1973-05-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mrs. Morin (Louis-Hebert).

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle (Hull).
[Editors Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We on this side would be prepared to grant unanimous consent to a motion for concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs later this day, if that is the wish of the House.


MINERALS
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table copies in both official languages of a document entitled "Mineral Policy Objectives for Canada".
A number of meetings have been held between the ministers responsible at the federal and provincial levels for mineral policy, culminating in a meeting in Ottawa on April 13 at which two decisions were concluded with respect to mineral policy in Canada.
The first of these has been the decision to set up a formal consultative and co-ordination mechanism in order to achieve more effective co-ordination in mineral policy development. Such a mechanism is essential for the formulation of mineral policies which are national in scope.
While noting that differences among governments on mineral policy matters remain, the ministers agreed that the real significance of their discussions is the beginning of new relationships among governments in the formulation of mineral policy for Canadians.
The meeting also reached agreement on the publication of a document entitled "Mineral Policy Objectives for Canada", which I am tabling today.
The document contains a more detailed description of the goal and objectives for mineral policies outlined in April, and is intended to form a background for further discussions by ministers. While this document relates to most minerals, it does not apply to fossil fuels. These, along with other energy commodities, will be the subject of extensive scrutiny within the context of papers reviewing Canada's energy policies which I will present to parliament in the near future.
Within the context of closer co-operation which is sought at the governmental level, governments must take into account each other's jurisdiction in the translation of objectives into policies. The document is not intended to state or identify policies by which any government would achieve such objectives, nor does it attempt to define or specify the particular role of any one government. However, it is a first phase in the process of intergovernmental co-operation for arriving at a mineral policy for Canada. None the less, governments will choose from a wide variety of strategies, programs, methods and techniques to achieve their objectives. References in the document tabled to possible strategies are therefore included only by way of example.
The publication of this document should be seen as a first step toward the formulation and implementation of comprehensive mineral policies for Canada.
The nation's mineral endowment can support an expanding level of output and thereby continue to contribute substantially to the economic and material well-being of future generations.
However, Canada does not have a monopoly on minerals. Indeed, Canada faces major challenges to maintain an internationally competitive sector because of increasing competition from other resource-producing nations and the efforts of larger industrial nations to secure greater long-term advantage from resource exporters.
Ministers want to explore how mineral development for both domestic needs and exports can be best undertaken to optimize long-term contribution to development throughout Canada. Such development must be sensitive to long-term economic needs, undesirable environmental impacts, the viability of communities dependent on mineral production and fabrication and more precise delineation of the long-term economic potential of our mineral endowment and the ways it can be utilized.
3862

May 17, 1973
Mineral Policy Objectives
I urge Canadians interested in our resource development to study the contents of this document as the basis for informed discussion of those policies which will govern the important mineral sector of our economy.


Mr. Baldwin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We did not receive copies of the statement the minister has made in purporting to table a document under Standing Order 41(2). I suggest it is quite improper for the minister to make a statement without having given notice to the other parties in the House. This is a travesty of the rules. If the document does not contain anything more than the drivel to which we have just been treated by the minister it is not of much value, but I say this is an abuse of the rules and an indication of the manner in which this minister conducts himself. We take the strongest possible exception to this conduct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, let me say it is my information that copies of the mineral objectives document, plus my statement, were distributed to opposition offices at one o'clock today. I can assume responsibility for delivering the document, but I cannot assume responsibility for its distribution after that.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. May I also say in response to the statement just made by the minister that the material he says was delivered to the opposition offices did not reach us either. The other point I wish to make is that the minister began his remarks by saying that he was rising under Standing Order 41(2). This meant that he was about to table something and of course we all relaxed. But he then proceeded to make a statement. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it should now be agreed that at the end of the question period we revert to motions so that the spokesmen for the opposition parties, once they have seen this statement, may have an opportunity to make their comments.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for our part, we know nothing about the document the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) says he had distributed. I believe it is out of order, according to Standing Order 41 (2), to make such statements. That is why I agree with the previous speaker that as soon as we have read the document we would like to be able to comment on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a very interesting and intriguing one. My understanding, when the minister rose and referred to Standing Order 41(2), was that he intended to table a document, which he did quite properly. At the same time, while he had the floor he made a statement under the Standing Order which normally calls for statements to be made by members representing the parties in opposition. I can understand that hon. members, thinking that the minister had the floor only for the purpose of tabling a document, were not taking into

account that perhaps they ought to prepare at that moment to make statements in reply to the statement made by the minister.
At the same time, the Chair must take into account that in so far as it can judge there is no obligation under the terms of the Standing Order for a minister making a statement under the Standing Order to provide copies or even give advance notice to parties in opposition that he proposes to make a statement on motions. I appreciate that the practice has developed over the months or years that ministers normally give advance notice which gives an opportunity to opposition parties to prepare statements or give some thought to the matter that the minister intends to bring to the attention of the House under the terms of the Standing Order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that at the end of the question period we return to this item for the purpose of allowing members to make statements. I do not think the Chair can do that on its own initiative. I would think there would have to be unanimous consent at that moment to return to the business of Motions, for the purpose of allowing opposition members to do this. There may be a disposition on the part of hon. members to follow this course. Of course it would be the ideal solution to the problem raised by the hon. member for Peace River. I would be pleased to hear the views of hon. members on whether there will be consent for the purpose of returning to motions to hear these statements under the Standing Order from parties in opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, presumably we will be occupied during the course of the next 40 or 50 minutes. Possibly the House leaders could have their usual consultations in an effort to arrive at an arrangement which we could communicate to Your Honour concerning a time when we might have an opportunity to reply, assuming that it was in fact the intention of the minister to make a statement on motions, which he certainly did not indicate. We might have that consultation and communicate our views to Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be agreement on this very reasonable approach to the difficulty. I am sure it should be possible to resolve it easily on the basis of consultation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order simply to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he intends to make a statement concerning the incident in which two Canadian girls were killed while visiting Victoria Falls.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have further information. It would be a very brief statement. If the House is agreeable I will make a very brief statement now.
May 17, 1973

We have had further contact with our High Commissioner in Lusaka and have instructed our First Secretary, Mr. Leith, to proceed to the area of the tragedy in which two Canadian girls lost their lives with a view to doing whatever is possible to aid in recovering the body that is still missing-my information is that the body of Miss Sinclair has now been recovered-and to help in whatever funeral arrangements the next of kin desire. Mr. Leith has already left on this mission. Our High Commissioner has made contact with the Zambian authorities, and I understand he has been given assurance that there will be no interference in any retrieval operations. Furthermore, Mr. Broadbridge has also been in touch with the Zambian authorities to obtain any necessary assurances that a satisfactory investigation of the incident will be carried out.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS TABLING OF AGENDA FOR FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41 (2), I should like to table, in both official languages, the agenda for the conference of first ministers to be held from May 23 to 25. [English]
I do not have a statement to make, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanfield:: But you will have some questions to answer.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on motions and table documents in both official languages under Standing Order 41(2).

On October 8, 1971, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognized the importance of the Canadian heritage by announcing the government policy on multiculturalism.
On that occasion, he said, and I quote:
... a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework is basically the conscious support of individual freedom of choice. We are free to be ourselves. But this cannot be left to chance. It must be fostered and pursued actively. If freedom of choice is in danger for some ethnic groups, it is in danger for all. It is the policy of this government to eliminate any such danger and to "safeguard" this freedom.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian culture and identity are the fruit of diversity. Our literature, our art, our music, owe their wealth to that cultural heritage which we accept and develop.
Multiculturalism
Through our multiculturalism programs, we encourage an awareness of the cultural diversity that is characteristic of the Canadian society, while giving birth to a feeling of pride. We encourage Canadians, as groups and as individuals, to respect their own identity within the large Canadian family.
As Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism, I am happy to announce the expansion in some cases, and the implementation in others, of seven important programs whose purpose is to encourage the multicultural activities of Canadians.

There is an urgent need to establish a continuing and active communication with our ethno-cultural groups. To meet this need I would like to announce the formation of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. This council is representative of Canadians from every region of the country, and it is with pleasure that I table the terms of reference and the list of the first appointments today in both official languages according to Standing Order 41(2).
The new multicultural programs will entail an increase from the 1973-74 level of about $4 million to over $10 million. These increased funds for expanded and new programs reflect the government's commitment to the concept of multiculturalism.
As a first step we are enlarging the multicultural grants program which is the cornerstone of our policy of creating an awareness of Canada's multicultural diversity. Through this program, implemented in January, 1972, more than 300 ethno-cultural groups have received grants to undertake cultural and social projects. The response to this program has exceeded our expectations, and so a further $1,100,000 will be added to the budgetary estimates of this fiscal year to enable a greater number of groups to receive assistance for a wider variety of projects.
The second program expansion involves an increased allocation of funds from $154,000 to $654,000 during 1973-74 for the multicultural centres program. Grants have been made to such centres during the past year, and there are an additional 20 under way. These centres provide a vehicle for intercultural understanding throughout the country.
We are establishing a Canadian identities program. This is a major innovation designed to increase an awareness on the part of all Canadians of the cultural richness within our society. Expenditures under the Canadian identities program will be $3,823,500 in this fiscal year, of which $2,314,000 is already included in the estimates.
Assistance will be given to projects in the areas of films, radio and television broadcasting, folk festivals, theatre, literature, ethnic crafts and cuisine, travelling exhibits sponsored by the National Museum of Man, and the collection and exhibit programs of the Public Archives. A further $425,000 is provided for a multicultural studies program to encourage research in ethnic studies.
The ethnic press has a unique and very special role in Canadian life as a forum of discussion of community activities, and in many cases as the sole source of informa-
26314- 27}

May 17, 1973
Multiculturalism
tion for many recent and elderly immigrants. The government will make greater use of the ethnic press this year to supply these various multicultural groups with helpful information on such things as pensions, immigration regulations, consumer protection, labour regulations, and National Housing Act provisions among other items.
The government will call its first national multicultural conference of ethno-cultural groups this fall with the assistance of the new Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism.
To help young Canadians learn and retain their ancestral languages the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, has undertaken to provide language teaching aids. Some provinces and ethnic groups have expressed a concern that such aids are now available only from non-Canadian sources and are not sufficiently oriented to our nation's experience. Research on the role of ancestral languages in the retention of a culture is currently under way. This will be extended to include more groups and rural areas. However, the need for Canadian teaching material is already quite evident, and funds have been allocated for the provision of these teaching aids in 1973-74.
In dedicating ourselves to these innovative programs we are doing so convinced that cultural diversity is a positive asset to society. We are helping to provide a climate in which immigrants can immediately enter the mainstream of Canadian life, a climate in which young people can grow with a better understanding of and pride in their ethnic origins, a climate in which all ethno-cultural groups can develop. This policy leads to greater appreciation of the contributions that all our ethno-cultural groups are making to our national identity and, through this appreciation, to a greater appreciation and love for the colourful diversity so unique to our country.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, today we have witnessed the scorn in which this government holds the opposition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not the government, the people.


Paul Yewchuk: Two statements were made by ministers and both failed to provide information to the opposition parties in time for them to prepare some sort of reasonable reply. I personally was made aware of this document only about two minutes before the House met.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Arrogant!


Paul Yewchuk: If the minister was really interested in a proper discussion of this subject he should have given the statement to us at least a day in advance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: Same old bunch!


An hon. Member:: No humility!


Paul Yewchuk: The minister patted himself on the back very vigorously today, as on previous occasions, in an effort to create the impression it was he and the govern-

ment who invented the idea of multiculturalism in this country. I point out that in 1969, when the languages bill was before the committee and before the House, this party put forward amendments that clearly outlined our support of the principle of multiculturalism and our desire to do something positive to promote the idea.
In October, 1971, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that the government had officially accepted the policy of multiculturalism. Of course we welcomed that announcement and I welcome the steps being taken today to promote the concept of multiculturalism. I think we all agree there is a positive value in the contribution made to the Canadian cultural fabric by groups other than the two official language groups. As a matter of fact, if we are concerned about maintaining an identity for this country different from that of the country south of the border, our only hope may lie in preserving and encouraging the growth of these various cultures within our own borders.
I was very disappointed at the lack of an explanation in the minister's statement of how the policy will be implemented. No provision is being made for the consultative council to have a real input into the policy-making process in regard to multiculturalism. As I interpret the document, the policy will be handed down from on high and the function of the council will be to advise the government on how to implement it. I think that is approaching the problem from the wrong direction; there has to be an input from the ethnic groups themselves in the area of policy development as well as in the implementation of policy.
I am somewhat concerned about the method used to select members of the consultative council. From my travels across the country and discussions with representatives of the various ethnic groups I know that there has been virtually no or very little consultation with them on how the members of the council should be selected, and certainly there was no opportunity for ethnic groups to elect members to this council. The appointments were made by the minister. I am not making accusations of any kind, but it does leave the whole thing in question because of the lack of democracy in the way the council was set up.
I was also extremely distressed that no reference was made to changes in the policies regarding the mass media, particularly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This applies particularly to the present policy of television and radio stations prohibiting the use of third languages.
If we are serious about promoting the concept of multiculturalism and sensitizing the Canadian public to the concept so that it can be fully understood and therefore more fully implemented, it is obvious we have to use all means at our disposal to make this sensitization possible. It seems to me that use of the mass media is the obvious choice. No reference whatsoever has been made to this, and I am very disappointed.
On the positive side, I am pleased to see efforts are being made to provide teaching aids in an attempt to provide a greater degree of third language education. I think that is a very useful step. I should like to see some change in the teaching of Canadian history in schools. At present, due credit is not given to the third force and its contribution to the development of this country. I think the history books
May 17, 1973

being used in our schools are defective and need to be improved.
If I may touch the conscience of the National Film Board a little, I hope the minister will ensure more open consultation with ethnic groups involved when films are being made about them. There have been examples of films produced in the past when consultations with the particular group about which the film was made were not held, with the result that the films produced were found to be repugnant to the particular groups concerned. I think that is a shameful situation and should not be allowed to recur under any circumstances.
I should like to comment also on the communications portion of the minister's statement. It is indicated that the government will purchase space in various newspapers to publish details of various events and programs in which the government is participating. I think there is a better way of doing this than simply by buying space in this way. I think we could go much further than that in the provision of news to the ethnic press. I suggest that an ethnic press service bureau be established, funded by the department, which would be staffed with a press gallery member whose function it would be to gather news for the ethnic press of this country. The staff associated with him would make this news presentable in such a form that it could be used by the ethnic press.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to chastise the minister for having recently engaged in a massive propaganda campaign promoting himself, the Prime Minister and his party.


An hon. Member:: At the taxpayers' expense.


Paul Yewchuk: At the taxpayers' expense-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to call the hon. member to order. I think it is a well established practice that statements made by members on behalf of opposition parties in response to statements on motions should refer specifically or allude to the contents of the statement itself. I think this is not the occasion for general debate, and I hope that the hon. member, in bringing his remarks to a conclusion, will limit his remarks to the statement made to the House.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my comments, with all due respect, are directly related to the comments of the minister responsible for multiculturalism who suggested that he would be buying more space in the ethnic newspapers. I am simply saying that we do not want a repetition of the kind of campaign that was waged through the purchase of such space, and I hope the reference in his statement does not mean that there will be more of the same kind of political propaganda.


