of us can work in the language that comes most naturally to us as individual men and women, a public service from which all of us can obtain essential government services in our own language. Is that bad? Is it a policy to make any of us fearful? I do not think so, and that is why I commend this resolution to every member of this House and to all the Canadian people.
As the resolution recognizes, most Canadians have not had a need or an opportunity to learn both official languages. With this in mind, the government proposes that those who are unilingual, as well as those who are already bilingual, be able to compete as equals for any bilingual position open to public competition. They can do so on the understanding that, should a unilingual candidate be selected for a bilingual post, he or she will take up to a year of language training-at public expense-to develop whatever degree of second language proficiency is required. This measure is for the benefit of both unilingual English speaking and unilingual French speaking Canadians, and will apply to them of course without distinction.
The principles embodied in today's resolution also deal with those already working for the government. In this 1966 statement which established the government's basic position on bilingualism in the public service, prime minister Pearson promised that the careers of unilingual public servants:
. . . who have devoted many years of their lives to the service of their country must not be prejudiced in any way by measures to develop bilingualism.
From the outset, our language policy has been elaborated within that spirit. I am aware, however, that many doubts have arisen among unilingual public servants in part because the 1966 promise was general in nature.
In contrast, today's resolution is quite specific. It states that unilingual public servants will be given at least one year's notice of the bilingual designation of their posts. They will have an opportunity to take language training- also at public expense-or to transfer to a unilingual position at no loss of salary.
What if someone should decline language training or be unsuccessful at it, and also refuse a transfer? If all that befalls, him, he may remain in his post if he wishes to and we will make administrative arrangements to ensure that
Official Languages
the bilingual needs of his office are met. In other words, no public servant will be removed from his position by virtue of our implementation of the principles. We wish to provide an extra measure of protection for public servants who had ten years of continuous service as of the date of Mr. Pearson's statement, April 6, 1966, and who have been continuously employed in the public service since that time. Even though they are unilingual and wish to remain unilingual they will have the right to apply for positions identified as bilingual, but not yet formally designated as bilingual.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have described in some detail the safeguards we are providing to protect the interests of unilingual public servants. These safeguards will apply to both English and French-speaking public servants, but in terms of numbers will most help the English-speaking group. Now let me turn more specifically to the primary interest of French-speaking Canadians: Are public service careers becoming available to them on the basis of equality? I know that some people-pointing to the targets previously set for 1975, and the new deadline of 1978-have charged that today's resolution represents a retreat from our objectives, or a delay in implementation of our policies. This is simply not the case. On the contrary, we cannot meet our new objectives for 1978 unless, at a minimum, we meet the targets previously set for 1975. The President of the Treasury Board will explain this question in detail. I would like at this time only to impress one crucial point upon this House:
I do not regard the achievement of a functionally bilingual public service as a vague and distant desideratum. I regard it as a very concrete matter; I regard it as having immediate importance to the well-being of our country as a whole-and of millions of our citizens as individuals.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we would be blind not to recognize that many French-speaking Canadians still do not regard the federal Public Service as "theirs". That many of them feel the federal government "belongs to the anglophone", because it still largely speaks in English, and works in English. With the cooperation and goodwill of our public servants, we have already made a certain amount of progress towards changing this situation. Now we must call upon ourselves to do more.
That is why the second part of today's resolution refers to specific measures to increase the use of French in the public service, and to enhance public service career opportunities for French-speaking Canadians. Where appropriate, we are increasing the number of French Language Units. We are undertaking further measures to increase recruitment of francophones. So that these recruits may compete as equals for promotion within the public service, we are increasing the number of professional training programs offered in French. And we will seek progressively more effective action, in consultation with provincial and municipal authorities, to enhance the bilingual character of the National Capital Region.
For just a moment, let me also recall that the first part- the "basic principles"-of the resolution are of at least equal importance from the point of view of a unilingual

May 31, 1973
Official Languages
francophone. Their importance to him is this: our good intentions, our efforts to create a functionally bilingual working atmosphere, have now crystallized as a precise and systematic program to identify-by December 31st of this year-and to fill-by 1978-the key positions with bilingual public servants. To assist in this end, we are augmenting second-language training facilities for federal public servants.
I have just one additional note. It may be of special interest to the francophones who have contributed so much to our federal cultural agencies, and are beginning to contribute much more than in the past to the commercial, scientific and technical ones. I am writing to the heads of the federal agencies, to inform them that the government anticipates their personnel policies will take full account of these measures to enhance the use of French. (Along, of course, with the entitlements and safeguards which I described earlier.)
Mr. Speaker, I would humbly express the wish that comparable measures will apply everywhere on Parliament Hill as regards both Houses, the House of Commons and its services and the Senate. I also will draw the resolution to the attention of the presidents of corporations such as Air Canada and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying, in a fair and just way, to create a public service increasingly based on a true partnership of the anglophone and francophone communities. We are trying to widen the opportunities for public service for all Canadians who may wish to serve. But we are today discussing only one aspect of the Official Languages Act. It must be remembered that that Act also covers such matters as provision to the public of services in both official languages by the federal courts and crown corporations; the use of the two languages in Parliament; and the appointment of a Commissioner for Official Languages.
That Act and today's resolution make sense only if we agree on the kind of Canada we want: A Canada where French and English-speaking Canadians feel at home in all parts of the country; a Canada where all citizens treasure the privilege and challenge of building one nation with two official languages, and many cultures.

Mr. Speaker, language policy is not an idee fixe with this government; it is one of the means toward our two pre-eminent goals, national unity, and equality of opportunity. To a Quebecker a more desirable Canada may vitally depend on respect for language rights. To a westerner more interest may currently attach to whether this government and their own provincial premiers make real progress at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. In many parts of the country millions of Canadians will judge their government less by the language it speaks than by whether it provides equity and compassion in our social welfare system, or new ideas and resources to help keep urban life liveable and urban government workable.
Can all these needs be understood and tackled together, Mr. Speaker? I think they can, because while in Canada we may often have different priorities, we respect each other and want to live together as a nation. Canadians also realize that your well being or mine cannot be purchased

at the expense of our neighbour's. Hence today's resolution is one essential in a complex of programs and objectives to foster unity and equality for all in this country. Today's resolution is a clear option for the kind of Canada we want. I commend it to all hon. members of this House, and indeed to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
e (1700)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk)-Broadcasting- Sale of radio station CKSB, Winnipeg, to CBC-Action to set aside Canadian Radio-Television Commission decision; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather)- Energy-Proposed West Coast oil tanker route-Alleged lack of departmental co-ordination of opposition; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Canada Pension Plan-Hutterian Brethren of Canada-Request for exemption from paying premiums.
It now being five o'clock, we will proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier when tabling the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that I would be seeking the consent of the House to revert to presenting reports of standing and special committees to present the fifth report of that committee if hon. members are agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House should return to the order, "presenting reports" so that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) may present his report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Alexander Jerome: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. If the House gives consent, I intend to move immediately for concurrence in that report.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The Clerk Assistant (Administrative and Procedural) read the report as follows:]
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has the honour to present its fifth report.
Your Committee recommends that its membership be increased by adding thereto the following names: Messrs. Beaudoin, Fox, Howard, Lawrence, Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands), Messrs. O'Connor, Olivier and Prud'homme, and that the provisions of Standing Order 65(1) (i) relating thereto be suspended, so that two sub-committees may be formed to begin investigation into the administration of the penitentiary system while the Committee proceeds with consideration of proposed legislation now referred to it, that the quorum of the committee be set at ten members and that the provisions of Standing Order 65(6) relating thereto be suspended.
Your committee further recommends that the said sub-committees be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada, accompanied by the necessary supporting staff, for the purpose of visiting penitentiaries.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (Issues Nos. 11 and 12) is tabled.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES JEROME, Chairman.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the presentation of the report. It would now be a matter of moving that it be adopted. I take it that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is so moving, seconded by Mr. Drury-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would prevail upon the Chairman of the committee to allow us to look at a certain part of the report overnight before we move concurrence in it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If there is not unanimous consent, then concurrence in the report cannot be moved now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to be difficult with my good friend the Chairman of the committee, but I would like to look at that part of the report which requires travel from place to place in Canada. If the rest of the report could be adopted but that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that there is not unanimous consent. We will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business. The first order of business would be notices of motions for papers.
Regional Economic Expansion


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the signed agreement and all other documents relating to the offer of a guaranteed loan made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Parc Samuel Holland Hotel of Quebec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for seconding my motion. It shows once more that this Parliament is the assembly of the nation. Notwithstanding political parties, whenever the public good is concerned, we agree.
The object of the motion of which I am the sponsor is to have an order directing the executive to produce, in this House, which is the supreme authority in this country, the documents specifically concerning the signed agreement between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, of the first part, and the management of the Parc Samuel Holland Hotel of Quebec, of the second part.
I really cannot understand why the government appears reluctant to reply to information requests made by hon. members, according to the Standing Orders of the House.
Logically, it seems to me that hon. members' privileges should be taken into account by the executive. The credits that the ministers are authorized to spend are voted by Parliament, therefore by the members. The legislation authorizing the expenditure of public funds is also voted by the members.
Why deny them this right of looking into the use of funds they have voted to such or such department? I know that in general, the civil service decides whether this or that plan submitted under an act must be accepted or rejected. I understand that the minister cannot do everything by himself, however he is responsible before Parliament and if he refuses to answer requests for information coming from the members of this House, how can these members be informed and play their role of supervising?
The motion being considered is to the effect that the House orders the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) to table a document that would allow us to verify whether the act governing this department has been complied with.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is one of the most important in the federal administration; we need only look at the budget to be convinced of this. Moreover, we know that the former minister of this department has been the target of many criticisms. Were they all warranted? I hope not.
To remedy the concerns and the numerous requests for information with which the members are flooded, the executive power would have to be more flexible and generous toward information requests coming from hon. members. The work of parliamentarians becomes more demanding and more tiresome. News bulletins and comments by so-called experts are coming from everywhere. Men and women in public life have fewer chances than

May 31, 1973
Regional Economic Expansion before of thinking about complex questions before making a judgment.
It has become an art to follow the events so as to give valid opinions on vital issues for the electorate as for its representatives. Those who asked questions expect quick and wise answers on the part of Parliament members on many subjects which concern the community, such as fiscal matters, economic matters which are becoming more and more disturbing and also on local topics which are increasing in number and difficulty.
Specifically, we have people asking why a co-operative flour-mill which contributes to provide jobs and boost the economic growth of an area cannot benefit from DREE grants to upgrade its equipment and offer new products to the public when a hotel such as the one mentioned in the motion can benefit from the act. Are products or services offered to the public more useful than those of a co-operative flour-mill?
Why can that same department financially help a business and not another? People will say that the act is the governing criterion. There are also regulations edicted under the act but they are made by officials and not members of parliament; that procedure is a deficiency which prevents members of parliament from fulfilling their role to the fullest extent.
A parliamentarian often needs information on delicate questions-perhaps a problem or a grievance from one of his constituents-and the department may be reluctant or give an inadequate answer because of restrictive rules.
A real or imaginary barrier may stand between departments and members of the opposition in the sense that the public service is at the government's disposal. That is why members will feel sometimes that an official is trying to avoid or escape certain questions because he thinks that the subject is politically touchy. Personally, I have that problem mainly with the Department of Manpower and Immigration which is in charge of the Local Initiatives Program.
I know that as far as the motion is concerned I will be told that those documents are of a confidential nature and that the department has no choice but to refuse the information requested. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, one could rightly say that all reports from individuals and companies to the government are of a confidential nature.
I also want to say that the remarks found in the report of the auditor general relating to the use of public funds are quite fair, and the government should draw inspiration from them.
I should like to quote from the notes on the report of the auditor general a passage that appears to me to be very fair, which somewhat supports the motion through which I request the tabling of certain documents, in order to be in a position to control, in accordance with our parliamentary duties, expenditures and appropriations of public funds. I am referring to paragraph 195, on page 26, which states;
Weakening of parliamentary control over expenditure through failure to disclose the total cost of a project. Canada has undertaken to contribute $6 million toward the cost of building a provincial