Stanley Haidasz: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Athabasca while he was making his remarks, but I just want to tell him that I did issue instructions to my officials to send as soon as possible copies of the document on the table in both official languages. I also wish to inform him that I only received the final version of my statement just ten minutes before the House convened.
Multiculturalism


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement that the government is prepared to increase the support it will give to the various ethnic communities in this country will, I am certain, be supported by all parties and by all members in the House. In making his statement the minister reminded us that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first made an announcement about this matter in October of 1971. There has been much too long a period between the announcement by the Prime Minister and any implementation.
We are not now dealing with the kind of situation the government had to face at the beginning of the LIP or OFY program when organizations had to be established. The ethnic organizations are alive and well and flourishing in all parts of Canada. Until now, however, there has been very little action, and I want to say to the minister that I consider what we have had until now as nothing but the worst kind of tokenism. There is no reason why it took until now to announce that the government was prepared to spend the money that the minister announced today. The ethnic organizations could have spent, from the beginning, ten times what the government has announced it is prepared to put into the program today. This program should have started a year and a half or more ago.
I am disturbed by the fact that, certainly as of several weeks ago, there had been no meaningful discussions with the provinces. A number of provinces have already begun implementing programs to support ethnic organizations in the fields of language, music, dancing and art. It seems to me ridiculous that there is a distinct possibility of duplication of the work being funded by the provinces and that being funded by the federal government. I cannot understand why there has not been not only discussion in a formal way but the closest kind of consultation in planning so that federal and provincial programs would fit together rather than being developed in completely separate ways.
The last point I want to make is that I am not satisfied with the way in which, until now, programs chosen to be funded have been picked. So far as I can find out there have been no real, meaningful consultations with the various ethnic communities. The criteria under which these programs have been funded until now have not been adequately explained to those communities in such a way that they can understand why some ethnic groups have had projects financed while others that seemed to be equally deserving have been passed over. They have been told they have been passed over without being told when or if they will be getting funds.
If the announcement today by the minister that the consultative committee has been chosen means that there will be real liaison between the government department, which in my view until now has been choosing projects at best in a very bureaucratic fashion, and the ethnic communities and the people they represent, if the committee will in fact form a bridge between the government and the ethnic communities, then a real step forward will have been taken. If not, I predict that the minister will be hearing an increasing volume of criticism about the way in which the government has until now been choosing projects.

May 17, 1973
Mineral Policy Objectives
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, first I must say how surprised I am to see that we are given press releases and all kinds of information concerning the minister's statement, but not the statement itself. There seems to be a mix-up.
Mr. Speaker, we approve all regulations, legislation and decisions promoting the fulfilment of our Canadian identity. We would like to support anything that can contribute to enrich us further from a cultural, artistic and economic point of view. We must simply rejoice at this.
However, we are raising some questions, especially about the multiculturalism program which is obviously important. Indeed, knowing the difficulties which French Canadians among others have been tackling for over 30 years in connection with biculturalism and bilingualism, we are entitled to ask ourselves whether once again millions of dollars are not spent as window-dressing for New Canadians in order to gain their votes. We then have only one wish to express and it is that New Canadians will not have to experience the same delays, the same injustice and the same disadvantages as French Canadians did for many years.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I hope there might be a willingness now on the part of all parties to permit the representatives of the opposition parties to reply to the very interesting statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MINERALS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the time I have had to look at the press statement from the minister and the mineral policy objectives set out in the little booklet I have just received, I am just going to make three comments.
The first is that the emphasis of the news release and the booklet is that the ten provincial governments and the territorial governments are going to join with the federal government and consult with each other on joint mineral policies. Somehow, I seem to remember that I have heard this music before.
In 1961 the government of that day set up in conjunction with the provinces, and with the same objectives, the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers through which the 11 governments as equals would sit down together and deal with the problems of mineral development. There was a secretariat independent of the federal and provincial governments to work out mutual policies. Now, 12 years

later, this government has awakened to the fact that this was a good idea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the
setting up of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers in 1959, 1960 and 1961, the Quebec minister, representing the Liberal party of that province, the Hon. Rene Levesque, stated publicly that the only way our federation would work would be by the co-operation of all governments as equals in the planning of the multiple use of our resources. Because this government and its predecessor ignored this very sound proposal of co-operation and adopted a policy of confrontation with the provinces, the federal government against the ten provinces, we saw the breakdown of the unity and coherence in resource policy that we had developed during those years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Today, this same very idealistic Canadian, Rene Levesque, leads the Parti Quebecois, pledged to separatism from this type of government. There is your unity, aspirations and operations of this government. That is my first comment.
The next point I want to deal with is taxation. I have only glanced through these documents, but I could not find any mention of the main curse of the mining industry in Canada, I refer to the taxation system of the provinces and the taxation system of the federal government. I say flatly to the minister and the whole of this country that the Benson tax reforms will destroy every Canadian mining company, the small companies within 10 years and the big integrated companies within 30 years when the mines run out. Unless these taxation laws are changed, there will be no future for the Canadian mining industry. It will go down the drain as surely as the Canadian oil and gas industry went down the drain in the past 20 years because of the taxation policies of the federal government and the type of policies adopted by the provincial governments.
With regard to the provinces, I wish to mention one thing only. I think this will interest the leader of the New Democratic Party. One of the things the provinces have done with regard to both oil and gas and mining, and the federal government is no better, is to front-end load these resource industries so much by all the charges they could put together with their fertile minds. Thus they have added to the capital cost of these very precarious operations, so much so that in Canada today the main cost of mining is the cost of money because of the huge debts owed not only to the lenders but to the provincial and federal government. As far I can see, this is not mentioned in this booklet, but this evil of front-end loading, which will lead to most of the oil, gas and minerals being left in the ground, must be stopped by every government, not just the federal government. We would like to see the minister make a clear statement on these matters in order to make the mining industry what it could be to Canada.
The preamble makes it very clear that there is a great future for Canada. The future of our nation depends on the wise use of our oil, gas and energy resources. It depends on the wise use of our mineral resources. I wish to
May 17, 1973

give an example of what I am talking about. By reason of improper handling of its energy resources, our great neighbour to the south will have a deficit in its international balance of payments by the year 1975, or 1980 at the latest, of $30 billion a year for energy alone because they did not take the proper steps in time. Even though minerals are not a part of their current crisis, by the end of this century, for every dollar that the Americans are short in balance of payments because of a shortage of energy they will be $2 short on minerals. Their estimated deficit in international payments by the end of this century will be $60 billion a year. With this great problem facing our neighbour to the south, it is absolutely imperative we have a government in power that will move in the direction ensuring that these resources are used to the maximum advantage not only of this country but of the whole world.
I hold to the view that a lot of plain speaking has to be done in connection with the mining industry. If we want to share in greater returns from this industry, we have to stop this front-end loading and allow higher returns so the companies can pay off their debts. Under the oil regulations in the north the provinces grabbed all they could in the first year, front-end loaded the industry and were satisfied with 121/2 per cent interest. In 1961 under the federal regulations for the north it took an average of 60 per cent to get them into a cash flow position. We can do the same thing with mines if we plan properly. The key is taxation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, these ten years of inaction with no mineral policy and no energy policy have cost this country dearly. We have seen our gas and oil industry become foreign owned as a result of Canadian taxation. We are seeing the mining industry go the same way. All other industries will follow unless we face the fact that taxation today plays a part in international competition. If the provinces and the federal government continue to have no awareness that our tax policies must become competitive, not in order to get less money from the industry but to give more money to the people, then the future of this country is-no future. I suggest that the repentance I see in this statement today comes too late, about ten years too late. If only the government had followed the course that we set between 1959 and 1961 we would not be in this mess today complaining about the lack of Canadian ownership.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the minister's statement went astray. Apparently it was put in the mails and some people have very optimistic ideas about the speed of the mails in this country. The next time the minister wants to put a statement in the mail, I suggest that he make his speech one week later, which is about the length of time it takes to send anything through the mails.
The decision of the federal and provincial governments to set up a co-ordinating mechanism for consultation and co-operation with respect to objectives in developing the mineral resources of this country is, of course, a good one. But when I read the minister's statement and glance at the material that has been put before us, I cannot help feeling that this government is falling into the trap it falls into again and again. Whenever the machine begins to slow
Mineral Policy Objectives
down, the government adds another wheel, another pulley, instead of adding to the power that drives the machine. All that happens is that the machine slows down even more.
Of course the provinces need a mechanism for consultation and co-operation, and I support the proposal that the minister is now putting forward. But they also need something much more fundamental: they need a national minerals policy, and they have not had a national minerals policy. You cannot make up for lack of leadership merely by setting up another committee or consultative body, which is what the government is trying to do.
I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) that this country needs a national minerals policy. I do not agree with him that what we need to do is to reduce the taxes on mining companies further. I cannot shed tears over International Nickel Company which has been making hundreds of millions of dollars out of resources that belong to the people of Canada.
The spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party talks about the poor oil and gas companies going down the drain during the last ten years. Imperial Oil, after taxes, made $1 billion during the last 20 years and has paid to the government of Canada royalties of $40 million, or 4 per cent of what they pocketed for themselves from the resources of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should bring to the attention of visitors in the galleries that they will not be allowed to remain in the galleries if they cannot control their feelings while listening to the hon. member, whose remarks obviously are very interesting.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think the ghost of Mr. Twaits has walked! It seems to me that what Canada needs in terms of mineral development is a policy that will have two main thrusts. The first will be to develop, in co-operation with the provinces, policies that lead increasingly to the processing of mineral resources in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The federal government has control over the export of these materials since they grant the export permits. I am not suggesting that this can be done in 24 hours, but I am suggesting that the provinces and the mining industry can be told that exports of raw minerals will be phased out over a period of years and that they must be processed in this country. This would create jobs, give a greater tax return and improve economic development for the people of Canada.
The second thrust must be for the federal government- the provinces cannot do this-to join with other mineral producing countries in order to negotiate better prices from the importing countries. Raw materials in the past have had a relatively low return in comparison with manufactured goods which countries like Canada have to buy back. The only way this can be done is for Canada to join with other mineral producing countries and negotiate reasonable prices so that we will get a better return for the people of Canada.

May 17, 1973
Finance
I congratulate the minister and the provincial governments for taking this first timid step to set up machinery for co-operation and consultation. But I say both to the minister and to the government that it is their responsibility to give some leadership and to lay down a policy with which the provinces can co-operate.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have some hesitation in rising at this moment to speak about the statement by the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacDonald), for I seem to be stealing precious time that should be allotted to my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte), who has an important motion up for debate today. We have already spent an hour on statements such as that one, although today is theoretically set aside for an opposition party. My remarks will therefore be very brief.
Let me first point out that we have just seen proof of the importance of the motion that my colleague from Champlain is proposing today. Despite our complaints at the beginning of the sitting, we have been given only the English, and not the bilingual version of the document. This again suggests that the implementation of the policy of bilingualism in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is an urgent matter. I have noted this on several occasions: I went in person to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and was met by a bilingual official. I knew he was bilingual, but he categorically refused to speak in French. That is rather a poor showing, Mr. Speaker.
Up to now, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has had little to do with Quebec, and I am pleased to see the start of at least a semblance of co-operation between the provincial and federal governments. This could perhaps bring about more pooling of knowledge by officials, technicians, and scientists in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, so that their knowledge may benefit those who intend to survey for or operate mines, not only in the English-speaking provinces but also in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this new policy will promote mining development in Canada.
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to reimburse the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan) the $10 which that hon. member lost in a wager to the New Democratic Party as a consequence of that error.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member does not want the Chair to put the motion at this time. It does not appear to be the type of motion that should be put to the House. The hon. member might perhaps also consider the fact that the motion is probably out of order in that it refers to proceedings that took place in a committee.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 4, 1973-Mr. Howard:
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, if I could obtain unanimous consent to proceed without debate in order that hon. members might express themselves on this subject, I would be very appreciative.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he might like to refer to the comments made by the hon. member for Champlain a moment ago, who felt that we should give some thought to the fact that this is an opposition day assigned to the party to which the hon. member for Champlain belongs. Perhaps we should not even seek the unanimous consent of the House for the purpose of taking the time to debate the hon. member's motion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the events in today's session of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, at which the Chief Statistician of Canada indicated that Statistics Canada's share of federal government expenditures in 1973-74 will be 100 times smaller than the actual figure, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier):


PROPOSAL TO ADD ECONOMIC PROBLEMS TO AGENDA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the agenda of the Conference of First Ministers to take place from May 23 to May 25. Does the reference to the possibility of discussion of the current economic situation being added to the agenda mean that he or his government has asked that this be placed on the list?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the conference, I did indeed have my people communicate with the provinces to see whether there would be an inclination to put that item on the list. There have been various suggestions in respect of that

item from the House and from other areas. I merely took the initiative as the chairman of putting it to the provinces, but I have not had a complete answer yet. I am rather hopeful that we will reach an agreement to add that item to the agenda.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to present to the other first ministers a co-operative or combined program of any sort to attack and contain the rate of inflation taking place in the country today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a rule of the conference, to which the federal government has adhered as steadfastly as possible, that we should not make our position papers known in advance of the conference. We have asked the provinces to do the same thing. In the past there have been unfortunate occurrences, but I would not want to be a party to such a breach of the rules of the conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking the Prime Minister to disclose even what the proposal might be. I simply asked whether he could indicate to the House that it is his intention to present a proposal to the provincial premiers on the subject of inflation involving a co-operative attack on this problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hypothetical question, if the item is added to the agenda the federal government will make a statement on economic matters that concern the country, and obviously inflation is one of them.


SUGGESTED DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES OF POSITION OF APPELLANTS TO IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board legislation may not be placed before parliament prior to the the summer recess, and in view of the fact that the provinces are concerned with the expenditure of money in respect of those waiting for appeals to be heard, particularly in terms of health, education and welfare, will the Prime Minister place this matter before the provinces in order to give some leadership and direction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our policy on this matter has already been decided by the government. It is a matter of waiting for the time of the House. We hope that such amendments to the act will indeed be passed by the House before any summer break. There is no item on the agenda under which this specific matter would come up with the provinces, but obviously if the provinces want to bring it into the discussions we will listen with great interest.
Oral Questions FINANCE


REPORTED REDUCTION BY BANKS OF LOANS TO FARMERS, FISHERMEN AND SMALL BUSINESSMEN- SUGGESTED ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF CAPITAL
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance about a report in the morning newspapers to the effect that loans under federal government guarantee to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen are being reduced, if not choked off, by the chartered banks as a result of the fact that the interest rates at which such loans must be made are lower than the prime interest rate of the banks.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, because of the cost squeeze on agriculture in particular the rates under government guaranteed lending programs were frozen. It may well be that because of the fundamental change in the interest rate structure not as much money as we would like is now being regularly channelled into guaranteed loans for farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. The government, therefore, has that matter actively under consideration to determine whether adjustments can be made.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements by the governor of the Bank of Canada that it was deliberately intended that the increase in the prime rate should apply to larger corporations in respect of loans over $100,000 in one case and $200,000 in the case of other banks, in order to make money available to small businessmen and others who need it, and because of the assurance of the minister that the purpose of the exercise of increasing the prime interest rate was to make sure it would not affect those people in the categories I have mentioned who really need loans, is the minister prepared to discuss not only with the governor of the Bank of Canada but with the heads of the chartered banks the allocation of a certain percentage of their available capital to the people I have mentioned at the rates the government has frozen?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the banks have said they were allocating, and they are in fact allocating, a sufficient amount of funds to small businessmen, farmers and fishermen under their regular lending programs. Of course the question, as the hon. gentleman realizes, is the availability of funds under government guaranteed loans when the interest rate structure is frozen. It might well be that the only way to achieve a flow of government guaranteed loans is to have those interest rates reflect the current market situation, but I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South may ask a supplementary, and then we will complete the first round of questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Abitibi. We will then have further sup-plementaries on this subject by hon. members.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the minister correctly, his way of going at it is to raise the interest rates to farmers, fishermen and small business people. May I ask the minister how he can possibly have the nerve
3870

May 17, 1973
Oral Questions
to say to the House that such an increase in interest rates will not necessarily result in a tighter monetary policy for Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the money supply is expanding at an annual rate in the first four months of this year of 30 per cent, there is certainly no tight money policy in force in this country, and the hon. member knows that full well. What I am trying to achieve, by whatever method is adopted, is to ensure that government guaranteed loan programs do receive their share of funds, and that is something the government has under active consideration.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but, in his absence, I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary. Following the joint decision of the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs of the province of Quebec to totally reconsider the industrial assistance program, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion tell the House if the federal government will be allowed to demand that those funds be spent outside Montreal, should such expenditure prove advantageous to certain regions sorely afflicted by unemployment?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In the absence of the parliamentary secretary I will undertake to bring this to his attention.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Since there have already been some repercussions in respect of the interest rate question in that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been advised that branch managers of banks have not received any new instructions with relation to individual loan applications under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, I should like to ask the minister whether he has made any inquiries into this matter and also whether he has suggested any specific guidelines for branch bank managers. If so, what has been the response from the chartered banks?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are reviewing this matter actively to see what methods are available to channel more money into government guaranteed loans. The situa-

tion becomes difficult because of the widening gap between the market rates of interest and those rates of interest available under government guaranteed loan plans.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO INCREASE MAXIMUM
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I notice there has been a bill introduced into the Senate, Bill S-5, which received first reading about a month ago, to raise the maximum amount available to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Will the minister use his influence to have this bill enacted, because it is needed in view of the greatly increasing costs of farmers.


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


LOANS TO FARMERS AND FISHERMEN-SUGGESTION MINISTER ASK CHARTERED BANKS TO REDUCE ADVERTISING FOR CONSUMER LOANS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the difficulty farmers and fishermen are having in obtaining loans, would he speak to the heads of the banks and ask them to stop their high pressure advertising with regard to consumer loans so that they can apply some of those funds to those specific purposes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St.Barbe.


ALLEGED DENIAL OF LOANS TO FISHERMEN- SUGGESTION MINISTER ASK CHARTERED BANKS FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that chartered banks are denying fishermen the benefit of government guaranteed loans at preferred rates of interest in favour of loans at conventional rates, would the minister investigate this lack of responsibility on the part of the banks which is hurting the fishing industry, and would the minister fulfil his responsibility by demanding an accounting from the chartered banks with regard to this practice?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the problem is, of course, the difference between international and domestic market rates of interest and those rates of interest available under programs of this kind. That is the question and the problem.


FISHERIES, SMALL BUSINESS AND FARM LOANS- REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF DISTRIBUTION
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, for the third time in about a year, I should like to ask the minister if he would cause to have investigated the distribution of loans across Canada under the three programs mentioned by my colleague, fisheries, small business and farm improvement loans, to determine why the

areas of greatest need receive the least amount of money under these various government programs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to accept the preamble, but I will see what I can do to ascertain whether there is any validity at all in the hon. gentleman's question. I want to meet the point he is illustrating. I am not so sure the factual situation will bear him out.


SMALL BUSINESS LOANS-POSSIBILITY OF MONITORING FLOW OF AVAILABLE CREDIT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has made any arrangements whereby he would be able to monitor the flow of loans to small business, loans under $100,000 or $200,000, whatever his test might be, so that he would be in a position to follow the extent to which credit is being granted under these limits?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am examining the weekly figures available of the loan structure of the chartered banks to see whether that is sufficient for our purposes and, if not, whether we should have further information.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the difficulties experienced by farmers whose herds have been sold because of brucellosis, more commonly known as Bang's disease, is the minister giving consideration to changing the regulations under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to provide for more equitable compensation to farmers by equating fair market value with replacement value?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to this matter. An announcement will be made in due course. It may not be exactly as the hon. member suggests, but I think he will be satisfied with it.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Has the minister considered wholesale vaccination in northwestern Saskatchewan where this disease is very prevalent as one means of bringing the disease under control, because it seems the process of trying to eliminate reactors is simply not working?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I was in Saskatchewan a week or so ago and discussed the matter with the officials there. I have also discussed it with some of our officials in Ottawa. I think there are some 40-odd herds infected, so it would be cheaper to eradicate these herds and pay these people proper compensation so they can start all over again, thus making sure that all sources of the disease are eradicated.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary, and then we will go to the next question.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, is the Health of Animals Branch of the federal Department of Agriculture monitoring hospitals in northern Saskatchewan to see if there have been any cases of undulant fever?


Eugene Whelan: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker. I would have to check.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. In light of the expressed desire of staff members of the British Columbia penitentiary service to meet the minister, may I ask him how he plans to deal with the problems they plan to discuss with him, namely, staff morale and public safety within the prisons?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: I did not
catch the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the member would repeat it.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it concerns a request by the staff members of the British Columbia penitentiary service to meet the minister and discuss with him certain problems of staff morale and public safety within the prisons. I am asking the minister how he plans to deal with this request?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I was appointed Solicitor General in December, one of the first places I went was the British Columbia penitentiary. I met the staff representatives of the penitentiary at that time. We are following up some of the matters they brought to my attention. I have not received another request, but if I do I will try to do what I can to meet with them.


WILLIAM HEAD-INQUIRY AS TO SECURITY PROVISIONS BEFORE CONVERSION FROM MINIMUM TO MEDIUM SECURITY
Donald W. Munro: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the staff members have sent a telegram to the Solicitor General, but perhaps to be more specific I might mention the matter of William Head. Can the minister assure the House that all appropriate security measures were taken at William Head, which he visited a week ago, before converting that institution from a minimum to a medium security institution?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, William Head has not yet been converted into a medium security institution. It is still operating as a minimum security institution. The decision has been taken to
26314-28*

May 17, 1973
Oral Questions
make it into a medium security institution, but that decision will not be put into operation until we have a proper staff and proper fencing. The new fence has been authorized for a while now and construction will start shortly.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following the statement of the minister concerning the murder of two Canadian women by Zambian troops while they were visiting Rhodesia, has the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs who recognizes the government of Zambia, but not that of Rhodesia, made protests to the Zambian authorities or does he intend to do so, following the murder of those two Canadians, and does he intend to revise the official position of Canada concerning Rhodesia, which has always been very sympathetic towards the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of reviewing its policy on the recognition of Rhodesia. We have made inquiries of the Zambian government and have sought their assurances that there will be an impartial and thorough investigation of the incident.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Given the economical sanctions that the United Nations had asked countries of the world to take against Rhodesia, and since the United States have removed those sanctions a few months ago and now do business with Rhodesia, does the Canadian government also intend to change its official position concerning Rhodesia, in the field of trade relations?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Canada does observe the sanctions which have been recommended and imposed by the Security Council. That is our policy and we have no intention of changing it until the Security Council changes its position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Will he announce in the

House, as he has done outside the House, the composition of the inquiry he has set up under section 12 of the Penitentiaries Act and inform the House whether the order in council setting up the inquiry has yet been signed and, if the terms of reference are complete, will he agree to table them?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned some of the names in my speech the other night in the House. The three people on the commission are: the Honourable Jacques Ducros of the Quebec Superior Court, Lieutenant Colonel A. D. T. Gauthier of the Canadian Armed Forces, and Mr. Pierre Jutras, Director of the Drumheller Institution. I would be willing to table the terms of reference. I do not have them with me now, but I will table them as soon as I get them. I might say that I am meeting the three commissioners this afternoon to have them sworn and to issue instructions to them. They will start working immediately.


INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW SECURITY MEASURES PENDING INQUIRY REPORTS
Erik Nielsen: The minister overlooked informing the House, in reply to my question, whether the order in council has yet been signed. I would like to ask him also whether his department or the government has developed any measures that he is prepared to institute immediately which would tighten security in the penitentiaries pending the report and recommendations of the inquiry he has set up and of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and, if so, what measures and when will they be implemented?


William Warren Allmand: By the way, Mr. Speaker, I believe an order in council has been signed, but I am not too sure about that. We sent one for signature, but I can check on that report.
Following the Cowansville incident we introduced several new measures in that institution to upgrade security. We added guards, we put special barbed wire at the top of the existing fence, and we cleared back the bush. We are having special steel screens put on the windows of the cells.
With respect to the correctional development centre, one thing we are determined to ensure is that the security provisions which were supposed to be in operation will certainly be in operation in the future, in other words, that directives and instructions with respect to the duty positions of the men are being followed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Take the vanishing cream out of the cells.


GASOLINE-POSSIBILITY OF SHORTAGE-REQUEST FOR CONTROL OF EXPORTS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, arising out of the forecast by the Stanford Research Institute that there will be a gasoline
May 17, 1973

shortage of 400,000 barrels a day in the United States this summer. In view of the fact that the restrictions on the export of oil which the minister announced on February 15 do not apply to gasoline or other refined products, I want to ask the minister whether he intends to use the powers under part IV of the National Energy Board Act to extend the export controls to gasoline in order to ensure adequate supplies of gasoline this summer for Canadian consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the chairman of the National Energy Board that the board has been following very closely exports of the refined product from Canada. As the hon. gentleman knows, one of our objectives has been to develop over a period of years a market for the refined products, and we would be reluctant at this point to defeat that objective unless there is a shortage. I can assure him, however, that if there is any threat to Canadian supplies action will be taken under the statute to protect supplies.


OIL-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the spokesmen for the oil industry in Canada have already stated that there is not likely to be a shortage this summer but there will be a substantial increase in price, and in view of the fact that the increases in the price of oil and the anticipated increases in the price of gasoline bear no relation to the cost of production but merely to the higher price in the United States, is the government giving serious consideration and does it intend to take any steps to impose a two-price system so as to fix the price of oil produced and sold in Canada at a fair and equitable level and thus prevent the companies taking unfair advantage of the high prices in the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind the hon. gentleman that about half the Canadian market is supplied by overseas oil which has been going up in price, so that the over-all cost has been increasing. I would agree with the hon. gentleman that the market west of the Ottawa valley line is served by the Canadian product, and we have under very close scrutiny the possibility of imposing a two-price system to make certain that Canadian consumers do not have to bear the cost of the energy shortage in the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that we could try to limit the number of supplementaries so as to give an opportunity to as many members as possible to participate in the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, and then we will try to move on to another subject.
Oral Questions


OIL-POSSIBLE BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH FOREIGN SUPPLIERS OF EASTERN CANADIAN MARKET
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has mentioned offshore oil. May I ask him if the Canadian government is entering into any negotiations with oil producing countries such as Venezuela and countries in the Middle East with a view to bilateral agreements on oil rather than leaving the eastern market entirely to the tender mercies of the oil companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman knows, there have been extensive discussions with OECD in an attempt to get general OECD agreement on not having that kind of bilateral arrangement. I think it is fair to say that, in view of the fact that some at least of OECD members appear to be making bilateral deals, we are giving active attention to whether negotiations should be opened between some friendly supplier countries and Canada on a government to government basis.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask was just asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The inefficiency and inconvenience of terminal two at the Toronto International Airport has been a great source of consternation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: -and a great source of disappointment for many thousands-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question.


Ronald George Atkey: Could the minister tell the House what steps he has taken since the terminal opened on April 29 to see that the situation is improved, particularly with respect to the absence of signs and the great distances that passengers must walk to board this aircraft?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we know that this new terminal building was inaugurated on April 29, I believe. Some readjustments have to be done, and Air Canada has realized it. In the last few days, meetings have taken place between Air Canada and representatives from the city and associations of Toronto, and I am informed that they are progressing very

Oral Questions
quickly. Therefore within a short time, the situation will be normal again.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the Conference on Western Economic Opportunities to be held in Calgary, Alberta, in July. Can the minister advise the House whether he will be complying with the request made by the premier of the province of Alberta calling for full and complete disclosure of railroad cost data, the extent of fixed compared with variable costs, and public justification for every major freight rate in terms of cost benefit to the Canadian public generally compared with the benefit to the railroads' financial interests?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am quite well aware of the position taken by the premiers of the prairie provinces. As the hon. gentleman knows, I am going to meet with them on June 7, so I hope he will understand that I am not in a position right now to start negotiations before I meet with the premiers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister indicate to the House whether the government will be putting forth any firm commitments aimed at developing a new national transportation policy within the framework of a national industrial strategy, and in particular will any specific proposals be put forth aimed at overcoming the discrepancies and anomalies within the freight rate structure as it applies to western Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the House understands that there will be two conferences at which transportation problems will be discussed. There is the June conference and then the Conference on Western Economic Opportunities. On both occasions all these problems are going to be discussed, and I hope we will find solutions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could the minister answer my question? I simply asked whether it is the intention of the government to put forth any concrete proposals aimed at developing a new transportation policy. I would like a simple yes or no answer.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a straightforward answer in that case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I knew what the reaction would be before I said that. I think that what I am going to say is quite honourable, but hon. members opposite might not understand. The reason is simple. It is because we are interested, the prairie governments are interested, the CPR and CNR are interested. All these
(Mr. Marchand (Langelier).]
parties have proposals to make, some dependent on the position taken by the governments, others dependent on the CNR and CPR. Therefore I cannot tell you all the proposals we are going to make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MANPOWER
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he tell the House what decision has been taken following the request for renewal of about 516 local initiatives projects in the Montreal area?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a decision was taken this morning. I think it will be encouraging to many, and I will be making the details known tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Rimouski wants to ask a supplementary question. The hon. member for Rimouski has the floor.
[La ter:]


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is surely aware that in cancelling 516 projects, the unemployment ratio will rise over the limit fixed for the renewal of local initiatives projects. In view of that possibility, does the hon. minister intend to take immediate action to prevent administrative complications from delaying the renewal of those projects?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the reference to 517 project cancellations but, as I indicated in my previous answer, I will be making the details of the decision known tomorrow and I think they will be encouraging.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the upcoming Food and Agriculture Organization meeting in Rome, where a minimum world food security program is to be discussed, will the minister support the concept of a minimum level of basic food stocks for the world as a whole?
May 17, 1973


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the suggestion of the Director General of FAO. He addressed the OECD in Paris while we were there. His deputy director is going to be in Ottawa next week and we are going to discuss the subject further. I think he has some suggestions that are worthy of serious consideration.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Since senior officials of the American grain trade have stated that world grain stocks at the end of June will hardly equal a ten-day to two-week supply on a global basis, can the minister give an assurance that a federally assisted policy of carrying over a substantial reserve of grain will receive favourable consideration?


Eugene Whelan: It is receiving favourable study, Mr. Speaker. That is as far as I can go at the present time.


REQUEST FOR TELEVISION COVERAGE OF COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION OF PENITENTIARY ESCAPES
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government House leader. In view of the fact that Canadians with access to United States television stations are today getting an education through the Senate investigation of the Watergate scandal, and in view of the fact that the government intends to introduce legislation allowing television coverage of parliament, would the minister consider recommending to the Speaker that permission be given to allow, on a trial basis, television coverage of the parliamentary committee's investigation of penitentiary escapes in Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it would require more than my recommendation to influence the Speaker to take that step.


Douglas Roche: Would the minister consider trying to get unanimous consent of the House to allow this on a trial basis for the education of Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I thought there was the remotest chance of getting unanimous consent I would try, but I am quite certain that it would not be forthcoming.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and is supplementary to the one about the Western Economic Opportunities conference. In view of the blatant discrimination against the Prairies in railroad freight rates, and in view of the position taken by the prairie premiers, will the minister undertake to give a definite instruction to the
Oral Questions
railways to bring down their freight rates in order to allow further development of the prairie region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that is too general a question to be answered at this time.