ferry with ice-breaking capabilities of which $3 million was paid by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion during the year and $3 million is to be paid by the Department of Transport in 1972-73. When contributions to a single project are divided between the appropriations of more than one department, the full extent of the related cost-
-to a given department-
-is not adequately disclosed, thereby contributing to the weakening of parliamentary control over expenditure.
And further on, it says;
196	Irregular charges to Regional Economic Expansion appropriation. Charges of $694,000 with respect to the projects mentioned in this paragraph were irregular as they came within the programs of other departments for which specific appropriations had been provided by Parliament.
A third point was raised by the auditor general concerning the same department, and I quote;
197	Irregular payment of a development incentive grant. The grant, of which $442,000 out of a possible $570,000 had been paid, relates to the takeover without interruption of the operation of a completely organized manufacturing firm which was in commercial production. It is difficult to understand how the acquisition of a functioning facility can be construed as being the establishment of a new facility as contemplated by the Regional Development Incentives Act.
The fourth point-the last I shall quote-will prove once more that we are justified in availing ourselves of the Standing Orders to present a motion for production of papers.
198	Grant made under Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act. Grant of $33,500 paid to company notwithstanding the fact that an investigation showed that company equity was negative and the operation was not viable.
This will be my last quotation. I merely wanted to bring to the attention of the House the merits of my motion and I hereby invite hon. members to adopt it unanimously, so that the documents may be produced.
Mr. Speaker, this is not only out of curiosity, but to fulfil our duties as parliamentarians. If, as I said earlier, we authorize credits, we have the right and the responsibility to find out how things are done and the money administered.
Therefore, if an hon. member is entitled pursuant to Standing Orders to submit a motion to compel the government to produce documents, I hope this is no laughing matter and that this motion will be unanimously carried.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your recognition of me. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) stood up at the same time I did. I am sure I will leave plenty of time to enable the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie to put his remarks on the record.
The notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) that we are discussing this afternoon reads:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the signed agreement and all other documents relating to the offer of a guaranteed loan made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Parc Samuel Holland Hotel of Quebec.
I think the basic reason that I, personally, would oppose this motion is that we are trying to get new industries
May 31, 1973

established in the designated areas of Canada. In this case, the industry happens to be a hotel. We are striving to get new businesses into these areas so that they will provide more jobs. It is basic that when people apply for grants or, in this case, a guaranteed loan, they do so because they want to do business with the government. They have to file very detailed information as to their long-term projections and show what their assets and liabilities are. If this information is to be made public, those companies will not bother applying. For every one application that is granted, many, many are never granted. If we want these companies to apply for this assistance, I suggest they have every right to be dealt with confidentially.
In this connection I wish to quote from page 5 of the March issue of "Report on Regional Development Incentives":
In conclusion, it should be noted that applications for incentive assistance and supporting documentation contain a large amount of information that must be regarded as commercially confidential. It is for this reason that, as a matter of policy, the Department is unable to make public certain types of data. It is for the same reason that the Department does not reveal the fact that a particular application has been received unless and until it results in an accepted offer of incentive assistance. This policy is, of course, consistent with the aims and objectives of the program, which is designed to encourage investment in the designated regions and special areas of Canada.
Many of the things to which the hon. member referred were discussed in great detail by the Regional Development Committee yesterday when it visited Sudbury, at which time various groups from all over northeastern Ontario were heard. One area in which we should be doing more is that of loan guarantees and assistance of various types to those engaged in the tourist industry. Northeastern Ontario, like many other areas of Canada that have been designated, has tremendous tourist potential. Under the federal regional economic expansion program, not much assistance is granted to those engaged in the tourist industry. The loan guarantee is one part of the regional economic expansion program which applies directly to the tourist industry.
When this matter was before the House two or three years ago, it was pointed out that the main reason for establishing the loan guarantee was that often the resort operator had only 20 per cent of the capital required. If he were establishing a manufacturing or processing plant, he would perhaps receive a grant from the federal government of another 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the capital required. However, in a slow growth area, it was often difficult to raise the additional capital needed to finance the project. Therefore, the loan guarantee was introduced so that the entrepreneur would be able to go to the bank or some other lending institution to borrow the money and the government would guarantee the loan. There has not been a large number of loan guarantees approved. Perhaps there is a need to improve this program because it is not being utilized nearly as much as the Regional Development Incentives Act.
The hon. member also mentioned the hotel type of operation which received assistance through the Industrial Development Bank. I was pleased to note that, according to the Speech from the Throne, the Minister of Finance
Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Turner) will be introducing amendments to the Industrial Development Bank Act later this session to make it more flexible. The bank has made a lot of progress in securing new business.
Some of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Regional Development in Sudbury yesterday indicated that they were much more aggressive and were doing a better job of getting new business. This does not deny the fact that the interest rates continue to be high. Although the interest rates are higher than those charged on loans from the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, there is still a great deal of money made available to the tourist industry and hotel chains through the Industrial Development Bank.
Another agency in which the federal government is involved is ARDA. It does not make loans directly to those engaged in the tourist industry, but does make grants to communities for the development of tourist facilities. I understand the smallest loan on which a guarantee is given is $250,000. This seems rather high. Perhaps if it were lower, more businesses could take advantage of it.
When speaking on this subject some time ago, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) argued that such loan guarantees should be available to the operators of smaller hotels. All hon. members are aware of inflation and increased costs. Possibly you could not build much of a hotel for $250,000, but this limit still seems high. The hon. member for Compton also suggested that the assistance should only be available to Canadian owners of hotels. Of the two examples cited, I understand that one hotel is owned by a company in Quebec and the other in Winnipeg is Canadian owned as well.
I wish to refer to the criteria upon which the government bases a decision to produce papers because it gives a guide to the type of information which is available to Members of Parliament. This document was appended to Hansard for March 15. The general principle set out in the document is as follows:
To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistent with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.
Exemptions
The following criteria are to be applied in determining if government papers or documents should be exempt from production:
1. Legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the government.
This should be self-evident. Sometimes a government gets more than one legal opinion. To reveal this information ahead of time, especially if the government were involved in a litigation with a company or individual, would certainly prejudice the position of the government. The second criterion reads:
Papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the State.
This obviously refers to matters of national security, such as police information, RCMP information and so on. The third criterion is as follows:
4310

May 31, 1973
Regional Economic Expansion
Papers dealing with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations; (the release of papers received from other countries to be subject to the consent of the originating country).
If members were given access to private papers and reports concerning other countries, the effect on our international relations could be detrimental. The fourth item reads;
Papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces inter se; (the release of papers received from provinces to be subject to the consent of the originating province).
With the tremendously complex maze of federal-provincial and interprovincial papers, it is evident that if the federal government were to release these, there would be great difficulty in the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments. The fifth item is as follows:
Papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons.
I believe this item in the criteria relates directly to the inquiry today by the hon. member for Bellechasse. If companies apply for this kind of assistance and their complete financial picture is released to the public, these companies, having given the government the information privately and confidentially, would very soon cease to have any faith in doing business with the government or at least in giving factual information to the government. Then No. 6:
Papers reflecting on the personal competence or character of an individual.
I shall not go into that; I am sure most members appreciate its significance. The criteria continue:
7.	Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare.
Many of the questions put on the order paper require a tremendous amount of information-collecting. For instance, the government might have to ascertain how much of any particular item it has in its stores. Therefore, it seems to me it would be unreasonable to expect the government to go to all the expense of gathering and collecting such information.
8.	Papers relating to the business of the Senate.
I understand we do not even refer to the Senate as such but, rather, refer to "the other place". If we start to release information through the government and the House of Commons relating to the Senate, we will change the relationship that has traditionally existed between this House and the other place.
9.	Papers, the release of which would be personally embarrassing to Her Majesty or the royal family or official representatives of Her Majesty.
10.	Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded.
Likewise, this relates to the sort of situation we are debating this afternoon, a loan guarantee given to a company which has provided the government with confiden-

tial information. Because of that trust, this information should not be released to the general public.
11.	Papers that are excluded from disclosure by statute.
For example, those covered by the Official Secrets Act.
12.	Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence.
13.	Any proceedings before a court of justice or a judicial inquiry of any sort.
14.	Papers that are private or confidential and not of a public or official character.
15.	Internal departmental memoranda.
16.	Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.
Similarly, I believe this latter item applies to the subject matter of the motion we are debating this afternoon asking for a House order to release information. I think this particular criterion has been applied to the release of documents. The motion presented by the hon. member this afternoon makes it clear that these papers do not fall within the category of those that can be released. The committee held hearings yesterday in Sudbury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I might say it was a very successful meeting and was devoted entirely to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Some consideration was given to the loan guarantee program and to other programs. A great deal of concern was expressed about the need for decentralizing the department and for having field officers able to assist applicants applying for a small loan guarantee or regional development grant directly, thus eliminating the expense entailed by engaging consultants and accountants. I believe there was unanimity among the committee members that this kind of assistance should be made available especially to people in the more remote areas. For the large corporation, decentralization perhaps is not so necessary since they have people on staff to handle detailed information and a trip to Ottawa to consult officials is not all that onerous.
We met many groups from various cities in northeastern Ontario and they, likewise, supported the idea of decentralizing this department. One group was from the Spanish River Indian Reserve and was represented by Chief Wilfrid Owl who made a presentation on behalf of his band and the 26 bands he represented in northeastern Ontario. Their experience with the loan guarantee program and the Regional Development Incentives Act has not been particularly favourable. They have received some assistance through the ARDA program as well as the Indian economic development fund, but the assistance received directly from the loan guarantee program and RDIA has been exceedingly limited.
In spite of the lack of direct liaison with the department, considerable progress has been made. The chief outlined the leathercrafts, woodcrafts and other development programs that have been financed through the department and the Indian economic development fund, including assistance to the forest products industry, small sawmill operations and pulp-cutting operations that are being carried out on his reserve. He indicated that the same kind of program has been implemented on other reserves in northeastern Ontario. Similarly with the ARDA program; he
May 31, 1973