ALUMINUM INGOTS-ALLEGED RULING BY UNITED STATES THAT CANADIAN EXPORTS DUMPED
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to confirm that the United States Treasury has ruled that aluminum ingots from Canada going to the United States are classified as dumped and, if so, was he given prior notice of this ruling?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm the suggestion made by the hon. member for Trinity.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In light of the concern of millions of Canadians over the more than 40,000 abortions that take place in Canada every year, would the minister be willing to make a statement on motions, either this week or later next week, outlining the progress he has made with the review he announced on March 5 or March 6 of this year of too liberal abortion laws, and can he at that time also tell us the number of prosecutions that have taken place under the law with respect to non-therapeutic abortions, and also inform the House what steps will be taken to reduce the number of non-therapeutic abortions in Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recommendation of the hon. member. The subject of the enforcement of abortion laws and the apparent differences in their enforcement across the country was discussed at the recent conference of Attorneys General. I will consider the matter of whether I can say anything useful at an early date in the House.


FINANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that higher interest rates are bound to have a detri-

May 17, 1973
Oral Questions
mental effect on the efforts of DREE in disadvantaged areas of the country, coupled with the fact that the consumer price index has risen at an amazing rate, being 5.8 per cent for Halifax and 5.6 per cent in St. John's for the last month, has the minister any specific measures in mind to counteract these adverse developments in the slow growth areas brought about by the high interest rates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government, as has been stated here on many occasions, is first of all to increase the supply of world commodities that are affected by a worldwide inflation; second, to increase the disposable income of Canadians, particularly in the lower income groups through proposals for lower income tax, raising the old age pension, family allowances and so on and, third, by supporting my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in order to improve the infrastructure in those slower growth areas of the country.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I thank the minister for his answer but what I am really asking is this: In view of these policies which are designed to dampen the inflationary pressures in one part of the country, has the minister taken into account the counterproductive effect his policy is having on the regions that DREE is deliberately designed to help, and is he going to vary his policy to do this specific job?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the policies of the government are orchestrated so as to give special attention to those slow growth areas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then the hon. member for St. John's East.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the anxiety and concern of a great many veterans over the fact that the basic rate of the war disability pension has not yet been increased as forecast by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech on February 19, and as recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, can the minister say when he will be bringing in the bill to effect this increase?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I will be bringing in the bill before very long. The time has not been reached yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister, in his usual forthright way, tell us whether "before very long" means this month?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that I am hopeful that it certainly means this month.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the consumer price index for the regional cities shows an alarming increase in the three regional cities in the Atlantic provinces where incomes are amongst the lowest and unemployment the highest, may I ask the Prime Minister what steps the government proposes to take to co-ordinate the transportation policies, monetary and fiscal policies with the DREE policies as they are working counterproductively in the Atlantic provinces and thus exercising great hardship on the people of those three cities, especially Halifax?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for a very detailed enunciation of policy. I guess the simple answer to him is that the various aspects of this question, DREE, transportation, fiscal and monetary policies, are dealt with by ministers within cabinet and we are co-ordinating the program as best we can.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-EFFECT OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS ON COST OF LIVING-SUGGESTED CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the throne speech called for co-ordination of these policies and that there was supposed to be a regional transportation conference in the Atlantic provinces with the governments of the Atlantic provinces and the railways because of the very strong influence that transporation has on these higher costs, may I ask the Prime Minister as head of the government what steps the government is taking to implement this and to co-ordinate these programs which are having such a disastrous effect on the region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for one thing, a series of meetings between the Minister of Transport and the provincial premiers and a series of meetings between the minister responsible for DREE and the provincial premiers.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On March 6 and March 20 I asked the minister if he would take steps to correct the inequity in the retroactive capital gains tax on farm marketing quotas because of what I felt was overwhelming criticism of these provisions by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm groups. The minister's replies on both occasions indicated that the federation was not really that dissatisfied. In light of the
May 17, 1973

subsequent strong and unanimous condemnation of these provisions by these farm groups, including the federation, may I ask the minister if immediate action will be taken to treat a farm marketing quota as any other capital asset for taxation purposes?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. I have met with the farm people, as well as the President of the Federation of Agriculture last Thursday night, and completely disagree with their attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. Minister of Agriculture rising on a point of order?


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been intimated that in an answer to an hon. member I may have said that I disagreed with the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It was not that; it was with the hon. member, because the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture stated "You are doing one hell of a good job, Mr. Minister,".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel that the House would not want to take up too much of the time which has been allocated to one of the parties for debate this afternoon. Perhaps two or three supplementaries might be asked quickly, although I believe the hon. member for Skeena has a question, and then I would recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and perhaps one or two more supplementaries before calling orders of the day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might put a quick question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a date and location been established for the meetings between Canada and the United States which are to take place before the end of this month with respect to the reciprocal fishing agreement about which the minister made some comments the other day? May I also ask whether the same groups that participated in the earlier Washington and Seattle meetings will have an opportunity to participate in these negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am discussing these matters currently with the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries and we hope to be able to make an announcement very soon.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question to the right hon. Prime Minister is related to that of my colleague on the matter of inflation in the general economy of the Atlantic region. Would the Prime Minister very seriously consider an immediate move to eliminate the regional pay rate concept which is having such a detrimental effect on many people in the public service in the Atlantic region and the general wage situation across the Atlantic region, which was demonstrated last week? Private groups are getting as much as $3 an hour more than people working in the same area in the public service.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This question has been raised with the government at various times and we have given it consideration. It is discussed from time to time with various parties, but unfortunately there is no agreement either on an economic or sociological basis between people having different opinions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Churchill on a last question, and then will call orders of the day.


INQUIRY AS TO USE OF CHURCHILL AS PORT OF EXPORT
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the announcement made by the minister some time ago regarding the use of the Port of Churchill for grain shipments, and in view of the fact that the shipping season is close at hand, would the minister advise the House what specific instructions have been given to the Wheat Board concerning the shipping of grain from Churchill for this season?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the usual booking of grain has taken place. I could perhaps get for the hon. member some detailed information on the export plan as it now appears for this season. In addition to the usual orders, of course, this time there will be some grain moving to the Soviet Union from Churchill.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow the minister's supplementary answer by asking the government House leader about the business for this week and next week. I might be allowed to ask the minister, when he replies, in light of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee has not yet dealt with the report of the Auditor

May 17, 1973
Oral Questions
General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, and the report for the next year will be coming out very shortly, if he could see his way clear to refer to the Public Accounts Committee the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I may answer the hon. member, may I say that with respect to the public accounts, I think we can arrange an early reference.
If I may speak in connection with the business of the House, we have today an opposition day, and one tomorrow. On Tuesday next, I should like to continue with the capital punishment debate and probably take an opposition day on Thursday and Friday. On the following Monday I should like to begin the debate on the bilingualism resolution. I would mention to hon. members that, on looking at the calendar and at the business of the House, I am considering the possibility of adjourning at the end of June. Members will really have to decide for themselves whether they want to debate these measures now, and complete them, or debate some of them in July. I think I should indicate that to the House at this stage in the mildest way possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, may I ask the minister whether the bills to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Canada Pension Plan will be on the order paper reasonably soon, so that they may also be disposed of before the end of June?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, we hope to get technical amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and also the changes to the Family Allowances system on the order paper within a matter of weeks and, hopefully, conclude those also by the end of June. I have in mind as well the corporate and personal income tax measures that will be coming before the House. It may be that the House will have to deal with the question of redistribution, the matter of the Olympics and a possible amendment to the Immigration Appeal Board Act. I mention these as urgent items that have to be dealt with before the House can adjourn. I think hon. members ought to know the picture now, rather than learn it later.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House may I ask a question about the bill on capital punishment? Is it the intention of the government to conclude the discussion on all stages of the bill on capital punishment? That is to say, is it intended that it go to committee, come back for debate at the report stage, and be debated on third reading? Is it the intention of the government to deal with all stages of the bill prior to the summer recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly the intention of the government not to allow this matter to hang over the summer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I think I should urge this on all hon. members: an attempt should be made to get on with the order of business this afternoon. It seems to me

we are delaying from minute to minute the submission of the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I wanted to rise on a point of order.
In view of the fact that by some strange coincidence two statements were made today in the House which took over an hour and five minutes of the time of the House and which encroached upon our opposition day-as far as I know, it is the third time since subsidies days were instituted-I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to recuperate tonight the equivalent hour that we lost at the beginning of this sitting and which reduces our opposition day and that instead of adjourning at ten o'clock tonight, we adjourn at eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent. I suggest quite humbly and in all fairness that it might be useful to have consultations between the representatives of the parties to find a way to ensure that the colleagues of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) have the opportunity to participate without any limitation of any kind in the debate scheduled in their name for today. In any case, I think we could present the motion and I would suggest that appropriate discussions be held later in the day between the representatives of the parties.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who shouted no but it can be seen that co-operation works only one way.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

René Matte: That this House deplores the government's decision to postpone the full implementation of the policy contained in the Official Languages Act and censures the solutions proposed by the government, and consequently, urges the latter to find realistic and specific ways of safeguarding the rights of French- and Englishspeaking Canadians in a much more just and reasonable manner.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank you for correcting the error contained in the text of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time in Canada as well as in this House that we clarify a certain situation, because for much too long the government of this country-more particularly the administration-has only put up a bilin-

gual front while we all very well know that we are governed by an exclusively English-speaking establishment.
Mr. Speaker, not to admit that this situation exists is not to be aware of what is happening. For about five years, I have had the honour to represent the Champlain riding in the House and during this period I could notice that the administrative services, as soon as it comes to an important level, do not have any French-speaking person, apart from a number of assistants who are there to help indirectly or in a parallel way but not so as to allow French Canadians to really feel at home here and within the government.
Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that not only the appearance of this country be bilingual but it is also important that the structures and members of administration and management be actually distributed according to a just and fair proportion of the ethnic components in our society. For a long time now we have been living in hope. After the passage of the Official Languages Act in 1969, great expectation arose because we felt that at least we held the key to French Canada's problem.
Mr. Speaker, that great expectation was expressed in the preamble to the motion proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last April 13. The preamble reads as follows and I quote:
(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;
Mr. Speaker, we fully agree with that preamble. We would like to see those principles become reality. We all agree on that point but we disagree when the time comes to apply these principles. Since the inception of the law we must say, Mr. Speaker, that not only did we not progress but, according to statistics, we are at a standstill and even rolling backwards in some areas.
On behalf of our party, on behalf of the official French Canadian opposition since our party has 15 out of 16 French-speaking members, we must say in this House what French Canada or, more precisely, what Quebec wants. This is why we believe that it was urgent to introduce a motion dealing with that problem even though the Prime Minister had already introduced a motion. The motion is an attempt to create an objective and realistic atmosphere, an atmosphere free of any emotion, animosity and struggle which might even remotely be interpreted as a racial struggle. No, Mr. Speaker. We are quite fair and we would like, especially on this special day, to see French-Canadian members better represented, especially those of the Liberal party, since I can see only three or four members from the Liberal party, which thinks of itself as the defender of bilingualism and biculturalism par excellence.
Official Languages
We have thus, Mr. Speaker, to concur that we are agreed on the principles on bilingualism contained in the Official Languages Act, and also on the motion introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister, that we have also to admit that we are greatly disappointed by the tangible means by which, supposedly, justice is to be done once and for all. I wish therefore, in my speech, to deal first with the Canadian history aspect, then with the present situation and, finally, to suggest our very tangible solutions.
It must be admitted that French Canadians have been deprived of their rights, ever since they were conquered, obviously, but more especially since 1867. I will not speak of their privileges, because they never had any. That is historical fact. We have been continually forced to carry on "extremist" fights to obtain rights that were sometimes as basic as that of speaking and being answered in our mother tongue.
It will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that there were epic struggles to obtain bilingual cheques, bilingual money, bilingual stamps and a distinctive flag. Mr. Speaker, all these struggles should normally have been enough to permanently discourage the French Canadians, but their courage and tenacity have been such that they have overcome all these obstacles; unfortunately, however, the governments that succeeded one another always believed it was sufficient for the French Canadians to be satisfied and content to state principles and they believed they could solve all problems with a French Canadian party leader or Prime Minister. That was sufficient. The mere fact that the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier's name was Laurier, that he was a French Canadian, was sufficient to prevent all French Canadians from recriminating and demanding. The mere presence of a man at the head of the government was enough to satisfy the French Canadians who were then submerged in a period of darkness and were almost all non educated.
Later on, they realized that it took more than that but again the grand and great Liberal party solved the problem by electing Mr. Louis Stephen St-Laurent who, besides being a French Canadian prime minister, advocated good understanding for years. Again that seemed to satisfy the French Canadians since they were then at the dawn of a period of emancipation.
They seemed to be satisfied when the Liberal party was supported wholeheartedly with the Right Hon. Louis St-Laurent. Finally, people came to realize over the last few years that this was not sufficient and then we found a miracle solution with the coming of the Messiah, the current Prime Minister. Now, the Prime Minister is no longer content with having a French Canadian name nor with preaching good-will; he goes, I admit, a bit further. He incorporated into a law the principles that where only spoken about at the time of the hon. Louis St-Laurent and that were hardly mentioned at all at the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Those principles were put in writing in 1968 and particularly in 1969 by the adoption of the Official Languages Act.
The proof is now established, as this happened four years afeo, that no change occurred. This is why it is our duty, as the French-Canadian official opposition in this

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
House, to state things as they are, to point out the trouble and all together, I am convinced, with everybody's goodwill, we shall reach true solutions because, as you know, the Quebecer or the French Canadian has changed in that today he will not be content with principles. In fact, a fair proportion of Quebecers are disillusioned vis-a-vis the federal policy and with regards to how they are received by public servants and particularly by top administrators, we must agree that they are right and this is one of the reasons which have lead-I have had the opportunity to witness that on the front benches, for instance-the hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), his colleague, the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the right hon. Prime Minister himself to show Quebec that it was possible for French Canadians to have their share and obtain in the administration of this country the position they deserve. I do not know whether those three ministers, that used to be called the three doves, are also disillusioned but I have had the opportunity, at the beginning of this session, of hearing not only the Prime Minister but also the Minister of Transport deliver speeches, right here in the House. The latter expressed more or less what I am now saying, disappointment, going so far as to say that he was prepared to drop everything and leave if there were no change.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all we want to do is help the government settle the problem once and for all. This is not the time, when there is so much agitation in Quebec, with the situation critical, when it can truly be said that there is a real problem. It is not when a good proportion of Quebecers want French unilingualism in Quebec that we should come forward with such timid policy statements. I feel that would be showing complete lack of objectivity and realism. Let us be realistic. Let us not, practicing the policy of the ostrich, believe that in 1973 we can solve our problems by policy statements.
Mr. Speaker, the very future of our country rests particularly in the hands of French Canada. I am not saying so to brag, to push one ethnic origin rather than another, but it is well known throughout the country that if there were no French Canada, there just would not be a Canada at all and that if Canada does exist, if we are an entity different from the American entity, it is because there is a Quebec, because there are French Canadians. And therefore, our hon. colleagues from all Canadian provinces, more particularly from the west, and from Ontario, should not only give more concrete acceptance to the French fact in our country, but even more heaven and earth, in favour of great progress in Canada, not only to protect the interests of French Canadians, but also those of all other Canadians.
I think this aspect is important, Mr. Speaker, for however much we talk about unity and harmony, there is no escaping the fact that we must also talk about the facts, and there can only be harmony or unity if there is agreement between Canadians of different origin. So let us not take it for granted that Canadians of French origin are today not ready to co-operate to the full for the emancipation and fulfilment of Canada. We would like to build up a national consciousness in this country, we would like to feel here that we are really true Canadians, but for this to happen, all of us, in all the provinces from coast to coast,

have great need of the French-speaking cultural contribution and French-Canadian participation.
Mr. Speaker, this picture of our present situation leads me to think that there have always been difficulties in implementing principles, even the Constitution. Reading the sections of the British North America Act that deal with the rights of the French language in this country, we still find them ambiguous and a source of renewed disputes and problems. Therefore, if this document is not sufficiently clear, it must be changed. And if at some point we find ourselves under the yoke called Confederation, why should we not be able to change this wretched yoke, if that is what is preventing harmony and unity in Canada.
And so, since certain sections of the Constitution are not clear enough regarding linguistic sharing and rights, we should simply think of changing them. Of course, you could answer that the Official Languages Act is supposed to do just that, and that there is no need to amend the Constitution, but then, although the principles of this act are extremely fair, and were adopted by all Members of Parliament in 1969, what has happened since then? We have seen people raise obstacles, people from the establishment try by all means to impede the implementation of the Official Languages Act. Who were those people? We do not know. It seems that in the establishment of high officials it is very difficult to know those things. But in any case some Members of Parliament reacted and I would like to point out a statement made not by anybody but by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who said yesterday, and I quote:
It would be racial discrimination to want to set up special programs to recruit French-speaking people in the public service.
When we want to implement principles the Leader of the Opposition himself, undoubtedly under pressure from different parts of the country, objects to increasing the participation of French-speaking people in the administration simply to make an abnormal thing normal. But since the country has been in an abnormal situation for years, the suggestion of coming back to a normal situation seems revolutionary because we have grown accustomed to a routine, we have become encrusted and we imagine that when French Canadians demand equality in this country that cannot be done-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point or order?
Mr. He ward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi): I simply want to point out immediately that the Leader of the Opposition did not make any such statement and everybody knows that. The Leader of the Opposition has given his entire support to the Commissioner of Official Languages. This is no time for demagogy.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I will merely point out to the hon. member that I was reading a text that I have in my hand and the contents of which he may check himself.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, the principles must be unanimously approved by the House. We realize that when they are to be implemented, several put a spoke in the wheels.
May 17, 1973

During the last electoral campaign, there were unfortunately some candidates in several constituencies who took advantage of that situation to get elected. It is not funny, but that is what happened.
Now, Mr. Speaker, such a thing should not happen again. We should not, in order to keep up appearances and soothe the feelings of the various ethnic groups in this country, say that we are in favour. We are all in favour of bilingualism, we want French-Canadians to obtain justice, but we merely agree and remain idle. However, it is too late now, we have reached a much further stage, hence the need for the motion which we are introducing today.
Mr. Speaker, I should also mention that when I speak as I now do, I have major reasons to do so, and roughly I should say that the Commissioner of Official Languages, appointed as a result of the adoption of the legislation, recognizes and deplores the situation, and those who attended meetings of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and heard Mr. Spicer's evidence were able to see that he made no bones about saying he was disappointed and even disillusioned and that in his opinion things were not going as they should.
Mr. Spicer went so far as to say that the deadline, as far as he is concerned, is not 1978 as planned by the government, but that we have a mere two years from now to achieve the objectives of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, when the bilingualism ombudsman, Mr. Spicer, reaches the same conclusions as we do, taking into consideration complaints received and analyses and studies carried out, I do not believe hon. members in this House can doubt his word.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is time to act. Words we have heard and no doubt will hear again, but we need action. I refer to the speech that the Right Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, made April 6, 1966:
To this end, and having regard to the character of our country, the government for several years has been taking practical steps to encourage bilingualism in the federal public service as part of its fundamental objective of promoting and strengthening national unity on the basis of the equality of rights and opportunities for both English speaking and French speaking Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, again, we all agree on this. That was in 1966, but we are now in 1973. What practical change has taken place? That is the problem. On September 28, 1963, Mr. Gilles Lalande said, and I quote:
-That the federal government, which has instructed the Lau-rendeau-Dunton Royal Commission in its terms of reference to make recommendations such as to ensure the bilingual and basically bicultural nature of the federal administration, not only encourage the sporadic use of French in Ottawa, but also allow French-Canadians to start working according to their own culture in certain units of the federal administration. Because it is important to put an end as soon as possible to the era of French Canadian deputy directors, isolated and lost in Anglo-Saxon surroundings, and to do away with the misleading practice of having representatives, French-speaking or with a French name, on boards of directors.
And Mr. Lalande, Mr. Speaker, is not a member of the Social Credit party, as far as I know, and to enlighten the House, I should say he was the co-secretary of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I go on quoting:
The wrong solution: Bilingualism.
Official Languages
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the problem in this country is not one of languages. The problem in this country is a problem of participation and even if the entire federal administration were bilingual, if 90 or 95 per cent of the administrators are English-speaking, nothing would be solved since the French Canadian would not yet feel at home. Thus, it is wrong to solve the problem by bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the point of view of westerners, for intance, when they do not see the necessity of learning French to climb the administrative ladder. I understand them, I approve them; they are right because it is not a problem of languages and we must not ignore people who are really competent on the grounds that they do not know another language. Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, American people with their scientists succeeded in launching satellites in space and they did it in English. We all know as well that the Russian people did it and they did so in Russian. Competence, in any area, is not a matter of language and the world has known geniuses who worked in all languages. I think it is stupid to require that someone know another language to give him a position. It is stupid and those who criticize this point of view are right.
Areas where bilingualism becomes a factor of competence, since it can be in some areas, are of minor significance. It would be rather inappropriate, for instance, to hire a unilingual guide or security agent for the central door of the Parliament building. It would be inappropriate to hire a unilingual stewardess, train engineer, telephone operator or receptionist. At that level bilingualism becomes a factor of competence, but not at other levels.
Therefore, to find the true solution we need parallel administration where anyone, be he French- or Englishspeaking, will have access to all administrative positions including that of deputy minister. This is the solution. This is the solution we were advocating during the last election campaign and it is clearly established. We know that the solution has already been "preached" in 1963 by none other than the co-secretary of the Laurendeau-Dun-ton commission and this is why these recommendations are ours today because we know that this is the only solution. We will never be able to impose bilingualism to people-who are not interested in it and I understand them-under the pretense that we want to introduce this concept here. This is a false solution and, Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to rise to remind me that my time is expired-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Perhaps we could settle the problem by suggesting to hon. members that they grant a few more minutes to the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to complete his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is agreed. The hon. member for Champlain.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse my colleagues' kindness but I think it is important that the government should adopt the solution we are advocating. We have no exclusive rights to it.

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
All the less as some people thought about it. So Mr. Lalande said, and I quote:
Nothing would be more untrue and indeed more detrimental to the national interests of French Canada than to seek that basically bicultural character in Canadian institutions above all through bilingualism.
The French Canadians could not settle their participation problem through bilingualism.
Nothing would be more dangerous for the French Canadians than to let the pursuing of a cultural interpretation by the French speaking and English speaking elements in the federal public service or to sit and watch a generalization of the half-English half-French formula already advocated by certain ministers lacking in inspiration. Of course, steps must be taken to spread the knowledge of the French and English languages among the staff of the federal public service serving bilingual people, as it is done in big private business. But where decisions are in the making, where policies, the impact of which will affect the country as a whole, are worked out (in federal departments or within the federal bureaucracy in Ottawa), the administration could never replace bicultural management however imperfect it may be, by purely bilingual elements, should they even be partly French Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, this is the solution. French Canadians must feel completely at home in Ottawa; they must participate and to enable him to do so, executive positions must be opened to him where the rights and privileges of no one will be infringed upon. This is the reason why by setting up separate French and English units within all departments, we will be able to create an equality for which all French Canadians long so much, but not a mathematical or numerical equality but one based on needs. It should be understood, for instance, that obviously, the French network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not have the same scope as the English network because its needs are not as great. The French network of the CBC does not need so many television or radio stations as the English network. This is quite normal, but there is an equality and, as far as I know, nobody has ever criticized the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this regard and complained that there is only one corporation but two independent networks, though they work along together very well within one corporation.
I go on quoting the statement by Mr. Lalande:
As for us, we are of the opinion that real biculturalism demands at least in part the duality of agencies ... To refuse systematically the formula of duality is as far as we are concerned, to show preference for the maintenance of a bicultural front; it also means to believe in a myth, namely "national culturalism". But to accept to consider it, on the contrary, means not to refuse to entertain in a concrete manner the seeping of French-Canadian vigour into the concepts and methods that are far too English prevailing in all our so-called Canadian institutions; finally, it means being ready to live a true biculturalism.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quote those comments made by the secretary of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission because they agree with our own program. I am sure that even if we persist in trying to implement a complete, awkward and costly sort of bilingualism and quote figures, and even if the government were to order an enquiry into the matter, people would realized that the type of federal administration we advocate would be less costly than the extensive bilingualism that we are now seeking to implement. In fact, although French is being taught to

unilingual English-speaking civil servants, will that change anything? Through what miracle will these people transmit their knowledge to those who will come after them?
So, there is no alternative but to give each and every citizen a chance for true emancipation and fulfilment and thus we will achieve, and we French Canadians will be glad to co-operate participation, in building a truly Canadian nation. We shall then be able to work together toward the betterment of our population as a whole.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say as briefly as possible that this afternoon I intend to discuss bilingualism not as a member of the Progressive Conservative party, which would be quite natural, as I am a member of that party-


An hon. Member:: We have nothing against that.


William Heward Grafftey: -but as a Canadian Member of Parliament. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if we do discuss bilingualism along party lines we will be waging an electoral battle here in this House and it is our country, Canada, that will suffer thereby.
I do not want to dwell too long on my leader's position but where bilingualism is concerned, I want to work as a Canadian in this House, along with the Social Credit members, the New Democratic Party members, the Liberal members and my own colleagues. But let us be realistic; you know as well as I do where my leader, the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) stands with regard to bilingualism.
I will say it again: if we are to discuss bilingualism and stick to our party lines, it is our country, Canada that will suffer, and this parliament might suffer too, Mr. Speaker.
As member for Brome-Missisquoi, I don't want to go into too many details, Mr. Speaker, but here in Ottawa, I have the honor-and one cannot imagine how proud I am of it-to represent a riding which is 95 per cent Frenchspeaking. Unfortunately, when I entered politics, in Ottawa, my French was awful. But today, I don't want to discuss the matter of length. The fact is that as a member representing Brome-Missisquoi in Ottawa, I have not been commissioned by my constituents to discuss bilingualism and official languages and make a political play of it. [English]
There will be some who will think I am talking in motherhood cliches, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I want to underline once and for all-I sometimes suspect politicians when they say outside of the economic arena that this thing or that thing must be discussed in a bipartisan approach-that I am convinced as I have never been convinced before that if we discuss language rights in a political arena such as this House of Commons, or back in our ridings or during an election campaign, it is this institution which suffers; it is Canada which suffers. The approach of our party has always been the same. When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister-and I underline that I do not say this in a partisan way-we were prepared to take a bipartisan approach to constitutional modernization. We were prepared to take a bipartisan approach to language rights and
May 17, 1973

the question of whether or not they should be reenshrined in the constitution, as they always have been.
Let me say this. It was to be a modern constitution for modern times. Whether or not it involved the improvement of language rights in Ottawa, the right hon. gentleman told me, told the opposition of the day and told every member of his caucus that we must take a bipartisan approach to this issue. At that time Mr. Laurendeau very sincerely put forward the proposition of the B and B Commission. We did not reject it out of hand, but thought we had a better approach. It was at that time unfortunately-and I am not naming any members of any party-that certain individuals both inside and outside this House tried to paint our party as anti-Quebec. Nonsense. We had our way and others had their way.
[ Translation]
And unfortunately, since then, and too often indeed especially during the last decade, we have been discussing this business of official languages and bilingualism, within and without this House from political viewpoints.
Many times, Mr. Speaker-

If in the past I have rarely spoken on this subject, if in the past I have been shy about talking on this subject, it has been because my constituents do not really encourage me to do this. In the little village in which I live there are 500 families, 250 of which are French-speaking and 250 of which are English-speaking. My executive assistant here in Ottawa speaks French to his mother and English to his father. Do you think I have a mandate to discuss in a partisan way this issue which goes to the very fabric of the nation? No.

And I ask each member to take that question out of its political context as soon as possible in the best interests of the country.
Mr. Speaker, the Confederation Act enacted over a 100 years ago was an act of faith in which the Liberals and the Conservatives co-operated to lay the foundations of our country, Canada. The Fathers of Confederation discussed at the very beginning not from a political tribune or as Tories and Grits. They were first of all Canadians. It is therefore quite natural from time to time to deal with the matter as politicians, because the enticements were there. I admit that it was done before and after but in general, it can be said that the debates on Confederation were carried on outside the political field by the Fathers of Confederation.
It seems to me superfluous to say that the issue of official languages must be discussed in the same spirit. I wish to state that each member, either a New Democrat, a Creditiste, a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative, wants to discuss about the welfare of Canada before dealing with the welfare of his political party.
Today, however we do not only have the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives, but also our friends the New Democrats and the Creditistes.
Official Languages
[ English!
But there is one more thing, Mr. Speaker, and let us put the cards on the table right away. If we were discussing the future of Canada as the Fathers of Confederation did 100 years ago, Liberals and Conservatives together putting Canada first, we would have to remember, whether we were discussing constitutional provisions or language rights, that Canada was a different country in those years. Toward the end of the last century, during the beginning of this century and even today, many people have been coming to this great land of ours to share in the experience of nation building, people who either call themselves Francophones or are from the United Kingdom. I am not just speaking of the west where the multicultural force is so great, but those people must certainly feel left out of this debate. It reminds me somewhat of charter members of an old club arguing over who comes first while the new members are left out. Let us stop this nonsense. We can stop it, especially with the makeup of the present House of Commons, if we let every iota of partisanship out of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, there is another thing that I want to discuss very clearly in a not too partisan manner, I hope. But I direct my remarks today especially to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and occasionally to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet).
I deplore the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we are only two representatives from the province of Quebec in the Progressive Conservative party and I am sure that the Liberals are sorry they did not even elect one member from the province of Alberta. It may be unfortunate for national unity but when the ministers see that we are not a national party, can the Liberals honestly think that it is a good thing for national unity and the future of our country? The Liberal party is a great national party, and so is ours, and I do everything I can as a Progressive Conservative member from the province of Quebec to build efficiently the two-party system. And when the ministers see that we are not a national party, when they did not even win one seat in Alberta, they are playing with the fabric of our country, Canada. The Liberals are a national party, and so are we.
In 1958, when there were only 48 Liberals in Parliament and more than half were from the province of Quebec, not even once did we find that the Liberal party was not a national party, because it was indeed a national party. No one should say that. I talked on several occasions with my colleagues of the Liberal party from the province of Quebec and they regret as often as I do the statements made by the Postmaster General, the Minister of Transport and even the Prime Minister.

Let us nail that to the wall right away. There are two great national parties in this House.


An hon. Member:: Four.


William Heward Grafftey: I withdraw. You are right. There are four national parties in this House, whether or not we have

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
equal distribution. I stand corrected. The minute we start throwing rhetoric around-and we never did it in 1958 when over 50 per cent of the Liberal caucus was drawn from my province-it ceases to be a joking matter. Sometimes we say statesmanlike things here on the floor of the House only to appear on television back home in our ridings not always saying the same things. At the risk of repeating one cliche after another, I appeal to the House for the fourth or fifth time to stop that kind of nonsense and approach this subject in a bipartisan all-Canadian way.