indicated the kind of assistance that had been given to that part of Ontario. I see you are moving to your feet, Mr. Speaker, so I shall resume my seat and let the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the next speaker in this debate, perhaps I should point out that by one of those coincidences that comes along once in every two lifetimes, the mover and the seconder of this motion both happen to have names the same as other members of the House. The hon. member who seconded the motion under discussion is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you for that favourable mention, Mr. Speaker.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on his attempt to talk out the bill. He did an excellent job, although I do not share his sentiment that the bill should be talked out.
I also congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on his motion. It is important that we try to get information from this government, especially the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I find myself a bit more fortunate than the hon. member for Bellechasse in that I have in my possession a confidential document which I received just a few days ago, prepared by a study group of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which examined northern Ontario. The study group produced a report entitled "The Ontario Regional Review". I think it contains some very important information which the committee on regional development should have had before it. I see there are a number of members of that committee in the House and I would be most happy to give them a copy of the report when I have concluded my remarks.
We in northern Ontario feel great sympathy for those in the Maritimes because, like the Maritimes and parts of Quebec and western Canada, we are an underdeveloped area. In northern Ontario, in the ten years from 1961 to 1971 employment rose by only 18 per cent, compared with a 47 per cent increase in Ontario and 43 per cent in the rest of Canada. The per capita income slipped from the equivalent of the Canadian average in 1961 to only 93 per cent of the national average in 1969. Chronic unemployment is one of our problems. Young people graduating from school not being able to find jobs and having to move to southern Ontario is another problem we face.
This report by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion highlights these very important problems and I should like to read some of its more important parts to the House. After examining the four years of operation of DREE, the report states:
In summary, northern Ontario occupies about the same relative position in the Canadian economy as it did four years ago when the region was first designated. It remains isolated from the mainstream of economic activity in the remainder of the province. As a slow-gro' vth region its problems are akin to those in the west and to some extent the Maritimes.
Regional Economic Expansion
In another part of the report it is stated:
The growth prospects of the region must be viewed as mixed at best. While increases in output may be realized in the traditional sectors (i.e. mining, forestry, and related manufacturing) the employment gains will be relatively small and will certainly fall well short of the over-all job requirements for the region as specified by the Ontario government. The single-industry towns will continue to decline and the possibility of resource depletion- especially of minerals-creates some uncertainty regarding the longer term growth prospects of the region.
The report mentions specific problems in northern Ontario as follows:
Even the largest centres in the region have moved only slightly beyond their resource-based origins. Related to this are such infrastructure problems as the lack of adequate housing, inadequate sewage facilities and the lack of fully serviced industrial land. Third, remoteness from the major markets of North America results in higher transportation costs relative to, for example, the Toronto-centred region.
The report goes on to describe the DREE program in northern Ontario in these words:
In northern Ontario incentives amounting to $31 million have been accepted by 57 firms. These firms are expected to create about 4,000 jobs with a capital investment of approximately $200 million.
You will note that it is expected, not guaranteed. The report continues:
Two projects have been dominant in the over-all distribution of incentives in northern Ontario. Of the $31 million in total incentives, Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie has accepted $12 million and Eckstall Mining in Hoyle township just east of Timmins has accepted $8 million. Thus $20 million has been committed to two projects; the remaining $11 million is spread among 55 firms.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has a question, if the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) agrees. The Chair will then present its own question to the hon. member.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the grant made to the Algoma Steel Corporation and seemed to be in opposition to that grant. I was wondering whether he in fact believes that the grant made by the department to the Algoma Steel Corporation was a good one.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the point being brought out in the report is that the majority of the grants made in northern Ontario have gone to two firms, one at Sault Ste. Marie and one at Timmins. As a result, the money spread among the other areas of northern Ontario has been rather thin.
The whole point of the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse is that if we had access to this government's information, the study by the regional development committee could be of immense importance. When we went to Sudbury yesterday and heard the briefs from municipalities, organizations and individuals, this was the kind of problem brought forward. DREE had done studies, yet the local people have not had access to them in order to take advantage of them and develop programs and policies for northern Ontario. As a result, when we look at the situation in northern Ontario we find that the helter-skelter approach by the department has not solved our problems. We need a co-ordinated and over-all plan for this area.
26314-55J

May 31, 1973
Regional Economic Expansion


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the hon. member continues, perhaps the Chair might say it is in some difficulty in that the motion before the House reads:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of the signed agreement and all other documents relating to the offer of a guaranteed loan made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the Parc Samuel Holland Hotel of Quebec.
It seems to me that both the previous speaker and the present speaker in this debate have gone rather far afield from that motion. I suppose the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) is hoping that there will be a conclusion in respect of what he has proposed. Therefore, I suggest it is the duty of the Chair to try to hold the debate within the realm of the motion presented by the hon. member. It seems to me that to range far and wide over the operations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, unless it can be tied to or kept in line with the loan made to the Parc Samuel Holland Hotel of Quebec, would be to do a disservice to the motion and to the hon. member.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I take your comments under advisement, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse on the point of order raised by the Chair.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt needlessly the present speaker, but I highly appreciate your remarks. The two members who followed me considerably wandered from the motion.
The object of the motion is to facilitate the access to departmental papers and information.
I think that the motion is particularly interesting and I ask the support of hon. members to have those papers tabled.
I thank the Chair for its comments and I am sure that the subsequent speeches will deal exclusively with the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) rising on the point of order raised by the Chair?


James Alexander Jerome: Only with regard to clarification of your intervention, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the concern of the Chair in respect of speeches relating to the subject matter of the motion. However, in private members' hour there is always a general question of principle involved, aside from the substantive motion put forward by an hon. member, particularly on Thursdays when we deal with the production of documents. There is not only the question of the production of documents specifically related to the motion, but there is always in this hour the question of when a government should release documents and when it

should not. That was the tenor of the speech of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I would urge upon Your Honour that these remarks be taken in the context that hon. members refer not only to the subject matter of the motion but should also be given an opportunity to discuss the principle of whether or not documents should be released.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the remarks of the hon. member for Sudbury are well taken. Certainly, it is not a procedure which happens so often that it would interfere with the rules which have been laid down. However, it seems to me it is a difficult matter when a member wishes to pursue a quest for information, as the hon. member for Bellechasse is doing, if he suddenly finds himself confronted with a great, over-all debate. Obviously, hon. members can see I am in a state of perplexity on this matter. I recognize the merit of what the hon. member for Sudbury says, but I think in fairness to the hon. member for Bellechasse I must ask that the debate be as restricted as possible and as relevant as possible to his motion.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of those comments, Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. However, I believe the point I am trying to make is relevant to the motion. While the hon. member for Bellechasse is worried about particular documents which relate to a particular problem, I am arguing on the same principle, the principle of access to information. We are not getting it in this House. I was using the example of a document which came into my hands which is not public and which would have been of immense value to the committee on regional development. In that sense I agree with the hon. member for Bellechasse that we should have more access to this type of information, and I do not agree with the strictures elaborated by the hon. member for Algoma. I shall resume my seat in order that we may make a decision on this motion.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I shall keep in mind your direction to the House about relevancy and abide by it. However, I think we should bear in mind the remarks of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) on the subject of general information. I should like to speak at the outset, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, about information which comes to government and does not ordinarily make its way into the House of Commons or become accessible to Members of Parliament.
There is a very happy piece of information which we are told has leaked out of that very secret cabinet room, which apparently indicates that this government gives the very highest priority to regional development. I take it that this means consideration by the Treasury Board, which sometimes can be a little tough in respect of some programs. The information is that this department is to be given every consideration so that the important job which is being done in respect of developing the various regions of this country can be done in a much more vigorous way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


B. Keith Penner: I would be delighted to accept a question from the venerable hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre.
May 31, 1973


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member confirming the authenticity of the document to which he has referred?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question may I say I would be a very proud man if I could say I had access to cabinet secrets and could guarantee their authenticity. My sources are the same as those of the hon. member, that is, the morning newspapers. But I am delighted with this news. I take it to be authentic. Perhaps that is wishful thinking. I want it to be authentic because we must get on in this country with the job of experimenting, spending money and doing much more, so that Canada can be something other than a few pockets of population with vast areas in between which are underdeveloped and which are not getting their fair share of the opportunities which should be available to every citizen of this country.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) pointed out that there has not been a great amount of growth in northern Ontario. It is quite true that we have only been able to hold our own. The fact that we have only been able to hold our own is to a large extent the responsibility of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in co-operation with certain provincial agencies also concerned with regional development. It came out at the hearings of the committee yesterday that much more must be done and that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion could do much more in this area.
I should like to mention one point that was raised. In case you are concerned about relevancy, Mr. Speaker, it is about information. Some of the witnesses who appeared before our committee in Sudbury yesterday pointed out that industrial commissioners, reeves, mayors and people involved in regional development find it extraordinarily difficult to obtain information which would be useful to them. It is expensive to gather it themselves. These people made the plea that much of the information which is available in the department should be released so that they could use it. Indeed, the committee unanimously passed a motion, which is part of the second report submitted earlier this afternoon, urging the government to give consideration to making some of this information available in the areas where it could be used. Rather than having it locked up here in Ottawa, it should be available to the regions and given to the people who can use it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Official Languages


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That this house,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the public service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following principles for achieving the foregoing:
(1)	that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will be first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;
(3)	that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
(4)	that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal public service, will be entitled to apply for any job that has been identified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willingness to become bilingual;
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the public service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
(9)	that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the public service to bilingual positions;
do further approve the Government of Canada, and, in particular, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned principles; and
(ii)	do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the public service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French language units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public
[Stage Direction]
May 31, 1973
Official Languages
Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual character of the national capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the public service by members of both the anglophone and the francophone communities
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am almost overwhelmed by the interest of my hon. friends opposite in this subject. I must add, however, that I have received a note from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressing his regret that it would be almost impossible for him to be here tonight, and I certainly accept that. I am sorry he will not be here because I would have liked to say what I have to say in his presence.


John Allen Fraser: Where is the government?


Mr. Bell:: I hope the press notes their absence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The resolution contains a preamble referring to the Official Languages Act and the status of French and English under that act. It goes on to set out nine principles which set forth what are commonly known as the Drury guidelines for achieving the purposes of the Official Languages Act within the public service, guidelines promulgated following the election of last autumn. [Translation]
The proposed motion also recommends that this House, and I quote:
(ii) do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the Public Service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French Language Units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the Governments of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual character of the National Capital region-

The principles of the Official Languages Act are not in question in this debate; they are not before the House. They were approved when the Official Languages Act was adopted a few years ago. I supported the measure at that time and I continue to do so. I support the principles and I do not propose tonight to discuss or to reargue in any way the principles involved in the Official Languages Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But it is really a little puzzling to see what purpose this resolution is intended to serve. The Official Languages Act is law; it has legal effect. The part of the resolution before us setting out what are generally called the Drury guidelines are already announced government policy. The government, for example, did not consult

Parliament before adopting these guidelines. Obviously, they did not see the necessity to do so. The adoption of this resolution by the House and by the Senate does not have the force of law in any way. Obviously, the resolution does not modify in any way the Official Languages Act or any other legislation that has been adopted by this parliament.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Do you think it should go further?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) will have the courtesy to listen to me. I am quite prepared to deal with him in my usual way, but I do not know that it would add very much to this debate or to the importance of the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Let us hear what you have to say.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: An empty barrel!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The adoption of this resolution-I emphasize this-is not binding on the government. It is a matter of law, despite what the Prime Minister said in the House on May 7 of this year in answer to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). One might argue, of course, that there would be some moral obligation on the part of the government to c amply with the resolution, but there certainly could be no legal obligation on the part of the government, or officials administering the legislation, because this resolution cannot have the force of law, cannot change any existing law and cannot be binding upon those who are administering the law.
In saying this I am not in any way questioning the competence of the House to proceed with an affirmative resolution, to express an opinion as it were, and I am certainly not intending to indicate, by virtue of expressing this opinion, that I propose to vote against the resolution. But I am saying that this kind of resolution obviously has no binding effect upon the ministers of the Crown nor upon the officials administering the legislation.
Earlier this session the Viet Nam resolution was before the House and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) indicated that the outcome of that resolution, that is, the views of the House as expressed on the resolution adopted by the House, would not bind him in the actions he might take, because the resolution would not have the force of law. So we intend to offer to the House an option to do more than simply express an opinion of the House. We intend to attempt to bind the government to the substance of the content of the resolution, and accordingly I will put forward an appropriate amendment at the conclusion of my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, I believe very much in the support of institutional bilingualism in this country. I believe the cause of institutional bilingualism needs support. But I do suggest that we will not necessarily do very much to increase the support in the country for institutional bilin-
May 31, 1973

gualism simply by passing a resolution in this House. I suggest we really do more to help the cause if we discuss the issue frankly, if we recognize and discuss any mistakes that have been made, with a view to correcting them and with a view to making the implementation of the principles of the legislation fairer and more acceptable.
The Prime Minister has put forward this resolution. I must comment on it very frankly. I speak as a supporter of the principles. I think I might be personal enough to say that I speak as one who, in the course of defending the principles and the policy throughout the country, bears a few scars as a result thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It seems to me that the resolution is put forward with a view to trying to screen some of the failure and mistakes that the government has made in implementing the Official Languages Act. One does not have to be a vigorous anti-government partisan to recognize the dangers of many of the needless strains that the government, by its methods, has caused in connection with the program. Not the least of its sins has been in the area of arousing suspicion, distrust and confusion in the minds of many of those Canadians who are neither French- nor English-speaking in their origin. The government cannot say that it acted in the absence of any advice which was constructive and intended to be helpful.