In the province of Quebec-let us be realistic-the minister of Transport claims that the sole federalist party in Canada is the Liberal party. If this is really true, we, as Quebecers, at the federal and provincial levels, have only the choice between the Grits and Rene Levesque; the Parti quebecois will accede to power sooner than expected. Such a belief is ridiculous and I am a federalist even if I reject the kind of federalism or the federalist doctrine of the right hon. prime minister, that of confrontation. I do not accept it but I remain, I hope, as good a federalist as he is.
But when it is claimed that there is but one choice in Quebec, the Grits or the Parti quebecois, this is quite dangerous for national unity and everybody knows it as well as I do.

There is no such simple choice, and no demogoguery or simplistic argument will prove otherwise.

I definitely share, Mr. Speaker, the views stated today by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), as well as most of his ideas, but I am certain that as a Quebecer, I have often heard the speeches of the leader of the Social Credit party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) in Quebec. He is often right when he deals with economic questions; he wants bread and butter on the table of all our fellow-citizens. When the leader of the Social Credit party of Canada deals with economic questions, when he says in Quebec that our fellow-citizens must be in a position to support themselves, I agree. This is why we must not let an issue such as bilingualism be raised up in a political context in the House or at the next election.
Fifteen years ago, I was elected for the first time as member for Brome-Missisquoi. I was not satisfied as far as bilingualism was concerned. I was quite often compelled to return unilingual documents to bureaucrats to obtain a translation. But I did not need a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to tell me that my secretary should be bilingual, because it is absolutely essential.
I wonder to what extent-the Creditiste leader has quite often spoken about that-the issue will be settled with some regulation or commission here and there. We would rather settle the matter in good faith and in a fine Canadian spirit. I hope that during the next weeks we will speak as united Canadians.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, there are many issues, not necessarily economic, that we sometimes discuss, although perhaps we should not, in a very partisan way. It is my hope, however, that we will approach the next election fighting on bread and butter issues. There is not a member of this House of Commons, no matter where he comes from in Canada, who has been given a firm mandate by his constituents to let this issue get into the political arena. I believe that, as I have never believed anything before. That is the mandate, the very special mandate of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is the mandate of all of us. He knows where the Leader of the Opposition stands on this issue.
More than anything it is the duty of the Prime Minister to pull this issue out of the political partisan arena. Whether it is a resolution that is coming before us, whether it is a bill that is coming before us, let us be very careful about the consequences. Any time someone gets up to discuss a detail of that resolution or that bill he may be labelled anti this or anti that. There may be some shortterm gain, but there is only going to be long-term chaos.
If I have repeated myself perhaps seven or eight times I have done so because, while we do not talk about it in my riding and I do not think we talk about it all that much in Canada, it is a subject about which if we really believe in Canada and its future, we feel deeply. It is deep down in our dreams of national unity.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we will tackle the issue of bilingualism during the next few weeks as Canadians rather than as members of political parties.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Housing-Rochdale College- Report ordered by Ontario Attorney General on activities-Action by Minister of Justice; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Manpower-International Nickel Company-Projected production and employment levels-Provision of information to department; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Social security-Request that family allowance payments be tied to cost of living index pending increases.

May 17, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Matte:
That this House deplores the government's decision to postpone the full implementation of the policy contained in the Official Languages Act and censures the solutions proposed by the government, and consequently, urges the latter to find realistic and specific ways of safeguarding the rights of French- and Englishspeaking Canadians in a much more just and reasonable manner.
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon by reflecting a little on the comments that have just been made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). [English]
I think, Mr. Speaker, I understand the sentiments that drove the hon. member to make the statement which he just made, that the matters of language policy and bilingualism, the use of the official languages, should be taken out of the political arena, but if I may be allowed what I believe is an important distinction, I believe I would like to take a position slightly different from his. I do not think that a matter that is so vital to so many people in Canada can be taken out of the political arena. Of course, it stands to reason that we not only have the right but the duty to speak of these matters here in parliament, and outside of parliament as well.
Perhaps if he meant that matters of language and language policy should be taken out of partisan debate I would be more inclined to share his views, but the question is political, totally political. Our people are looking for a wise but nevertheless political answer. Of course, if it is going to be in the political arena we are going to hear strange noises from time to time. There will be extreme statements made by some persons. We are, after all, all of us human. There are 260 or more of us. I was going to say 260 odd, but sometimes that word is misunderstood. There are 22 million more throughout the country, and we all have freedom of speech as well as the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech. So it will be, when it comes to the language question, that you will hear jackasses braying on both sides. But perhaps we could take some comfort from the fact that a nation that brays together stays together.
I am simply putting it that way to underline the fact that all of us must feel free at any time to talk about these matters. If we, as representatives of the people, speak foolishly, then the people will take us to account. But in no way can we listen to exhortations that we stop talking about this matter in this parliament, in this country, and on the hustings. I, for one, have paid quite a bit of attention to this question. I was going to say for some ten years now, since the late right hon. prime minister Pearson said that there would be a commission on biculturalism and bilingualism, but my concern goes back further than that. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, the first time that the problem of language in this country struck me
Official Languages
was that morning in the early summer, or spring, I forget exactly when the date was, over 23 years ago when the Korean war was declared. If I may be allowed I will take some time to repeat the anecdote because it certainly had an influence on me.

At that time, I was working in a factory in the eastern part of Quebec City. The other workers and I used to gather in a square at 7:30 a.m. while waiting for the bus that would take us to the factory. Normally, while waiting for the bus, we would get together and chat.
Of course, the news of the day can be discussed, as well as all kinds of other subjects. At any rate, we were talking, chatting away as serious as you please, but that particular morning I was seated, reading a newspaper, the Journal de Montreal, dealing with the declaration of war in Korea. After a while, I noticed that I alone was reading and that my colleagues were grouped a little to the side. Three of them left the group and approached me, like a delegation. The oldest of the three said: "Listen, is there going to be war?" I replied: "I don't know, you see, I am just reading the newspaper, I don't know much about that". But he added: "If there was a war, would there be a draft?" Again, I replied: "I have no idea. Why ask me that?" They replied: "First of all, you go to college, and besides you are English." Mr. Speaker, I remembered that remark later on. That showed me, first of all, that class distinctions do exist in this country. We can set that matter aside, but let us speak of the second part of the question. It struck me and I have never been able to forget it. With all the good will in the world, one cannot help but notice that there is a difference, and that some people, and for good reasons, feel left outside of certain things; they do not feel that they are part of the great movements in this country. In this case, workers, most of them in their forties, would come and ask a lad of 17 what was going to happen because they thought that little guy knew, just because he spoke English. That struck me, and since then I have been interested in the problem of languages in my country. I certainly intend to discuss the matter in a political arena, and especially this one.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very complex matter, of course, and I have said nothing when I said that. We all know that. There are an enormous number of distinctions that have to be made and made by all of the members of this House with regard to the terms that we use to discuss language policy. Obviously, one major distinction is that an official language policy is not a bilingualism policy. Let us make that absolutely clear. You could have, for example, the complete, adequate and thorough operation of the Official Languages Act in the federal service and still have done very little toward the development of bilingualism, as such, across the nation.
Bilingualism has to do with a person being bilingual, with a person being able to speak at least two languages. That is why, Mr. Speaker, although I find it illuminating to some degree, I find it even more confusing to hear the language used very often around this House, around this hill and in the reports of the Commissioner of Official

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
Languages-the language which says that what we are after is institutional bilingualism. Mr. Speaker, institutions do not speak; people speak. I think that is a tremendously important distinction to keep in mind. The official languages policy is not the same thing as a bilingual policy. A bilingual policy does not mean necessarily a policy wherein persons who have only one language, who are unilingual, can have full rights. Obviously, we can see that the government is beginning to move toward this kind of distinction as it proposes the nine principles for our consideration. There is beginning to be a refinement of those distinctions; certainly, there is more refinement now than ten years ago when the "Bi-Bi" commission was first launched.
The speaker from the Social Credit party certainly made some very important points. I cannot agree with what he was specifying as a solution, perhaps because I have not thought about it fully.

But I find it rather difficult to understand him. Perhaps he will be able to explain to me, if we stay here long enough, what he means by a parallel government or a parallel system of government? It is not the story about Mr. Ryan-that I know very well-but when he speaks about duplication of services, I have some difficulty in understanding exactly what that means, and I ask him to be patient, not for a generation, but for sometime, because my colleagues have to study his suggestions. In a way, I come closer to his position, when I note the figures mentioned lately by the Official Language Commissioner, concerning the number of bilingual employees in the public service, because I realize that I must act soon, and vigorously. All hon. members may not have seen those statistics, but here is an excerpt of his text. I will quote that text in English, in order not to mispronounce the figures. Here they are:

Total public service appointments 1971 and 1972, distribution by language requirements: Bilingual 1971, 9.1 per cent; 1972, 7.6 per cent; French, 8.3 per cent in 1971, 11 per cent in 1972; English, 79.2 per cent in 1971, 75.6 per cent in 1972. The figures speak for themselves and they do not need to be underlined. I am sure they have been cited enough in this House to point out that whatever our good intentions may be, we are not moving fast in the direction of giving equality of opportunity to the French speaking citizens of this country. When it comes to service being provided to them by the public service of Canada, we certainly come nowhere near equality of participation by French speaking citizens in this country in the public service of their country.
It might strike a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, that the imposition of quotas is not a matter of common sense, that in the normal way of thinking that we have in this country we believe that people who try for jobs should deserve those jobs; they should be qualified and they should have merit. This is called the merit principle. But I should like to give this House a little warning about common sense. There are many things that we do, and that we believe, which are not common sense. For example, in a very important way it is not evident common sense that such a thing as a trade union movement is good. Obviously,

people who work harder should be allowed to move fast and earn more money. Why do we need an institution such as a trade union movement? We need such an institution, we have finally come to realize, because the common sense world we thought existed did not exist in the way we thought it did.
If you cannot follow the trade union example, let me give you another of what common sense tells us. For centuries, Mr. Speaker, all men and women said, "Of course, the sun goes around the earth; it is common sense, it is evident". They also said, "Of course, the earth is flat; it is common sense, we can all see it". So, common sense can be a very dangerous guide. What we, as parliamentarians, have to use very often is uncommon sense-a sense which takes us beyond the surface of things and makes us dig into patterns and shapes which control our lives and society.
So if I advance a notion, it is not exactly the same notion at all as the one presented by the speaker from the Social Credit party that there should be something like quotas for recruiting of personnel into the public service, I know I will be met with a barrage of remarks to the effect that it is not common sense. But I say that in order to preserve this country, and the solidarity of this country, we will just have to use more everyday common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I could give you many other examples of how we, in our society, have done things which at first glance do not stand up to casual, normal inspection, but we know that without those things and those institutions our society would not work.
I support the notion put forward by the speaker from the Social Credit party that we must concentrate on what he calls "participation"; that is the key to the solution of the problem. Eventually, how this participation is to be worked out will have to be a matter of considerable and thoughtful debate. Certainly, I support that approach. We have to make a collective decision about it and take collective action; otherwise, all we are talking about is motherhood and we are only involved in wishful thinking. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I cannot identify with the monolingual Members of Parliament, whether English- or Frenchspeaking, because I can really say that I express myself fairly well in English and that I can also get by in French. I am in a rather fortunate position.
I thank hon. members for their applause, but there is no merit attached to such a position. I owe it to my mother, who is a French-Canadian. I did not learn French in school, although they tried to teach me a bit. But intellectually at least, I think I understand the position of the monolingual French-Canadian, especially in this House, because wherever he goes, he is aware that poeple think he is monolingual "for ulterior motives".
He must be aware that, although we are today discussing seriously the question of the official language in the public service, we are somewhat isolated in Ottawa, that the public service itself is somewhat isolated from the rest of the country, and that even if a completely bilingual public service could be achieved, that would not make it a bilingual country.
May 17, 1973

Just in case I am somewhat hard to understand because what I am saying is too abstract, I shall now give some concrete examples.
Here on Parliament Hill, everything is in English and in French: the signs, notices, paper work and translations. If you go out towards the fence around Parliament Hill, you see that the signs and notices are still bilingual, written in both the official languages. They say in French that it is "une impasse", and in English that it is one-way. So far so good, but as soon as you are outside this fence, this barrier, you find yourself in the real world of Canada, and the monolingual French-Canadian is confronted with a traffic light for pedestrians which says: "Walk-Don't walk'.
This is just an example, but I think it sums up the situation and that there are some alarming phenomena in this country. In the federal public service, some attempt is being made to introduce and encourage the use of both the official languages. You might say that we are encouraging bilingualism, but outside Parliament Hill and the public service, the trend is in the other direction.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few figures on the teaching of French as a second language in the Englishspeaking provinces and on the teaching of English as a second language in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue, if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Paul Harney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be brief. I think I can probably sum up in approximately three minutes; but may I point out that what I have to say in that time will in no way complete all I have to say on this subject.
I just want to make this one point. If you look at the figures having to do with the teaching of French in the English speaking provinces in Canada, you could be greatly alarmed. If you look at students in English speaking provinces across Canada who were studying French, I am speaking of students in high school, and express their number as a percentage of those who could study French, you will find that these figures hold true: In 1970-71, 55.7 per cent of the students who could study French, were studying French at some time during their high school career. I am not saying how much French they studied or for how long; I am merely saying that that percentage were exposed to some French instruction. In 1971-72, the percentage came down to 53.2 per cent. In 1972-73, the last year for which I have figures the percentage is reduced to 47.0 per cent. The decline is alarming, Mr. Speaker, and I predict that the figures for this year will be even more staggering.
I will end on this note: We cannot here discuss the matter of official languages, bilingualism and the rights of unilingual personnel in the Public Service, in isolation
Official Languages
from what exists in the rest of the country, because we could well discover ourselves moving in one direction while the country is moving in another. Although it may not be terribly relevant to the members of the Social Credit party if people in English Canada have some ability to speak French, it is terribly relevant to me, and to many others in English Canada. I, for one, want to ask the government to begin discussions with the provinces, with a view to reversing the present trend; otherwise, no matter what we do to improve the linguistic capabilities of our civil servants, we may well find that we have a bilingual civil service operating in a country that is essentially not bilingual, as may happen in a few years from now.


Mr. Claude Wagner (St. Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, while listening earlier to the comments made by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) in presenting his motion to the House I must say that at the very beginning I could not help smiling when, for instance, the hon. member thinking of the 15 seats won by his party in the province of Quebec did not hesitate to mistake those seats for the French Canadian population of Quebec.
I would remind the hon. member that population should not be counted in terms of seats but in terms of the individuals themselves and I think that the half million Quebec voters who have chosen the Progressive Conservative Party at the last election would feel quite uneasy in considering themselves among the official opposition as the hon. member for Champlain tried to recall.
I was also smiling because the hon. member for Champlain reminded me unintentionally of the comments made in this House by his leader on January 4 and 8 last, and I quote:
The differences of opinion with regard to linguistic matters did not constitute a real problem but that it was made to look like a problem because of a sad lack of purchasing power in all of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, today the Creditiste party wants to plead in favour of bilingualism. It has the right to do so, even if people are concerned over extremely urgent problems. It has the right to do it because bilingualism is obviously of vital importance for Canada's future. But just the same we should be aware that the House will have to discuss this very problem within the next few weeks when it takes into consideration the resolution brought in by the government. And at that time an exhaustive study of the government plan already on the order paper will be undertaken.
In any event, opposition is our right here and we respect this right. With them, we shall officially reopen the very important record of bilingualism. I confess that I feel at ease to deal with the language policy in Canada in general and in the public service in particular. Just like several other hon. members of all political parties, especially the present leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, I can express myself adequately in both official languages of the country and I am proud of it.
On the other hand, since I have just mentioned it, I would like to add that I am particularly pleased to sit and to work at the side of the leader of my party; all hon.

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
members, like an increasing number of French-speaking Canadians, must recognize today the highly praisable and already very effective personal efforts he has been making for four years to speak correctly in French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: If the applause that comes from all sides is any indication, this is an eloquent and worthy example not only for parliamentarians as a whole but for all our fellow citizens. And this attitude, like the attitude of the other party leaders who are here, is worth many speeches and many votes of principle on bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House, with more solidarity than ever, support the intent and direction of the lingustic policy sketched under the initiative of the late right hon. Lester B. Pearson and already launched in fact by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was leader of the government.
It would be unfortunate if today, in an altogether regionalist spirit, a debate would harden even before it is formally restarted. Nobody will hasten the advent of a large concensus on a linguistic policy developed to its fullest by playing petty politics or harshly introducing a motion that would only deal superficially with the problem. If there is a legislative area where all regional barriers and especially political labels and narrow and partisan considerations must be put aside, it is indeed that of the official languages of a country. Without an open mind, without an unpolitical approach, without mutual understanding, we would easily become, some of us at least, overly racist. Since we have a mandate from our constituents, we have no right to be sceptics, even less pessimists; on the contrary, more than ever, we must stick together so that our flag, which proudly stands to your right, Mr. Speaker, will always be recognized and saluted by the two founding communities of our nation. Now, without any false modesty, I want to address all members in this House as well as all Canadians, and all those who will hear me, and tell them that as a Canadian and as a proud Canadian and French-speaking Quebecer; intolerance, never more! Mr. Speaker, I should also like to say that a new world is emerging in which the majority of Canadians are less than 35, in which the level of education and school attendance are unprecedented, in which the instruments of sub-culture such as the media and modern audio-visual aids develop creativeness as never before, in which people are more concerned than past generations ever were with world problems or with new disciplines such as cybernetics, environment and what not, and where especially, in this new world, dialogue and understanding take the form of community life.
New possibilities exist when interprovincial or international travels-and soon maybe interplanetary-take less than no time, waves know no boundaries, currencies move more and more freely, languages are easier to learn and allow you to discover other people and, finally, when modern pedagogy is both an animator and a catalyst of an international conscience. Finally, I would like to tell them, Mr. Speaker; we must find new solutions. Tomorrow it will be too late.
Are we, as parliamentarians or Canadians from British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes,
[Mr. Wagner.l
again, out of ignorance, intolerance, selfishness, fear, or short-sighted political reasons, barely stated, to become responsible for or accessories to injustices vis-a-vis one or the other of the two founding groups, the two major linguistic communities of this country? Let those from the province of Quebec or elsewhere who cannot, can no longer or do not have to familiarize themselves with the other official language of this country from a practical point of view, allow at least their fellow citizens, let alone their children and grandchildren, to familiarize themselves with the other official language.
That is the way to build a Canada based on the sturdy, mutual respect of partnership.
On the other hand, let us not believe that national unity boils down to the sole question of official languages in this country.
Canada's two official languages, an easier access for French-speaking Canadians to the federal public service, federal services provided in both languages where necessary, even useful, of course, all that is part and parcel of our national unity theme. But basically and in our fellow citizens' every-day-life context, national unity will really be ensured at home by putting an end, in agreement with other levels of government and in a decentralization spirit, by putting an end to social and economic injustices and by tackling more effectively the problem of regional disparities in this country.
That is really our challenge as members of Parliament.
As far as the substance of the Creditiste proposal is concerned, it is only logical for me to think, in view of my earlier remarks, that it is clear: I intend to be more specific when the government motion is officially debated in the House. You see, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who do not want, as we say, to put the cart before the horse, especially in this area.
In concluding, I wish to make it clear that the solution to the problem of bilingualism, though patterned on the proceedings in this House, will not be stem from the House. It is the whole country that must fall into step.
I think of the privileged class, the leaders, college students, academics' communication agents, publishers and other experts, professionals, leaders of social, cultural, economical movements, industrialists and businessmen, and when thinking of them all, I think particularly and first of all of those who live in Quebec and off Quebec. To all those I just mentioned, I say that the real solutions will come from them.
I want a Canada, Mr. Speaker, where Canadians choose to understand each other and communicate with one another. I want a Canada where the issue of language is not one of political gain but of coherent national leadership. Regardless of my own views as a politician, there are local and community opinion leaders who must do their fair share. The students, professionals, businessmen, farmers, fishermen and others who make up this land will have to make up their own minds and make their own personal commitment. I happen to believe that this commitment will be made. I happen to believe that those who underes-
May 17, 1973

timate this commitment underestimate Canada and Canadians; and what is more important Mr. Speaker, they underestimate themselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). Would the hon. member accept a question?


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, before answering, I should simply like to say that if I could have the floor immediately, it was thanks to the utmost courtesy of the minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) who was scheduled to speak at that time and who, I think, wishes to speak before six o'clock. He has serious things to tell us, so I should not like to encroach on his allotted time, although I would be very pleased to answer the hon. member's question.


Georges-C. Lachance: Do I gather that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would rather not answer me?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in a difficult position. I do not know whether that reply said yes or whether it said no. The House is always master of its fate, and if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) wants to take advantage of the patience of the House, I am sure the hon. member for Lafontaine could ask a question.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe if he agrees in principle, with the resolution the government brought forward to increase the use of the French language at every level in the Public Service?


Claude Wagner: I will readily answer the hon. member, through you Mr. Speaker, and I shall say that I do not know whether he was absent a few minutes ago, but I have said that we would be pleased to get to the core of the matter when the government submits this resolution for debate, and at that time, we shall say, as a party, what we think of it.
I think that at this time it is not so much my personal views that the hon. member wishes to obtain, as the views of the party.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) rising on a point of order? The hon. member for Lotbiniere.
[ Transla tion]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) that according to the Standing Orders of this House and in order for him to be able to speak before his departure for Montreal, an agreement was not necessarily reached with the Minister
Official Languages
of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) alone, but also with our party which is always ready to cooperate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe that to be the understanding, that there was an all-party agreement.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to learned speeches, I would like to tell the House, through you, that I also have a philosophical, a great speech on Canadian policies to make, but that I will not make it today.
I will not make it today for a very simple reason, namely that I am surprised-and I am not the only one-about the procedure adopted by our colleagues of the Social Credit party who deemed it necessary to introduce a motion on an opposition day, while since April 13th a resolution appears on the order paper in the name of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by which the government announced its intention to allow everybody to take a stand on this matter of vital importance for Canada, which it considers as high priority. The House leader of our party (Mr. MacEachen) announced earlier today, early this afternoon, that this debate on the resolution put on the order paper on April 13th would take place sometime next week.
I will not take up extremely interesting views which have been expressed in several speeches made by previous speakers that I do not wish to take a position, because the government's view is that a debate in depth on this matter cannot take place today, since the motion introduced by the Social Credit party would not permit a beneficial fruitful and exhaustive debate.
I hasten to explain because I suppose our colleagues of the Social Credit party do not agree, but that is my opinion, that of the government, and 1 would like to specify the reasons for it. This motion does not permit a debate in depth on the matter, first because it contains wrong allegations about the Official Languages Act which is, of course, a major point in any discussion about official languages within the public service and, secondly, because it puts in a wrong light the debate that should be held on this matter, in stating views which we also consider as inaccurate. I will limit my remarks to try and establish those two points of view and explain by the same token our abstention from participating in this debate today.
I would like to show first of all that the first part of the resolution from the Social Credit Party set the debate on the wrong track even before it began. I quote:
That this House deplores the government's decision to postpone the full implementation of the policy contained in the Official Languages Act-
I should like to point out, through you, Mr. Speaker, particularly to the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) who spoke on this question and who is the sponsor of the motion that I think that assertion is incorrect, that the Official Languages Act can very well be implemented in the 60 months provided for in one of the last sections of the act, not in spite of but in the interest of the measures contained in the resolution of April 13 in

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
the name of the right hon. Prime Minister. As was clear at various points in his speech, the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) apparently still entertains an extremely dangerous confusion, which has already been pointed out by some previous speakers, in connection with the official languages, personal bilingualism, and what, despite the objections of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney), I shall continue to call institutional bilingualism.
Indeed, the member for Champlain made a case that seems to be based on a proposition that the government never formulated or defended. He seemed to be arguing against the idea that all federal civil servants, if not all Canadians, ought to become bilingual. There is a very strong expression in French, but I will use it all the same: the honourable member attributes this opinion to us, despite the fact that since the Official Languages Act was passed, we have been killing ourselves, killing ourselves I say, to explain that the bilingualism we are talking about in our policy on the official languages-I personally prefer the latter phrase-does not oblige every Canadian, or all federal civil servants, to learn two languages. It has but two aims. First: that all Canadian citizens be able to communicate with the Federal government and its related agencies in the official language of their choice, whether English or French; and, consequently, second: that if they work in the federal Public Service, they may also carry out their duties in-the official language of their choice.
It is therefore absolutely not a matter of forcing all Canadians to speakTboth languages, or even all civil servants. It does, however, mean that a certain number of civil servants, those who come into contact with the public or who hold supervisory positions and thus come into contact with junior public servants are bilingual, otherwise the two major objectives of the official languages policy could not be achieved.
Well, that is a policy, those are objectives the government has no intention to abandon, nor to postpone full implementation of measures which can be helpful in achieving them.
Second point: The Social Credit motion asserts that the government, in the resolution it tabled on April 13, proposes no efficient means of creating equality of the two languages within the public service, and that those measures proposed are neither realistic, nor concrete, nor fair, nor reasonable. I want to demonstrate the falsity of that premise which can lead only to equally false conclusions.
I shall demonstrate this as briefly as I can, Mr. Speaker, lest I get myself involved in a flagrant contradiction and, after having said that the substantial debate should not take place enter into such a substantial debate. However, I feel hon. members will recognize that, in order to point out the weakness of the Creditiste motion, I must show by contrast the strength of the resolution on the order paper.
Returning just one moment to the Official Languages Act, I was surprised by the kind of absolution whereby the hon. member for Champlain asserted that no progress had been achieved.
I feel that at leisure, when he thinks over his speech while going to sleep tonight-if it happens that he thinks over his speeches when going to sleep-he will realize that

he has exaggerated. I would like to give him a specific example. Now to suggest as he did that no progress has been made is an undefensible argument and I would like to give him a rather personal example. During the Holy Week both of us were in Cape Kennedy giving our moral support to the launching of a satellite-that was all we could do-and personally I was impressed-I am sure that the hon. member was too-to see that in a foreign country in Cape Kennedy, the officials who accompanied us and the employees of Telesat Canada were giving explanations to laymen such as we, some of which of a highly technical nature, in English as well as in French. I honestly ask the hon. member-and it is only an example-if we could only imagine five years ago that in a technical, scientific area- and this in the United States, in the heat of Florida-some people speak French because a certain number of the members of the parliamentary delegation spoke French.
I should not want to suggest for one moment that the hon. member is wrong to complain about the state of services in French in the Federal government because being part of this government, I find reasons to complain myself-perhaps not each day but nearly every week-and to try to correct these mistakes. But between this and going to the other extreme which consists in saying that no progress has been made, I think there is a gap which the hon. member did not see fit to consider and I hope that, in the basic debate that will take place when the resolution under the name of the right hon. Prime Minister will be discussed in this House, we will all try to stay within the limits of what is reasonable-I do not say of common sense but of what is reasonable-which is something quite different-and try not to go beyond our thought. We are in an area where emotion plays a great part and where it is unfortunately too easy to go beyond one's thought and to take extreme positions, which are indefensible for all practical purposes.
The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) spoke about the difficulties which persist and which are real, I agree. Again, if I did not want to say it myself, I would just have to refer hon. members to the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages; these difficulties still exist and they are very real. I should say however to the hon. member that it is far easier to criticize them than to correct them efficiently and that in spite of the remarks he has made-and I personally found a great deal of factual truth in them-I am nearly as impatient as he is. I would like to tell him however that it would not be reasonable to indicate only the bad sides and to neglect completely the progress we have made.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, in dealing with the second part of the motion I would like to quote a few figures related to some of the progress we have achieved and which contradict the hon. member for Champlain who claims not only that we have stagnated but that we have even lost ground. We have lost ground in some areas, we do suffer from some stagnation, but there has also been some progress which I should like to review briefly.
First of all, I should like to advise the House that we have made progress in that the use of the French language is more widespread in the civil service. With regard to procurement, the Public Service Commission advised me that of the 88,000 appointments made in 1972, as compared
May 17, 1973

with 1971, there were 4 per cent fewer positions listing a knowledge of English as a compulsory requirement, while the number of positions requiring French increased by 3 per cent. I will admit that the progress is modest, but it is a fact. Of the 38,000 new employees recruited in 1972, 22 per cent preferred to work in French as compared with 19 per cent in 1971.
Disregarding the special recruiting of Francophones in
1971,	23.7 per cent of university graduates hired in 1971 were French-speaking, their percentage increasing to 28.3 per cent in 1972.
In 1972 also, French-speaking university students, administration trainees represented 33.5 per cent of all the trainees. At management level, the number of appointed Francophones has increased from 19 per cent in 1971 to 21 per cent in 1972. During that period, 41 per cent of all appointees in the management category were bilingual, compared to 34 per cent only in 1971.
As to training, the results are not as encouraging. During a five year period, the participation of Frenchspeaking employees in the centralized training courses given by the Public Service Commission only increased from 4 per cent to 9.5 per cent.
This is the reason why the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister provides for an increase of training courses available in French. At the beginning of 1972, 10.5 per cent of the Public Service Commission courses were given in French, and by the end of 1972, this percentage has been increased to 60 per cent. By the end of 1975, all Public Service Commission courses will be available in both languages.
However, in the important career assignment program which is intended for junior officers, the French participation increased from 12 per cent in 1969 to 30 per cent in
1972.
I could go on quoting figures but not, as I said before, in an effort to prove that the problem has been solved, because this would be absolutely ridiculous. A problem which has been aggravated for over a century can certainly not be solved in four and a half, five or six years. But, as one of our colleagues was saying the other day in this House, we should not take another century to solve it.
In my opinion, the rate of progress has been accelerating. We shall have considerations to make in this connection. I hope that the hon. member for Champlain himself, when the resolution comes before the House, will be more specific and will not complacently indulge in the same kind of vague proposals as those he has presented today but will explain the contents of today's motion and produce evidence that the measures provided for in our resolution are neither realistic, practical, fair, or reasonable.
I might say-but again I would enter upon the substance of the debate-that those measures are realistic when they provide, for instance, that anyone in a supervising position must be bilingual; I think this is extremely realistic. How is it possible for employees to work in English or in French if they are supervised by someone who is unable to read the memos they write or to understand the language they speak?
I would also like to say that these measures are practical by giving one example: the chance for French-speaking as
Official Languages
well as English-speaking people of learning the second language. French-speaking people also experience the need for a second language.
I think the measures are fair and that anything that looks like concessions in these measures is in fact aimed at protecting the rights of unilingual people to positions they have held for years. For instance, anyone who has been involved in union negotiations is aware of the fact that the safeguard of any rights acquired by a worker is something sacred with which nobody wants to tamper, even if at times these might appear as excessive concessions.
Finally, I think that those measures are reasonable and this is evidenced by the fact that the wording of this resolution has been fully approved by all the Public Service unions. Not only did they accept and approved the conditions stipulated and the measures provided in the resolution but they allowed us to mention this approval publicly.
I will stop at that, Mr. Speaker, and sum it up. We will take no further part in this debate, except perhaps to point out a few things and add a few remarks, because we believe that a truly substantive debate cannot take place until the resolution dated April 13 is introduced in the House for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is six o'clock, I now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, after the excellent speech delivered by my colleague, I feel it is important to point out the suggestions and statements made in another study on bilingualism, that of Dr. P. C. Coulombe. The surprising thing about it is that this one was conducted on behalf of the Treasury Board, but, as in most cases, it has been put away on the shelves.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced his motion on bilingualism, did he take this report into consideration? You can pass judgment on it when considering the statements made in this study and the government's action. First of all, let us come back to the Treasury Board. In an article in Le Devoir of October 18, 1972, this was said, and I quote:
The bilingualism programs are inefficient and inadequate.
The report indicated clearly, with supporting data, that bilingualism too often consists merely in giving simple language courses which are, in addition, pitifully inefficient. From 1966 to 1971, those courses cost $54 million, and of the 22,807 civil servants who registered for them, only 1,851, that is 8 per cent, completed the program.
Attempts were made to silence the Francophones by creating French language units, but there again the results were deplorable. Those units included 2,497 civil servants in Ottawa, that is barely 5 per cent of the total work force in the public service.