Four years ago, during the debate on the Official Languages Act, I suggested the importance of recognizing and encouraging the various ethnic groups established in Canada. I stated at the time that we had to make those people understand that they should not see in the bill a form of depreciation and even less of negation of their own cultures.
I then suggested that the committee could perhaps draft a preamble to the act underlining that idea.
In addition, we recommended the incorporation into the act of an amendment recognizing the right to speak other languages and the importance of helping the conservation and development of other cultures. This amendment stipulated among other things that it was impossible to recognize the linguistic duality of Canada without in so doing trespassing on the rights of other cultural groups.

The government, Sir, rejected that amendment. Indeed, it took the government until October, 1971, even to get around to doing anything in recognition of these other cultures in Canada. Its failure to do so earlier, particularly two and a half years earlier at the time of the introduction of the Official Languages Act, was a source of profound regret to every Canadian who wanted to see the act operate in the interests of unity in the country. I think parliament at that time created the impression in the minds of a good many Canadians who are neither of French nor British stock that they were being treated as second-class citizens; and I think the move of the government, non-contemporaneously with the act-in fact, a couple of years later-was belated. The government also cannot duck, and I say this very earnestly, its record of generating concern
Official Languages
in the country about the downgrading of the monarchy and the erosion of symbols and institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, this has nothing to do with bilingualism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It has nothing to do with bilingualism. I see my hon. friends opposite shaking their heads, but I say very earnestly that in the minds of many people who were concerned about the erosion of these institutions the two became quite erroneously linked.


Mr. Allmand:: Let's have some examples.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friends can laugh; they can do anything the like. I say we are only going to make progress-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but it is becoming very hard to follow his speech. I think that this afternoon we had very good order in the House. I must frankly admit that I hear noise on both sides. I hope that hon. members, who know the rules of the House and have respect for them, will listen to the Leader of the Opposition with great attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to arouse the House. I would be very grateful if everybody would just sit quietly and listen to what I have to say. I just say that this coincidence, in the minds of many people, has been an unfortunate circumstance which has not helped but which has poisoned the atmosphere.
Let us return to the record of the government in relation to the public service. Here again, the government created hostility toward its program, and again the government cannot claim lack of constructive comment at the time the legislation was introduced. During the debate on the Official Languages Act on May 16, 1969, I said, for example, and I hope I will be forgiven for quoting myself:
If this bill is not administered fairly and sensibly it can very easily create more disunity than unity. I say that in all sincerity. We could very easily create more new grievances in trying to remove old grievances . . .
This bill must be administered in such a way that it will not destroy the careers of the many Canadians now in our federal public service who are not bilingual. I suggest the emphasis ought to be on providing bilingual government services to the extent it is practical rather than upon the public servants providing those services being bilingual. This must be done to the fullest extent possible so that both French-and English-speaking persons will feel at home in the federal service. The emphasis should be placed to the fullest extent practical upon the bilingual aspect of the service rather than the bilingual aspect of the servant.
At the time I spoke in the debate the government had already got off to a ham-handed start involving secrecy and lack of frankness on the one hand and a flippant and

May 31, 1973
Official Languages
inflammatory remark by the Prime Minister on the other hand. I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment. Many people still flinch when they remember the elevator operator remark. I say, Sir, that this was no way to start and the performance of the government over the next several years was unfortunately sometimes consistent with that bad start.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I must say that it seemed to me this afternoon that the Prime Minister was eminently reasonable in what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have to say, too, that it seems to me that sometimes he has made remarks that have sounded rather cavalier about matters of very real concern to Canadians. Not until the so-called Drury guidelines were made public on December 14, 1972, did the government give any definite indication of what it was up to in relation to the careers of public service personnel. This was almost two years after the episode in connection with the secret memorandum which aroused further suspicion and anger unnecessarily. I remind you, Sir, that on that occasion the Prime Minister provided another example of his talent for bringing people together by calling the opposition "a bunch of fanatics". At the time of that so-called secret memorandum revelation in February, 1971, I asked the government to produce details of any programs designed to create a proper balance in the public service. As I say, the silence persisted until late into 1972.
This afternoon the Prime Minister suggested that the so-called Drury guidelines were produced just as soon as possible. That I cannot accept. They were not produced for a good many years after the legislation. Indeed, I do not think they were produced until some fairly sober second thoughts were forced pretty heavily upon the government. I think the kind of guidelines spelled out in the nine points in this resolution can be identified with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). These assurances are basically the same as those so long demanded by many who from time to time have been called fanatics.
There are other areas where the government needs to get on with the job of implementing the proposals of the Official Languages Act. I have spoken about what I consider to be the mistakes that have been made. I should like now to turn to some of the areas that I think need attention. By dealing with them we can do more to help the cause of institutional bilingualism in the country than by simply talking about it here. Mr. Keith Spicer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, has provided an ongoing critique of the government's performance. According to Mr. Spicer, the most fundamental criticism of the government is its continuing failure to close what he calls "the deep and perilous information gap" that exists between the government's intentions and the public's awareness and understanding of the government's aims. In his second report to parliament, the commissioner said:
For if there remains one disturbing setback in the slow march of Canada's federal administration toward equity for our two official languages, it is the scandalous misinformation that, in too many

parts of Canada, still overshadows the act's basic, civilized truths-
Mr. Spicer says he is convinced that if bilingualism remains controversial in some quarters it is precisely because too many public officials, in spite of some honest efforts, have not fully met their responsibilities in explaining the legislation. Mr. Spicer indicates that this information gap is flourishing within the public service where many federal employees have a singularly inaccurate understanding of the act. If the government cannot even adequately explain it to its own employees, they cannot explain it to the Canadian people. Mr. Spicer zeros in on a number of other specific areas. He has termed second language teaching in the provincial school systems "a countrywide catastrophe" which must be remedied. I do not pretend for a moment that it is a simple thing to correct but it is important that we make progress on it, and surely we can do better than we have in the past. I say that, accepting some responsibility as a former minister of education in one of our provinces.
The commissioner also raises questions about the concept of the bilingual district-that is, the present state of the bilingual district-and states that the Official Languages Act itself is adequate to protect language rights without the particular bilingual districts which run the risk of creating linguistic ghettos. Further, the drawing of bilingual districts can create friction since they must be revised after each census. This could be a source of irritation. I think we should be looking at this area and considering it dispassionately to see what course should be followed. In his report of November, 1971, Mr. Spicer commented on language training programs in the public service. He said there had been high drop-out rates caused-
-apparently, by lengthy and partly ill-adapted courses: according to the Public Service Commission, 30 per cent of more than 22,000 students withdrew from training since 1964, and only 2,000 successfully reached the end of level 3, the top level being 4.
More recent figures show the drop-out rate running at 33 per cent. I realize this is not an easy challenge to meet, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot regard this performance as very satisfactory. When I say that, I speak-if I may put it in these terms-as a beneficiary of the system of instruction in the public service language schools. Invariably, the teachers have been courteous and very patient with me. The criticisms I have touched upon, the references I have made to Mr. Spicer's remarks are not references to the criticisms of a partisan; they are references to the observations of the officer responsible to parliament for the Official Languages Act.
We have heard criticism, as well, from the associations which represent employees in the public service and these, too, have not been based on partisan considerations. These criticisms reflected the deep concern of people in the service who did not know where they were, and no one would tell them where they were going. They wondered what had become of the Pearson pledge of April, 1966. It is no wonder that people are emotional about bilingualism in the public service. This is, in part at least, the government's fault because it failed to explain its plans for implementation.
I say the government has shown a distinct lack of consideration for the fears and apprehensions of public

servants. The government has done precious little to encourage a positive attitude by addressing itself to explaining the implementation of the program. The way in which the government has proceeded with its language training program in the public service has also contributed to frustration. A survey of drop-outs established that at least two-thirds of them had been forced to discontinue their training because it conflicted with their regular workload. It is true that many have complained about the unrealistic administrative policy of the government with regard to the program of bilingualism in the public service, but this must not be construed as opposition to the principles of bilingualism in the public service.
I think that language training programs must be closely examined. The practice of pulling senior civil servants away from language training to take care of departmental duties has been costly and has weakened the program. Too many language students have failed to achieve any measure of competence, regardless of personal effort. Leaving language training to attend to departmental matters and then returning, only to find one has fallen far behind, has discouraged a number of eager people.
There is also the question of selection of candidates for language training. Many feel they are being discriminated against because they have been refused the opportunity to become bilingual. I realize that all these things cannot be corrected overnight, but they are things we ought to talk about. The government, in all seriousness, must make language training available to those who want it. Many well disposed civil servants have been frustrated by the government's failure to give them a fair chance to compete professionally through wider access to language training. The government must assist its own employees who may need another language to advance their careers. Many find this lack of opportunity a great threat.
What is the best service the government can render at this point in time to the program of bilingualism in the public service? What are the priority actions? Certainly, Sir, the program of bilingualism in the public service, and of institutional bilingualism in the country generally, needs public support.


An hon. Member:: And you are so helpful.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I beg your pardon? The program needs public support. In a national sense the government must respond effectively to Mr. Spicer's criticism regarding lack of explanation: it must act to close "the deep and perilous information gap". Within the public service it must undertake an immersion course itself, a full immersion course in consultation. It must certainly listen and be prepared to listen, and it should act to give the force of law to the assurances and guarantees in the resolution before us. We feel that the nine points of the resolution deserve more than a simple affirmation by this House. They have been generally well received by those best equipped to judge.
Mr. L. W. Barnes, the executive director of the Professional Institute of Canada, the certified bargaining agent for 38 professional groups in the public service, has said that the guidelines represent a "great improvement". He also said that they remove the fears and doubts of many
Official Languages
public servants and that they provide clarification about the implementation of bilingualism policies. Mr. Barnes noted that these new guidelines match the objectives of the institute's policy on bilingualism.
Mr. Claude Edwards, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the association was favourable to the guidelines, which met most of the objectives of the Public Service Alliance, particularly as regards long service and unilingual public servants. He cautioned, however, that much depends on the way in which they are implemented and on good faith on both sides. Both these staff associations, the main bargaining agents for federal public servants, are involved in the National Joint Council which is engaged in continuous consultation with the Public Service Commission on the designation of bilingual positions. Spokesmen for both groups stress implementation as the key to the success or failure of the guidelines.
I believe that a growing number of public servants should have the opportunity to speak both our official languages. As far as I am concerned, there should be a system of incentives to this end. But, of course, there should be no attempt to force people and I would not support or permit any attempt to stop short the careers of men and women of either language because of lack of fluency in the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, I urge all hon. members to consider the case for the amendment to be put forward and I ask for their support. If it is said that these guidelines have to be, and should be flexible, and that they have to be subject to change, why are we being asked to endorse them in this House? We could incorporate them in legislation and still change them from time to time, if it seemed necessary. If the amendment is lost-I want to emphasize this-if the House does not accept my amendment, I want to make it perfectly clear that I will support the resolution as it stands.
I have been a supporter of this program. I believe we will best serve the program if we discuss these problems frankly and openly, as I have tried to do, and concentrate on methods to improve the program. As far as my amendment is concerned, I urge it upon the House. I think it would be an appropriate step to take. Nevertheless, I will support the resolution as it stands. I will not play all or nothing here, Sir; there is too much at stake in terms of morale in the public service and there is too much at stake in the broader terms of national unity.
I will not allow my position regarding the content of the resolution to be in any way misunderstood. I support the content, Sir. I certainly want the public service of this country to be attractive to French-speaking Canadians in every sense of the word. I want it to be attractive to French-speaking Canadians as well as to English-speaking Canadians. I think that is essential for national unity and essential for the country. In saying this I emphasize that my support for the resolution is in no way a vote of confidence with regard to the government's actions in this area. In putting forward the motion in the way that it has, it seems to me the government is trying to distract from its own failures and mistakes. These failures and mistakes are not limited to the matter of bilingualism in the public
4318

May 31, 1973
Official Languages
service. Resentment, fear and frustration have been created in many related areas.
I refer again to my remarks of May 16, 1969. I said that firm and unequivocal assurances had to be given to the employees in the public service and I suggested that such assurances "be written into the act to the fullest extent possible". We have the opportunity to take this step now, Mr. Speaker. The government has brought the matter before the House in the form of a resolution. The government did not choose to take that course back in 1969 and we have seen some unfortunate results as a consequence. We cannot undo the past, but we can take action to make, not necessarily a fresh start but a new leap forward and to express ourselves not simply in the form of an opinion but in doing something in meaningful, legislative terms.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the motion be amended by adding to paragraph (i) thereof, next after the words, "taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned principles", the following:
"and the Government of Canada, as a priority measure, introducing legislation to incorporate the aforementioned principles in the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act and other appropriate statutes;"


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, we have not had an opportunity to examine this motion on its procedural acceptability.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: I want to enter this caveat on behalf of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will have an opportunity later to rise on a point of order or a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that we will study the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I will have to consider exactly what it means. I will want to discuss it with my colleagues. Therefore, I cannot say anything about our attitude toward it at this time.
In a sense, I regret that this resolution has been brought before the House, not for some of the reasons I have heard but for another and perhaps deeper reason. I have learned that in life, particularly in collective life, there are matters with respect to which repeated argument produces confrontation and repeated confrontation pollutes rather than clears the air.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I cannot condemn the government for having brought this to parliament. I remember the discussion a couple of years ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) followed up with some guidelines after volume 3 of the B and B report was presented and discussed. The Leader of the Opposition and others demanded that something be done legislatively instead of sending the matter

to the Department of the Secretary of State, so that parliament could discuss it. I think there was something to that request at that time. I am not being dogmatic about it, because the subject that is before us ought to receive our very careful consideration and we should use carefully considered words. However, from some of the things I have heard, and some of the things I fear I may hear, both in the House and outside I am not certain that it is the wisest step to bring this resolution before the House.
A statement was made by the late Mr. Pearson in 1966 with regard to policies in the public service. That was followed by the adoption of the Official Languages Act, supported by all parties in this House. Some members opposed it, but all parties officially supported it. We had the introduction of new public service suggestions after volume 3 of the B and B report. Commissioner Spicer reported twice to this parliament. There has been a great deal of discussion on the subject across this country.
One of the disturbing things about this kind of delicate, sensitive subject is that instead of discussion producing more understanding and clearing the air, it frequently rejuvenates prejudices and misunderstandings rather than allaying them. That is why I am sorry to some extent that this resolution is now before us. Because of its past, because of what parliament has done, because of what the government has done, because these guidelines were announced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in November or December, some weeks before the Speech from the Throne, the government ought to have continued trying to improve as it learned from mistakes made along the way, in the hope that, not overnight but in the course of a few years, the uneasiness and misunderstandings would disappear and we would be on the road to real harmony on the question of linguistic equality in the public service.
That might have been more wise, but the resolution is before us. I hope our discussion will follow the discussion that has taken place thus far. I hope it will follow the reasonable and sincere statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon and the reasonable and equally sincere support of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I hope with all my heart that a discussion of this resolution in the House will help, rather than hinder, understanding and national unity in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That is said to those of us who are Anglophones and uneasy about the steps suggested, and those of us who are Francophones and impatient because the steps are not big enough. If we start that kind of argument we can go on forever and do nothing but harm to linguistic equality in the public service and to unity in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I was pleased that for the first time-I do not think I am exaggerating when I say it is the first time-in the discussion on the subject of bilingualism in Canada, the Prime Minister, by implication at least, admitted that it was not the "be all and end all" of the question of
May 31, 1973

national unity. Because I had the pleasure of being my party's spokesman on this subject before I became leader, as well as since I have been leader, I have had occasion in several debates to underline to the Prime Minister that he is making an error if he thinks that the institution of bilingualism, if properly applied and universally used, will solve the problem of national unity in this country. It is just not so.
Therefore, I was glad to hear him say this afternoon that he admits that there are other issues, economic and social, in this country and that the question of language in the public service of Canada is only one aspect of national unity. That is an admission that I welcome, and I only hope that the government keeps it in mind.
The adoption of this resolution is now guaranteed. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would vote for it, and I am sure that all or most of his colleagues will. I, too, support this resolution, though we will have to see what we shall do about the amendment. There may be one or two of my colleagues who have some doubts-I do not know-but by a decision of our caucus I can tell the House, as leader of the caucus, that this party supports the resolution. Therefore, the resolution will pass and I can only hope that this debate, and the resolution when adopted, will remove the justified grievance which Frenchspeaking Canadians, not only in the province of Quebec but right across Canada, have had.
I have heard a good many of my friends across the country expressing the fear that these bilingualism guidelines for the public service are going to mean that some English-speaking Canadians may not be able to get certain jobs or advance in their jobs in the same way as before. And that may happen in some cases. But I cannot really feel that this is seeing more than the one side. Those of us who are English-speaking and who see that side ought to remember that the French-speaking Canadian has not had an opportunity to advance in the public service of Canada, not only for a century but for two centuries: not only since confederation but for a century before confederation that was the situation in this country. I therefore hope that we will now solve that problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that some members object to the resolution because they feel it is a reversal of original views.
It is important that English-speaking Canadians inside and outside the civil service become conscious of the fact that some members and other French-speaking Canadians deplore the dilatory measures taken to develop linguistic equality in the civil service and ask an acceleration of the process.
This finding, Mr. Speaker, is important because it shows the difficulties and duties which we have to face. Some impatient individuals are taking part in this debate. Some question the requirement of linguistic equality in the civil service, while others are impatient because of the slowness in establishing such equality.
For almost a century, Mr. Speaker, a great number of Canadians as well as Parliament and the federal govern-
Official Languages
ment have not given enough attention to the requirement of establishing linguistic equality in the departments and agencies of the federal government. The federal public service-I know because I lived in Ottawa from 1935 to 1950-had become almost entirely unilingual and Englishspeaking. This failure has inspired a certain rancour among French-speaking Canadian, but it is important to notice also that this failure has also produced a tradition of unilingualism that some English-speaking Canadians hesitate to change.
Today, Mr. Speaker, justice is struggling against tradition. Such a struggle always produces some reactions and fears that make difficult any logical discussion and reasonable solution.
That is the problem. It can be solved only through patience, respect and understanding. To people who are impatient before the slowness in establishing bilingualism, I say that it is impossible to correct within one or two years the injustice of two centuries. The task inevitably risks being subject to painful discussions; it requires a long education in various regions of this country and changes of attitude and tradition among people who were not even aware of the existence of such a problem and who, therefore, do not understand it.
In such a situation, rancour and bitterness cannot help us, Mr. Speaker.

I take the liberty of saying to my English-speaking fellow Canadians that they ought to recognize the injustice to French-speaking Canadians that has existed up until now, and that all of us must show a measure of understanding and appreciation of the need for change in the public service. Even if we do have some doubts from time to time, even if it has not been our habit to hear French spoken, and even if we have to accept something that we had not thought about before, we should accept these things now. The disgrace is not that we accept it now; the disgrace is that we did not think of it before.
Going about this country we all have our own experiences. When I hear Members of Parliament of all parties sometimes expressing the view that their constituents are fearful of bilingualism, I really doubt this is so. I learned a long time ago that when someone comes to me and says that he is expressing the opinion of the public, what he is really saying is that that is his opinion which he wishes were the opinion of the public.
Let me cite three of my own experiences, Mr. Speaker; it will not take me very long. Two and a half years ago the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) was at his nomination meeting in, I think, his own city of Selkirk, Manitoba. The audience at that meeting represented practically all national and racial origins in this country. There were people from French-speaking families, people who came from every European background you can think of, and there were even a few Anglo-Saxons, people whose origins were British.
A hardnosed member of the audience rose to his feet and put to me a question about bilingualism. This was at a time when debate on the subject was raging in this House. I spoke in reply with some passion, I must admit, but straightforwardly, without bending a word or hiding my
26314-56;

May 31, 1973
Official Languages
views. I spoke, as I have said many times in this House, as a new Canadian speaking to another new Canadian. The hon. member for Selkirk is here and he will underline the fact that my answer to that person was not booed, but received a standing ovation that lasted many seconds-not for me but for the ideas I expressed.
During the campaign last fall I attended a meeting in Port Alberni in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). The same sort of question was asked, and I gave the same sort of answer. A good many people in British Columbia say that you get a lot of backlash there. I gave the same sort of answer, and again there was a standing ovation in acceptance of the ideas I expressed.
I have been on open-line programs in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and every other province in this country. Of course, occasionally you receive a call from a person like one call I will never forget, from an obviously very elderly lady whom I am sure is the salt of the earth. I have not the faintest notion who she is, but her cracked voice indicated she was pretty elderly. She said to me; "Mr. Lewis, why do those fellows want to speak French? Why don't they speak Canadian?" That angered me. But there is that kind of person in this country; that kind of person exists not only on the Anglophone side but also on the Francophone side. One might think of the province of Quebec, and I have travelled through that province. But by and large I am confident that the Canadian people from coast to coast are ready to accept this policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: They are ready to accept this policy particularly if all of us who are political spokesmen and political leaders have the sense and the imagination to promote the policy and not tear it down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I mention another experience because it moved me very much. A couple of months ago I was at a meeting at the University of Western Ontario, London. The hon. member for that constituency may know of that meeting. It was a special meeting started as a counter-convocation but which ended in a very positive Canadian meeting. There was a large audience of well over 2,000 students, not only from the university but from the high schools. The reason I am mentioning this is that London, Ontario, is not in the centre of a large French-speaking community.


An hon. Member:: Would you believe!


David Lewis: With great respect to the citizens of London, whom I love, particularly when they vote NDP-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Which is rare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Who were those three?


David Lewis: I thought I had become a little too serious and a bit of levity was called for. With great respect to the citizens of London, that city does not have the reputation of being a revolutionary centre of modern ideas. The important thing about that meeting was that its chairman, a young student at the university, started to speak French. The person who introduced me made his speech half in English and half in French. The person who introduced the other speaker, who happened to be Pierre Berton, spoke half in English and half in French. After the meeting we had a little get-together and I asked these three people why this was done. This is the important part. I asked, "IjVhy did you speak French?" They spoke fairly well in French. The answer was, "We were discussing the independence of Canada, the building of a distinct society, and we could not discuss it only in one of its languages".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I say that the people of Canada, particularly the young people, are ready to accept this kind of policy, to stand behind it and to remove all the prejudices which have plagued some of us older Canadians. There are some people who, because they believe that the steps are too slow, say that the resolution is a retreat from the original idea. It is not. What happened, and I am not going to put it the same way as the Leader of the Opposition, nor am I going to put it any better, is that the implementation of the policy in the public service in the first two or three years raised a great many unnecessary fears and a great deal of unnecessary opposition inside the public service.
I am not going to read what I said because it is not as worthy of reading as the quotation used by the Leader of the Opposition, but during the debate on the Official Languages Act I underlined the need for openness in the implementation of the policy and for making sure it was based on consent and did not appear to the people to be imposed from the top. On rereading the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and my own remarks-I reread them just today; that is why I remember them-I pleaded with the government to consult the unions of the public servants about the implementation of that policy, because that was not done early enough and a great deal of unnecessary misunderstanding and bitterness was created.
I am glad to see, as I was last November or December, that the resolution now contains safeguards which the policy should have contained before. The resolution does not now indicate that the unilingual public servant who has been in the service for some time will suffer as a result of the new policies now being introduced. Let me quote only one sentence of what I said on May 16, 1969:
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we must make sure that one injustice is not replaced by another.
That is what appeared to some people to be happening and I am glad the resolution now precludes such a thing from happening. I am not going to take the time to explain how the resolution has answered some of the criticism that some people, including myself, have sometimes expressed, but at a nomination convention for Pauline Jewett here in Ottawa certain things were mentioned. Perhaps I should not take the time to repeat them.


Mr. Pelletier (Hochelaga):: Take the time; you should.
May 31, 1973


David Lewis: The resolution deals with a situation which I did not like, and since the hon. member was good enough to invite me perhaps I should point this out. What I did not like, and said so at that time, was that the public servants did not know which jobs were to be designated bilingual jobs. I said that the public servants should be consulted and the unions should be consulted, and those with long-term service in the public service should not be disadvantaged in the way of advancement and promotion.
It is always unfair, when you introduce a new policy which was not there when the person was first hired, to hit him with that policy to his disadvantage. I further asked in that speech that the long-service employee in the public service not be disadvantaged by the new policy. I am very happy to see that almost every one of those criticisms is met by the paragraphs of this resolution, although I am sure some people have some doubts about the last paragraph; that is, that in future all jobs may not be open to unilingual applicants. I would be dishonest if I did not say that this is possible.
The present employees in the public service are protected by the guidelines set out in the resolution, but it may well be that when people are new in the public service they will have to be rated either unilingually English or French, or rated bilingual, and they may have to make a decision at some point in their career, which civil servants did not have to do ten years ago. But I am ready to accept that because I do not know any way in which one could introduce this kind of policy and not make language one of the qualifications of the job for certain designated positions. Just as it is necessary for a stenographer to be able to take shorthand and to be able to type, so it is necessary for a person in certain designated positions to be able to speak one or other, or both languages as the case may be. That is a qualification of the job. I repeat what I said earlier, that even though this affects some it will be only a few-English-speaking applicants for jobs, the situation until now has been such that almost all French-speaking applicants for jobs were affected in this way, and that kind of inequality or imbalance must be adjusted in this country.
As the last point I want to make, I find it a fact in my travels across the country, particularly in the province of Quebec, that too many Quebecois do not even now regard Ottawa as their capital. I am not talking about separatism or separatists. I do not pay any attention to the kind of attitude the separatists may take, because I am very clear in rejection of their objects. I am talking about people who really believe in Canada but who simply do not feel or sense that Ottawa is their capital. They are oriented toward the city of Quebec rather than toward Ottawa as their capital.
Part of that is due to the kind of country we have, because to some extent this is true of every province in the country. To some extent it is true of many British Columbians-perhaps I should say some British Columbians- who regard Victoria as their capital rather than Ottawa. And there are people in Saskatchewan who regard Regina as their capital. Part of it is due to the nature of our country, as I have stated. It is due in part to the grievances every region of the country has against the centre, and the
Official Languages
centre has been insensitive to the needs of the east and the west. I do not blame the people in these areas. The centre has been as insensitive about the needs of the east and the west in Canada as it has been of the need for linguistic equality. So you have the same kind of resentment.
But in addition to the normal thing you may find in English-speaking Canada about Ottawa, there is the additional dimension of language in Quebec. The trouble with many English-speaking Canadians is that when they visit the province of Quebec they visit Montreal. There is no doubt that a good many Montrealers speak both English and French. However, it is a fact that when you travel around the rest of the province of Quebec there are many-I am certain, a majority-of Quebecois who do not speak English. They may understand it a little, they may speak a few words, but they do not know the language sufficiently to be able to do a job of work in the English language in the public service.
I have met such people in other parts of Canada. I have met Canadian citizens who are French-speaking even in communities outside Quebec. Many of these people at the age of 14 or 15 are just beginning to learn the English language sufficiently to be able to handle it in a job in the public service. I think we ought to remember this. We are dealing, as was rightly said this afternoon, with a majority of English-speaking people who do not speak French, and a majority of French-speaking Canadians who do not speak English. All these people ought to have the same opportunity to serve the people of Canada and to serve in the language of choice of the people concerned.
Finally, there is among those who come from origins other than British or French undoubtedly a feeling of unease. I have found this very often. The newcomer to Canada, if he does not go to Montreal but, rather, to somewhere else in Canada assumes that Canada is a unilingual country. He hears only English spoken around him. His children attend an English language school and he assumes it is a unilingual country. He lives with that assumption, fairly and honestly, for a good many years. Then suddenly, in 1967 and 1968, he was confronted with the fact that it is not so, that although Ukrainian, German, Finnish, Swedish, Italian and Jewish are still languages which have unofficial status, French does have an official status equal to English. I think he is wrong in his reaction. I say this with respect. However, I am not surprised that he has this reaction; no one should be surprised, because all his life that is what he learned.
He may not have had that reaction if when he came to Canada he had gone to Montreal and heard both official languages spoken. But if a person had settled in Regina, Edmonton, Melville, Vancouver, Victoria or, for that matter, Orangeville or London, Ontario, he would probably never have heard a word of French spoken and it would never have occurred to him that it is on the same level as English. Then suddenly when he finds that this is so by law, it is natural for him to say, "What is wrong with my mother tongue?" This is what is happening in Canada. It is perfectly understandable. I say to my fellow Canadians who are immigrants, who came to this country as I did when I was 12 years of age, that if they are able to enjoy their original culture, if they are now able to draw upon public funds to assist them in retaining and in developing

Official Languages
their original culture, it is only because this country is a bilingual country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is only because this country has recognized more than one language and more than one culture since its existence. If this had been a unilingual country with only one culture, there would not have been this acceptance of multiculturalism. I am not saying that what has been done is enough, but there has been and will be an expenditure of millions of dollars in order to assist in the development of multiculturalism in Canada and the original cultures of the various communities in this country.
I say to my fellow Canadians of all origins that this is a great country. It could be greater. It has immense potential. It is important to keep it together. It is important that French-speaking Canadians feel at home everywhere in Canada as Canadian citizens. This resolution is a step in that direction. I appeal not only to all hon. members to support this resolution but to all Canadians to understand its purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, this consensus which seems to develop in this House on the occasion of this debate on the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which deals with bilingualism, I regret being unable to share it because, as I already had the opportunity to point out, time has come to face up to the situation just as it is and to attempt together to find true solutions to the real problem confronting us.
It is therefore useless to hide once more behind fine speeches and behind a principle which seems to bring solutions but which, unfortunately, does not.
I was listening a while ago to the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who was boasting that the principles in the motion brought in by the government came from him. I heard the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) say about the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, we know perfectly well that, although it is the Prime Minister who has decided to propose this motion and, in support of it, to state the general principles with which we are in complete agreement, which we cherish like the apples of our eyes, and which are included in the preamble, the means proposed to realize these basic principles were suggested by the leader of the opposition. Perhaps this is why they are far from being sound.
Mr. Speaker, we are in 1973, and 106 years have already elapsed since Confederation. The leader of the New Democratic Party keeps advising hon. members to be patient. We are willing to wait, but we do not want our patience to be taken for weakness.
I only want to state once more what Quebecers and French Canadians want. There is absolutely no intention to cheat anyone of his rights, of affecting in any way those who are now in the public service and who have put forth their efforts there over many years. We realize that they have a right to their jobs. We do not wish to replace those

people. What we do want is to achieve true equality in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. Speaker, to express the feeling of a Quebecer, or of a French Canadian, and primarily in order that hon. members may understand that no animosity, nationalism or anything else is involved, I shall say that the issue is merely the freedom of the individual. Mr. Speaker, having been born in Quebec and of French Canadian parents, my universe, my country was the French language. Is it to be held against me that I was nursed by my mother who was French-speaking?
Mr. Speaker, this is something instinctive and natural. I feel really at home in this country, but little by little I discovered that the universe of my childhood was not quite the same as the one of my manhood. That is when every Quebecer wakes up and finds that he is not quite at home with the government of his country and that sometimes he is quite a stranger outside the borders of Quebec.
We don't blame anybody but we simply want, today more than ever, to take what is coming to us. Therefore, we completely agree with the principles referred to by the right hon. Prime Minister. Where we are going in different direction is when the means to reach this goal are being determined.
Mr. Speaker, the nine practical principles set out in the motion are sometimes insignificant, sometimes, stupid and sometimes again they simply sanction a situation of fact which Quebecers, French Canadians have been up against for years if not always. Here is the first of these principles:
(1)	that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will be first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
Mr. Speaker, I heard today the Prime Minister explain this section a little. I felt he had been compelled to do so because as soon as the motion had been introduced, and even when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) stated these principles last December, some people already began protesting.
In fact, if today in 1973, as representative of the constituency of Champlain in the House of Commons, I have to deal with various departments of the federal government, how is it that I cannot do it in my own language? And why should I be referred to some clerk assigned to the service to make up for the lack of French-speaking officials in that office?
If the problem exists at the present time and if everybody can see it, why say that it is going to be solved before 1978? That is what I cannot understand. If such a need exists now and has been known to exist for years, my patience, does not stretch that far. I believe it my duty to be proud and energetic and to express the views and the wishes of everyone of my constituents on the subject.
Here is an example of the difficulties experienced at times in the administration. This week, I had an appointment with the Canadian Patent Office. My constituent was ready to come on Wednesday or today, but since there will be a Francophone only next Tuesday in that office, we shall have to wait until next Tuesday. Perhaps some other
May 31, 1973

person will submit the same invention this week, and I believe it will be a good one. My constituent will be outstripped merely because he was not looked after immediately in his own language.
Therefore we cannot be patient anymore. We merely want justice. We merely want French Canadians to be looked after in their own language, nothing less.
That objective set for 1978 seems to us like a mere joke on Quebecers. I know that the government can afford to laugh at Quebecers when it gets massive support. However, I think that it is high time the truth came out on certain points.
The second principle of the motion is as follows:
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;
Mr. Speaker, this is quite a find. It will be determined which positions require a knowledge of English, which require a knowledge of French and those requiring bilingual applicants.
The Prime Minister stated this afternoon, if I am not mistaken, that of the 250,000 positions of the Civil Service, 25,000 are bilingual.
I would have liked then to ask him: among the 225,000 other positions, how many will be for English-speaking applicants and how many for Francophones?


An hon. Member:: He did not mention it.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say that, because one would be inclined to believe that the same applies to both, and of course that is probably what many of my colleagues would tell me. It is as true of Anglophones as of Francophones. However, let us not be so stupid.
We know full well that in the Public Service-and this is borne out by figures supplied in replies to questions placed on the order paper and statistics brought out over the years-there are virtually no Francophone units. As a matter of fact, in notices of Public Service competitions, one finds that in 90 per cent of cases the only language requirement is knowledge of English. Let us not wonder why graduates of Francophone universities, for instance, show little interest in coming to work in Ottawa. From the very start, they are frustrated by an organization conceived exclusively in terms of the Anglo-Saxon component of this country.
The third principle reads as follows:
A knowledge of French and Englishthat is a good joke-
-is one of the qualifications required for the selection of applicants to bilingual positions;
Mr. Speaker, we could have been referred to the dictionary where the word "bilingual" is defined as someone who speaks two languages. That is the principle. We are told that a bilingual person is someone who speaks two languages. To get excited with that and make us believe that Canada's problem has been settled by telling us that a bilingual person is someone who speaks two languages, that is too much! The Larousse dictionary, the Webster
Official Languages
and all other dictionaries have said it long before the Prime Minister.
The fourth principle reads as follows:
Competitions to bilingual positions will be opened both to bilingual and unilingual applicants who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
Mr. Speaker, let us stop playing on words and handing out a convincing line. I know perfectly well that literally, I am compelled to say that I agree with that. Yes, I agree with that, literally, but when one is aware of the Canadian reality, when one is aware of the facts, this principle, stated in subsection (4) means: competitions for bilingual positions will be opened both to bilingual applicants and unilingual English speaking applicants, since they are the only ones to be unilingual. Then, when one considers this nice principle that, literally, one would be led to approve in contrast with Canadian reality, one realizes that once more it does not solve anything. That is why some people must be brave enough not to play the game of the traditional good understanding and say: That is very fine, we accept it and everything continues to be the same!
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I am fulfilling here tonight an important duty, so that we can, at a given time, think in a more realistic way.
The fifth principle reads as follows: that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
I can hardly see how anyone really serious can find anything making any sense here. It is said: "for unilingual positions". Again, unilingual candidates, O.K., but it says bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job.
Again, Mr. Speaker, if we stick to the present facts and circumstances, we know quite well that that does not mean anything whatsoever. Again, it all looks nice but when one stops and thinks about it for a while one realizes that it is simply another way of trying to please a certain part of the country which showed some dissatisfaction during the last election campaign, and rightly so. I will come back on that later.
The sixth principle reads as follows: that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum,
Here again, why if it is a bilingual position, talk about unilingual incumbents. That I can understand, and I would agree if it were not for what comes after: or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a negation of any intelligence in individuals and people. The principle is set that some positions will be bilingual. English-speaking or Frenchspeaking unilingual; we have a bilingual position, and unilingual person gets it. The unilingual person can be transferred to another position at the same salary under that principle but if he does not want it he can stay there. I cannot get over how one can think of solving problems with such principles.
I will not read the seventh principle but it boils down to this: Those who have been in the Public Service for 17

May 31, 1973
Official Languages
years are kings and masters in the Public Service. That is all.
It is as simple as that: the "establishment" which may exist in the civil service is being sanctioned.
(8) that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the Public Service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
I do not advise them to go and get a job at the United Nations, Mr. Speaker. Such a story will not cut any ice: if expressing the wish to become bilingual made it so, if it were as simple as that, we would never have problems! It reminds me of the "upper chamber" when Christ appeared and the Holy Spirit conferred the gift of languages upon everyone. One need only have faith, and express the wish of becoming bilingual for it to be so! That is the miraculous principle the government has come up with in an attempt to solve another problem. Finally, I shall deal with the last principle:
that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the Public Service to bilingual positions;
Mr. Speaker, once again, when one is aware of the situation, when one knows that about 2, 3 or 4 per cent of all civil servants hold top positions, what does that principle mean? It means that money is spent on training bilingual personnel to the detriment of the Francophone element in this country, of course.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, in the fact of such a situation, if one really wanted to see things as they are, one would realize that to solve the problem there must be no beating around the bush. For instance, we note that in this case the Canadian reality contradicts the stated principles. What can be done, Mr. Speaker? It is a fact that the Canadian reality contradicts all those principles.
We must therefore find solutions that are more adequate, more equitable and more realistic. And, Mr. Speaker, we do have some of those solutions. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) delivered a very good speech, very interesting to listen to and which, in certain aspects could be very true. Nevertheless, the principles contained in his resolution do not agree with what he said. As I listened to his speech, I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, about an amendment that I had prepared, which is a logical extension to the words spoken by the Prime Minister.
That is why my criticisms, tonight, are made without passion, without spite against anyone. We appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the problem, in this country, is not a problem of language but a problem of participation. Even if the entire federal public service, in Ottawa, were bilingual, if 95 per cent of our executives were unilingual, English-or French-speaking, we would have solved nothing, because we would be a hundred times more justified in saying that Canada is an impossible thing, because we are not there. That is why there is but one solution, since the actual problem is one of participation. There is but one solution, Mr. Speaker: to have people participate, to provide the occasion to the various elements of this country to take part in the development of legislation, in the administra-
[Mr. Matte.l
tion of this country. That is what is needed, because that is the real problem.
It is quite true that it is not a language problem, even though, because of historical circumstances, French Canadians have identified their national problem with a language problem. This is due only to a historical coincidence, and I am sure that the Irish, to give you just another exemple, have not identified their national problem with a language problem. But let nobody tell an Irishman point blank that he is an Englishman: he will not appreciate it. He is of a different nationality, but he has accepted the English language to express his thoughts.
As for us, in Canada, we have identified our national problem with a language problem. That is why when we deal with the language problem, we are dealing with the national problem of the French Canadians. But the time has come to make a distinction.
Therefore, we will not solve this problem by spending $29,000 per civil servant trying to teach him a second language, or $55,000 per civil servant trying to make him understand the other culture. There is a means which is less costly than this heavy bilingualism which does not satisfy anyone, and this means would enable everyone to participate in it.
This is why I have considered introducing an amendment which, in my view, is the solution and brings the problem back to its true dimension and whose principles are just as satisfactory, I am sure, to the people of British Columbia, Newfoundland, Ontario or Quebec. In fact, these principles are acceptable everywhere and constitute a concrete solution which, obviously, would settle once and for all the problem which we are facing.
Mr. Speaker, I am therefore considerably pleased to move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting, after the words "the foregoing" in the fourth paragraph, the nine Principles listed therein and substituting therefor the following Principles:
(1)	that bilingualism cannot be considered as an essential factor of competence;
(2)	that the knowledge of both official languages is required only for administrative positions where it becomes a criterion of competence, such as telephone operator, hostess, train conductor, receptionist, etc.;
(3)	that everyone is free to speak the language of his or her choice in Canada;
(4)	that, account being taken of geographical and demograph-ical circumstances, everyone in Canada has the right to be served and administered in the official language of his or her choice;
(5)	that unilingualism cannot prevent a civil servant in the Canadian government from being eligible for senior positions; therefore, the government undertakes to set up, organize and implement a parallel administration, one English-speaking, the other French-speaking, in all departments of the federal government;
(a)	each department shall have two sections, one English, the other French; the size of these sections shall be proportional to the requirements of their respective administrative needs, which means that the departments shall not necessarily have the same number of employees;
(b)	these departments shall be autonomous entities with equal responsibilities up to the deputy minister level, both the English-speaking and the French-speaking deputy ministers having similar authority and similar responsibilities;
May 31, 1973

(c)	promotions in each department shall be based exclusively on merit.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I must say that this proposal was integrally included in our election program, and that if we have included it, it was only after finding out that this was the true solution for all Canadians. We realize very well that a Canadian from an entirely English-speaking community, as soon as he feels that they want to impose on him the knowledge of another language, is perfectly right in protesting and we want to satisfy him. The same could apply to a Quebec French Canadian from Quebec who could also protest in the same circumstances.
Now to avoid any friction or misunderstanding and to preserve-as one likes to say-unity and harmony in this country, why not accept the sole solution which I find realistic, that is to enable each ethnic entity to gain freedom and self-fulfilment as it may see fit.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to refer to the Beaudet report which has never been made public by the President of the Treasury Board. We are still waiting for it. It is a negative report about the government policy on bilingualism. Indeed, when I read therein that it costs $29,000 to make an employee bilingual and $55,000 to have him gain some insight into the other culture, I say that it costs nothing to stay as you are.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) for having given the Chair notice of the motion that he proposed to move and which he read into the record a few minutes ago.
In order to avoid a long, time-consuming procedural debate I should indicate now to the hon. member my reservation about the motion. My reservation is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in his speech earlier this evening moved an amendment which would seek to incorporate by way of legislative action the purposes of the resolution that we are now discussing. It seems to me that what is proposed by the hon. member for Champlain is a matter entirely different from the one incorporated in the amendment presented to us by the Leader of the Opposition.
I also have some doubts about paragraph 5 of the proposed motion of the hon. member for Champlain. Be that as it may, I suggest to the hon. member that he is not restricted either from participating again in debate or from having a colleague participate in the debate at a future time in order to move exactly what he has presented, after the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition has been disposed of. This does not prejudice the hon. member's rights at all.
I say again that I have read paragraph 5 of the proposed motion and it gives me some concern. However, that is not a question we need to decide immediately. All I am saying is that the hon. member will have an opportunity to move his motion at a future time, but it cannot be accepted now.
Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments, in the brief time available to me, about a situation which has already been raised in the House on numerous occasions, namely, the takeover of radio station CKSB, Winnipeg, by the CBC. First I should like to make some comments about the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission itself. It appears to be most insensitive to the meaning and import of section 38 of the Official Languages Act and insensitive to the concept of multiculturalism as proclaimed by this government on several occasions in the past year and a half.
When the application was made to the CRTC and it was asked to consider the matter in Winnipeg, it decided to hold its meetings in Montreal. That decision was hard to understand; it did not make any sense at all. Representations were made to the CRTC prior to the meetings. Nevertheless, the commission insisted on holding the hearings, not in the city involved where people who were concerned could be present in sufficient numbers to make reasonable representations on their own behalf, but in another city, Montreal. I know that a few representatives travelled from Winnipeg-so far as I know, at government expense-to make representations but this was by no means satisfactory and did not obviate the need to hold hearings in Winnipeg where proper representations could have been made by all groups concerned.
I think the decision of the CRTC to allow this sale to go through constitutes blatant disregard of the established rights of the people in the Winnipeg area who have been accustomed to using this radio station for the purpose of third language broadcasts. I think the minister should explain to the House why the CRTC was so unreasonable in refusing to hold hearings in Winnipeg and, secondly, why he refused to direct the CRTC to the extent that he has any influence over it. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) is here this evening. I hope he will take this opportunity to explain what has happened.
We also had a communication from the Commissioner of Official Languages who was requested to investigate this takeover and see whether it was contrary to section 38 of the Official Languages Act. The commissioner's report indicated that station CKSB had been broadcasting in a third language for 20 years. In his report he repeatedly used the words "foreign languages". These words are offensive to Canadians who speak a language other than the two official languages; they object to having a third language referred to as a foreign language on so many occasions in the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
In any event, the commissioner concluded that in his opinion this takeover and the consequent loss of rights for ethnic groups with regard to the use of a third language in

May 31, 1973
Adjournment Debate
programming did not constitute an infraction of section 38 of the Official Languages Act. I am sorry to say that I have to disagree with the languages commissioner. He did not explain fully on what ground he made his deduction, and I hope he takes the opportunity to explain it in the near future.
In any event, the languages commissioner recommended that the CBC should reconsider its language policy and allow third language broadcasting. He made his point of view known to the CBC. The CBC replied in a negative manner; that is to say, they condescended to allow the use of this station to continue as at present for another year. In other words, it is to continue on a temporary basis. However, the CBC made it very plain to the languages commissioner that this concession that was granted to the ethnic groups concerned should not be considered by any means as a change in policy but only as a temporary arrangement, and it could not accede to the request of the languages commissioner to change its policy with respect to third language broadcasting.
The CBC has been hiding behind the Broadcasting Act on which it has based its policy. Section 3 of the act provides that all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available. The CBC has considered broadcasting in English and French to be a priority. This does not mean that the CBC is not allowed to broadcast in other languages.
In this House there have been previous discussions on this subject with the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and with the minister responsible for multiculturalism. We have also had discussions with the president of the CBC. We have obtained conflicting reports in that the president of the CBC has indicated that the Broadcasting Act does not really stand in the way in this matter; on the other hand, the Secretary of State has suggested that the Broadcasting Act does stand in the way of third language broadcasting. It is therefore my impression that arguments about legal principles and technicalities prevent third language broadcasting by the CBC. It is also my impression that nobody who so argues is at all interested in seeing that the ethnic groups involved receive justice. I think that is a shameful reflection on this government which claims to be concerned about all Canadians and says it is committed to a policy of multiculturalism. I think this matter ought to be straightened out forthwith.
A petition was presented to the governor in council a few days ago by the groups involved, asking that the government use its power to reverse the position taken by the CRTC in permitting this sale. They want the hearings to be held again in order that concerned groups can be heard. However, the government has refused to heed this petition and I should like to know why. I think the big fear created by this action is that it will set a precedent. If this action is allowed to go unchallenged, it is possible that other radio stations which now broadcast programs in a third language may follow the same course.
What will happen to stations in Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Toronto and other parts of the country which are now broadcasting in a third language? Are these to go the same way? Will the languages commissioner claim

that established and customary rights have not been lost in all cases and refuse to take action? It is time the minister and the government were honest and gave us information as to where they really stand on this matter, to clarify once and for all the long-term prospects in third language broadcasting and the prospects for protecting established and customary rights as stated in Section 38 of the Official Languages Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to give me the opportunity to explain the situation. I welcome this opportunity but I will use it mainly to inform the hon. member, who seems to ignore a great number of things pertaining to the question he has put forward tonight. The hon. member stated that the CRTC is insensitive and unreasonable about third languages. He has forgotten the policy the CRTC established for private stations over which it has authority, and in the field where it can make a policy outside the Broadcasting Act which concerns the CBC.
The hon. member blamed the CRTC for not holding the meeting in Winnipeg. This is very unfair, because the CRTC is the most mobile of all regulatory bodies in Canada. If the hon. member were reasonable, he would recognize that the CRTC cannot be in every city or town in this country at the same time. The hon. member must realize that there are problems pertaining to broadcasting and cablecasting in almost every city and town in this country at almost all times. It is absolutely impossible for them to be everywhere at the same time. It is very unfair to level such a charge against the CRTC which, I repeat, has been more mobile than any other regulatory body.
With regard to the petition that was presented to the governor in council, the hon. member can see no reason why the governor in council decided not to refer back to, or vary the decision of the CRTC. I must inform the hon. member that the petition was received so late that the cabinet would have had exactly 36 hours advance notice to review a question on which the CRTC had been holding hearings for days. It was entirely unreasonable to hope that within 36 hours the government would decide to reform, rescind or refer back the decision of the CRTC which had been very well motivated.
The CBC's language policy is another question. The CBC must interpret the law. It has legal advisers. It broadcasts in English and French. It cannot do any other broadcasting except at arm's length, in some northern parts, in native languages. The hon. member says we are committed to multiculturalism, but forgets the second part within a bilingual framework. When I was secretary of state and this policy was being developed, I met with many groups including the very interesting ethnic group to which the hon. member belongs. I asked whether they recognized the true terms of the policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. Not one group in this country said no at that time. If they want to change their minds now, that is their absolute right. They can ask for a hearing before the CRTC at a place of their choice. They can hear the CBC, and their propositions can be considered-
May 31, 1973


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him under the Standing Order has expired.


CANADA PENSION PLAN-HUTTERIAN BRETHREN OF CANADA-REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM PAYING PREMIUMS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the minister for his presence here tonight. The question I should like to deal with concerns Canada Pension Plan premiums paid by the Hutterian Brethren of Canada. Not only is the Department of National Health and Welfare concerned in the matter, but perhaps at this stage the Department of National Revenue is even more concerned; and I am sure the minister will convey my comments to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury).
The Hutterian Brethren are a minority group, a very unique group living in western Canada who in many instances, I feel, have been misunderstood, specifically with regard to the Canada Pension Plan. The Hutterian Brethren hold all things common. I should like to make it very clear to the minister that no individual can own any property, nor can he build up any personal equity, and a pension plan could be regarded as building up personal equity.
The Canada Pension Plan Act, section 6(2) (e), provides that "employment of a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of perpetual poverty and whose remuneration is paid either directly or by him to the order" is exempted from payment of Canada Pension Plan premiums. In their baptismal vows Hutterian Brethren are required to state;
That no one shall have any private possessions any more: for one gives and surrenders himself to the Lord and his church with all that he has and is able to do, as it was in the original apostolic church, when no one said of his possessions that they were his own, but all things were common to them.
According to a letter signed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), the Hutterian Brethren of Canada were exempted from payment of CPP premiums as of January 1, 1972. In this regard I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) whether an amendment would be tabled or brought into the House to cover this provision by legislative action. In addition, there is a backlog of unpaid premiums from 1966 to the end of 1971. For six years, from the inception of the plan to the date the exemption took effect, these premiums have been accumulating on behalf of various Hutterian colonies in Manitoba.
I suggest that the collection of these fees is the whole nub of the matter. In the same letter to which I referred, the minister undertook not to take any action against the Hutterites to collect premiums without prior consultation with Hutterian representatives. Prior to 1972, when the exemption took effect, the Department of National Revenue took the tax refund credits which were to be paid to the Hutterian Brethren and placed them against the back premiums for those six years, at a time when the Hutterian Brethren had clearly been given to understand that no future collection action would be taken against them by the government without prior consultation. There was no prior consultation, yet this action was taken during a year
Adjournment Debate
when the Hutterian Brethren had been exempted by the government from paying premiums.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue to undertake a re-examination of this problem with the result that this inequity, in my view, can be removed in respect of the Hutterian Brethren.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) in paying tribute to the Hutterian Brethren of Canada for the contribution they have made to this country. They stand very high in the religious groups of this country in terms of their contribution to Canadian life. They bring to us a unique way of life, and have been in all respects exemplary citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The problem raised by the hon. member has also been raised by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Hymmen) for quite a while, and by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) on various occasions. When I was assigned to my present portfolio, and my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) was assigned his portfolio last November, this was one issue drawn to our attention at that time. It has been decided that indeed we should do everything necessary to honour the commitment made by the former minister of national revenue. I have since been to the cabinet with my colleague, and I can tell the hon. member that this morning a bill was approved which I hope will be introduced in this House very shortly. I think it will remedy the situation raised by the hon. member to his satisfaction, and I hope we can receive unanimous support from all parties in the House in order that we might pass the bill in a very short time.
The bill includes four or five technical amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. The matter raised by the hon. member will be taken care of by these amendments. I hope the bill will be introduced within the next few days.


ENERGY-PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE-ALLEGED LACK OF DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION OF OPPOSITION
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, the issue I raised in the form of a question to the hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) appears at page 3131 of Hansard as follows:
Having in mind the criticism in recent days by the head of the Science Council of Canada, Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, of what he calls the snail's pace progress being made by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment to protect the west coast of British Columbia from potential oil spillage along the tanker route to Cherry Point, which is within 18 miles of my riding, is the minister satisfied with the protection that exists, or will he pay heed to the warning issued by the head of the Science Council within the last four or five days?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will ever be completely satisfied with the measures that we are taking, but our performance recent-

May 31, 1973
Adjournment Debate
ly on the west coast relative to the spill from the freighter Irish Stardust was much better than that with respect to the Arrow with which Dr. McTaggart-Cowan is familiar.
British Columbians disagree on a great many more matters than we agree on, but if there is one thing on which we have unity it is the fact that it is inconceivable to us that Canada will not protect us from the inevitable major oil spills and massive pollution along our coast and the islands that will follow the shipment by giant oil tankers of oil from Alaska down the coast to Cherry Point, a refinery in Washington state about 18 miles from my riding. It is estimated there will be one such oil spill every four years.
With this in mind, I have tried to raise this issue as have other members representing the various parties. We do not need recapitulation of the whole situation tonight and, of course, time does not permit this. There is greater pressure now that safeguards be applied quickly, particularly in light of the fact that the United States is concerned about the need for energy, than there was maybe a year or two ago. This pressure is from environmentalists who recently managed to stay a U.S. project to move oil from Alaska by shipment along our coast.
The danger involved here to Alaska, and particularly to British Columbia, the lower mainland and the Gulf islands, is tremendous. The danger is great particularly in respect of these vast vessels, some of which are 100,000-ton tankers that I am told take almost a mile to change direction. This is an indication of the perils involved in their passage through the intricate and sometimes foggy channels just off the lower mainland of British Columbia and the Gulf islands of British Columbia. Therefore, I felt it was right to raise the matter again tonight.
The United States refinery at Cherry Point, which as I say is about 18 miles south of my riding, is an ecological time-bomb ticking away, one which will continue to tick away as long as the threat exists of these oil tankers bringing oil from Alaska down that coast to the refinery. I raise the question concerning what is being done to protect us because of the statement made by Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, an oil expert in this country if ever we had one. He has had experience on the east coast. He was very critical concerning the amount of action and effort, as well as success, of our departments of industry, trade and commerce, and transport to at least supply sort of a firefighter service to meet the situation if an oil spill should come about off the coast of British Columbia.
Last year Dr. McTaggart-Cowan said-I think he meant this in line with the suggestion that we cannot stop the oil shipments coming down the coast-"We will have to police the hell out of the oil tanker transports". A great many million dollars are at the disposal of both the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment to cope with the many problems with which these departments are faced. I think a very small amount of this money is actually being used to police our west coast against the threat of oil pollution which would certainly result from oil tanker shipments down that coast.
I had the pleasure of questioning Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, head of the Science Council of Canada, on May 24 at a committee meeting. I asked him about his opinion of 
defensive measures being taken by the federal departments concerned. He replied to me in this way:
If you ask am I satisfied with the progress that has been made since Chedabucto Bay, the answer is no.
He went on to say:
This is not to say that people are not doing their best under a difficult situation, but international marine law is hopelessly inadequate. Canada cannot solve these problems alone .. . Having had the job of trying to cope with a few million gallons, no I will not be satisfied until the problem is licked and the problem is not licked by any manner of means. So the honest answer is no. I am restless. I wish I could see more action.
Coming from the source it did, I think this statement made a few weeks ago on this very grave problem in British Columbia deserves to be quoted tonight to underline the reason for my raising the question again with the minister, whom I know in many respects is a good minister who means very well. But I doubt that the people of British Columbia are satisfied with the action and practical application of money, men and machines to defend our shores-this is what it amounts to-from the threat of oil spill pollution which confronts us on the B.C. coast in particular.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that British Columbians can agree on, it is the necessity to protect our coasts from oil spills, particulary spills resulting from the movement of Alaskan oil down the west coast by supertanker. We must prevent the spills from occurring in the first place. We will, however, have some spills in our own waters simply because there oil and other products are moving in relatively small quantities up and down the coast to remote locations.
Therefore we must be ready to deal with emergency situation first in respect of the prevention of massive oil spills. For example, through the United Nations at Stockholm last June we managed to have resolutions passed- and, incidentally, the United States and a great majority of nations were with us-which were opposed to the shipment of oil in large quantities through inland areas, parts of the world in which ocean or waters were contained, parts of the world in which navigation would be difficult and parts of the world where the biological flora and fauna were unique or precious or where recreation and tourism were important. Certainly the waters between the mainland of B.C. and Vancouver Island fall within that category.
We have entered, with the United States, into a joint contingency plan to deal with spills should they occur, but our basic approach is to prevent large tankers from coming into those waters at all. Basically, the answer is to continue to supply refineries in the Seattle and Vancouver areas by pipeline from western Canada, and if Alaskan oil does move down the west coast of North America it should go to California, which is its principal destination in any case. In other words, we should keep the big trucks on the highways of the seas and not bring them in too close to parkland areas close to Vancouver. That must be the basic policy.
But we also have environmental emergency centres established across the country. In other words, there is a
May 31, 1973

phone number which can be called by anyone but especially by federal government departments and provincial administrations as well as by U.S. coastguards and others. We have worked out a co-operative agreement with the United States coastguard and we have been assembling a lot of equipment. We have a $5 million program to have sticklicks on hand and oil booms; we have the little Pisces submarine out there, and so on.
Adjournment Debate
Dr. McTaggart-Cowan is a competent gentleman who has had a lot of experience with the Arrow oil spill. We welcome him back to take a look at our new organization, our new arrangements and our equipment on the west coast at any time. I think he will agree that we have made progress. But I must repeat what I said to the hon. member earlier. Personally, I am not satisfied we have reached the millennium-we have still quite a long way to go.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, June 1, 1973