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
What is even more deplorable is the fact that by sub-stracting the number of employees working in the Language Bureau, only 564 civil servants remain in the French Language units, that is 1.1 per cent of the total. Is that representation adequate? I do not think so. One does not have to be a genius to realize the seriousness of the failure. Even in Quebec, the system does not work. Only 55 per cent of the 44,000 federal civil servants in Quebec are grouped in the French units. Does that prove that the French language is respected in the civil service?
Instead of truly encouraging bilingualism according to the original intention of the government, the departments take unfair advantage of the translation services. That enables them to restrict the use of French. Why encourage the hiring of Francophones? They simply insist on translation and so employ English unilingual high officials who have their texts translated to make people believe that all goes well in the best of worlds.
You have there, Mr. Chairman, the hypocritical attitude of the present government as regards bilingualism.
The Coulombe report even indicates that the bilingualism goals set by the Trudeau government for 1975 will not be attained, far from it. Bilingualism in Canada, as advocated by the present government, is all poppycock. And we have sufficient proof of that.
Are people aware that it costs $29,000 to train a bilingual public servant and that it cost $54 million to train the 1,851 public servants who completed the course? Those are the figures.
From 1966 to 1970, the $17 million spent for the training of bilingual public servants may be considered as a total loss since 6,463 of those who had registered dropped out. Out of the 18,627 English-speaking public servants who registered, only 946, namely 5 per cent, completed the course. It was a real success, was it not? On the other hand, out of 4,090 Francophones who had registered, 905 met the course requirements, namely 22 per cent. That is not much better!
Apart from such a poor result, the appointing of higher officers always favours unilingual English-speaking people. Yes! We find those gentlemen in the upper levels and preferably where they are not in touch with the public. Such are the arguments in the Coulombe report. That is another conclusion that proves that my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), is right, but we shall get back to the matter later on.
Out of the 142 higher officers appointed from outside the public service between 1966 and 1971, only 27 were Frenchspeaking, namely 19 per cent, while the French-speaking people account for 30 per cent of Canada's total population. As regard the higher officers appointed from within the public service, that is by way of promotion, only 16 per cent were French-speaking, namely 42 out of 269. The worst part of it is that instead of improving conditions are deteriorating.
In 1967-68, the employment percentage as regards French-speaking people was 26 per cent; in 1970-71, it fell to 13 per cent, namely a 50 per cent decrease. The leader of

the official opposition and his predecessor would say that our system is good.
I said earlier that to silence the French-speaking people, French language units had been created but even in this case the established standards were not respected and that instead of favouring the unilingual French positions, as stipulated in the Official Languages Act, more and more bilingual positions are created within those units. Thus, it is possible to get around the standards and always at the expense of French-speaking people.
The study made by Dr. Coulombe for the Treasury Board is precise, detailed and unequivocal. The only conclusion we can draw from it is that the bilingual policy is a total failure in Canada. However not being satisfied with its failure, the government through the Prime Minister wants to confirm this state of affairs by presenting a motion concerning the unfortunate facts known to date. This motion even says that if a bilingual position is occupied by a unilingual individual, this individual can attend bilingual courses or request his transfer out however if he so desires, he may retain his position as after 10 years in the Public Service he is considered, as actually bilingual although he is not. What about that?
I am sure the Progressive Conservative members must be laughing in their sleeves at the reading of such a motion. But let us consider now the recommendations of this report. First, let me state the substance of this report. Here is what Dr. Coulombe says:
We are deeply convinced that true bilingualism in the Public Service implies that French should occupy a major position as an actual working language.
This is another tribute to the hon. member for Champlain who declared the willingness of the French-speaking people to participate truly in the Federal administration. Whether one speaks French with ease or not matters very little. What is important is to allow unilingual French Canadians to have access to the same rights of decisions and the same levels of administration as the Anglophones.
First the report of the Treasury Board clearly recommends that the French units be reoriented and reorganized. This sounds very much like the parallel administrations advocated by our group, the Social Credit Party.
It recommends as well that the number and the importance of these units be increased, particularly in the national capital and in more departments.
Does the government choose such alternatives? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. They put this report on the shelf and they continue to increase their failure. The report finally recommends exactly what the Social Credit Party has been requiring for a long time, namely French-speaking departments. It is essential that French-speaking public servants have the same career opportunities as their English-speaking colleagues and, to achieve this objective, only parallel administrations of French-speaking departments will give hope to French-speaking people.
Mr. Speaker, we are no longer speaking of bilingualism among people, but of bilingualism within the administration. Does that not mean respect for language rights in Canada? Every citizen has the right to communicate with
May 17, 1973

its government in any of the two official languages. Instead of paying $29,000 to teach a second language to a person who will retire within a few years, we want to establish a permanent bilingual system, while respecting the individual's ability, his skills of administrator, engineer, technician, expert in any field, without hampering it for language reasons. Being a good engineer has little to do with language, but rather with the knowledge of engineering. Therefore, I may be a very good French-speaking statistical expert with no knowledge of the English language and because I do not speak English, I am not entitled to the opportunities that the public service offers. I will not be allowed to get the necessary promotion to successfully end my career. This is a strange and backward attitude.
My ability depends on my skills, my knowledge of statistics and not on my language. At the same time, an English-speaking person with the same skills as I, a statistician with similar qualifications, and this is the situation which now prevails, would be entitled to reach the higher levels of management, not because he is a better statistical expert, but only because he can speak English.
Indeed such is the conclusion of the Coulombe report; it is also the finding of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
All studies, all statistics prove unequivocally that until now the government deprives itself of a certain expertise because Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So is not bilingual or unilingual and English-speaking.
Therefore, I repeat that bilingualism is not designed for individuals, but rather for the system, the administration. It is evident that a bilingual individual increases the cultural value of a country, but still it is not the responsibility of the government to force or compel the individual to speak two languages. However, the government must be able to answer individuals, to communicate with them in both official languages, French or English.
Consequently, the suggestion of the Social Credit Party of Canada to create parallel administrations is the only one capable of ensuring respect for the language rights of the public employees as well as of the population in general.
As it was so well expressed in the conclusion of the Coulombe report, French-speaking departments must be created to allow Francophones to take part in the administration in the same way as the Anglophones, to have access to the executive positions in the same manner as the Anglophones, without discrimination and, especially, with full respect for the rights of all citizens. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that such a system would ensure the permanence of bilingualism in the public service without, as things are now, swallowing up fabulous amounts in pure loss, because of the necessity of ever starting again and because of the drop out rate of public employees following bilingual courses.
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Temiscamingue, (Mr. Caouette), the leader of our party, said so well on other occasions, it is a fantasy to believe we can make a Frenchman out of an Englishman and vice versa. However, it is certainly possible to create institutions that will respect French- and English-speaking persons.
Official Languages
This is what the Social Credit is suggesting. This is a workable, realistic suggestion. Moreover it is beyond question today as we come to realize the enormous failure of the bilingual policy of the present government.
The evidence is overwhelmingly against the present system, facts speak for themselves, statistics corroborate and magnifying facts, and all this reflects the perspicacity of our party.
We represent French Canada and, in this capacity, we know that French-speaking people want to take part in the management of public affairs. Let us give them the opportunity to really show what they can do by adopting the only possible solution, that is the creation of parallel administrations in all the government activity areas.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, polite as usual, the members of the Social Credit Party stressed this afternoon that there were few members in the House to listen to them. Out of courtesy, I feel I must return the compliment and point out that there are not many of them here to debate a proposal that they themselves made and to support their claim to be the sole representatives of French-speaking Canadians. Their performance this evening seems to me very poor.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say very cordially to the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette), who claims that his party represents French Canadians, that I am as much at ease as he in saying that I rise this evening, not to claim that I am the representative of French Canada, but that I am at least a member who believes as strongly as those who spoke before me in the vitality of French-speaking Canadians, and in his right to represent adequately in Ottawa the French-speaking element of the population.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it fitting to speak at length, as it might be merely a preview of our debate in the near future, when the government introduces its proposal on bilingualism, but I would like perhaps to clarify one point, as it seems that our journalist friends are trying to confuse people, probably not intentionaly. At 6:30 this evening I listened to the CBC news, in which an eminent journalist gave a bulletin which, to my mind, misrepresented what is happening today in the House. It must be recognized, and I think it important to point out, that we are not debating a motion on bilingualism. We are debating an opposition motion proposed by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), which, to my mind, involves basically the same issues that we will be discussing in connection with the government proposal. For this reason I have tried to find motives, reasons or explanations for this motion, but, although I have listened attentively, I have been aware that the arguments put forward were more relevant to the motion we will be proposing than to the one before us this evening.
To return to the CBC news, it was claimed that we were debating a motion on which the French-speaking members were remaining silent.
I would like to take exception to that impression which was created by the CBC tonight and which is absolutely untrue, absolutely incomplete, not to say more. I think
3894

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
that as French-speaking Canadians we would be happy to participate in this debate, but we think it would be useless to repeat the arguments we will be putting forward when the motion on bilingualism is considered next week. I would merely like to say a few words on a field which concerns me particularly since I happen to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and bilingualism policies usually come under the jurisdiction of the department where I am fortunate enough to work with an exceptional minister. Mr. Speaker, I think that the impression which was created tonight by saying that bilingualism has not progressed is made up of absolutely unfounded assertions and statements which mislead people who wish to know all the facts. It is clear that bilingualism has not progressed with the pace anticipated. There is no doubt that the progress that we would have liked to see go a lot further have not reached the pace we would have hoped for but, Mr. Speaker, saying that all that has been done in the field of bilingualism is an absolute failure is a statement I am not prepared to accept and which, in addition, is not a true reflection of the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak on behalf of the Department of the Secretary of State, a department which was set up by a minister whose reputation has been long established and who played an essential part, I think, in our desire to set up structures where French-speaking Canadians would not replace their English-speaking colleagues but would join with them to form a family truly representative of the two main founding elements of the Canadian nation.
Mr. Speaker, I will simply give you some figures leaving it to you and to the other members to draw the conclusion.
When we consider that in the Department of the Secretary of State, 16 per cent of the civil servants use French as their main language, that 14 per cent of them use English as their main language, but that 70 per cent of those who work for the Secretary of State are bilingual can we seriously maintain that that is not a substantial progress, an interesting achievement? That is enough to make me forget what little Latin I may have.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to tell the Canadian people that bilingualism has two aspects. We should not attach importance to one aspect only. The first is to teach the greatest possible number of people the use of both languages so that they can express themselves as much as possible and communicate so that a certain group of people can come to the national capital and work in their language within the federal agencies and answer people in the language of their choice, taking it for granted that there are of course two official languages. However, there is also another aspect, the aspect of the representation of French-speaking people and there I agree with my friends of the Social Credit when they insist on the importance of the representation of French-speaking people in Ottawa which must not be left aside and on the fact that we should not maintain the illusion that all problems will be solved in Ottawa once we have reached a sufficient degree of bilingualism.
But from the example of the Department of the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is possible to make a continuing effort and to collaborate at all levels to achieve the basic objectives of a nation where the two

main groups can really play their parts not only in the field of the language but also through an effective, concrete and representative presence.
I listened this afternoon to the hon. member from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who with all the skill he is capable of tried to keep hon. members from taking a political stand on the policy of bilingualism. This is extremely clever, but I do not agree with his views.
I believe that if the political parties do not have the courage to take their responsibilities and as such to indicate clearly their views on the bilingualism policy, they do not deserve to govern the nation. And if individually, it is normal that hon. members give their views, it is also normal that parties, as entities representing an important component of the nation, give their opinion officially and definitely on the opportunity for changes that must be brought about, and on the necessity to adopt a bilingualism policy. And that policy must not be merely windowdressing which gives only the impression that, as Frenchspeaking people we are tolerated, but it must insure that we are going to play our part and that we are considered as equal partners.
I hope that each party will make it a point, through its members, to express its views officially and will not leave it to the French-speaking people to impose or to express their views on bilingualism. I will stay here to listen carefully to my colleagues to learn their views and get their advice, to hear them say if the member for Lapointe who is French-speaking is really accepted in Ottawa not merely in great words and statements but if in fact something will be done to bring about the necessary changes so that the Canada that we want to preserve can rest on firm foundations through the acceptation of the two main communities.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my comments by saying that I am confident in the light of the experience I have gained since 1968 and the progress often too slow which I have witnessed that we are mature enough to understand that the step we are going to take, we must take it together like men who realize that Canada's fate lies in our own hands. And it behooves us to be in the forefront, to prove by our policies and understanding between one another and toward the people that we are ready to make sacrifices on both sides, that we are willing to make decisions which will enable Canada to keep on playing the major role it has been playing throughout the world.
I feel that the meaning and the scope of the motion before us have not been explained to us by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). I believe nevertheless that he is wrong when he says that the official language policy has been postponed.
It is certain, however, that at a given time the quick rate of growth of some policies should be geared to reality and what should be sought is not to impose bilingualism through legislation, but rather to have members of the House and the people of Canada accept it. I feel that if each member plays his part and explains to the people what bilingualism is, what Canadians, whether French- or English-speaking want is really the same thing: the best Canada ever, where all citizens, of both founding people, can live in happy harmony, that goal will be really achievable.

[ English]


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) who discussed the duties of a Member of Parliament. He said it is the duty of parliament, of parliamentarians and of governments to lead and to explain so there can be understanding in our country as to what is meant by the Official Languages Act. Among the terms he used were "institutional bilingualism" and "personal bilingualism." I listened to him and agree with him. I say, with all respect to the hon. member, to the party he supports and to the government he supports that the failing with respect to bilingualism as a concept in Canada is not in the policy. The failing is that the government, which was charged with the basic responsibility of explaining that policy clearly and unequivocally to the people of Canada, did not do so in terms which they could understand. That is the great failing.
If ever there was a responsibility to be laid on a government and the head of a government, it was the great responsibility of the Trudeau government in this delicate and important matter to give an explanation to all Canadians so that my friend in the Creditiste party would not be debating with the hon. member for Lapointe and they would not be debating this matter with us. This government failed Canadians with respect to the understanding of that statute. That failing is their responsibility. Whatever has happened with regard to the misunderstanding since that time has grown out of that failure.
I represent a constituency from which many people come to work in the offices of the government every day. During the election campaign in my constituency I was faced with the failures of this government with regard to the implementation of bilingualism. I emphasize the word "implementation". During the election campaign I went from door to door and spoke to many thousands of public servants. Not one public servant said to me that he opposed the principles set forth in the Official Languages Act. That is to their everlasting credit.
We must remember the purpose of the Official Languages Act. It is to give equal status to two languages. The duty of all members of this House is to ensure that in the process of implementation there is equality and recognition of equity to all public servants. If we can solve the problems of public servants who are working during this period of transition, a period when we are trying to remake 105 years of history within a short period, we will have gone a long way toward fostering and promoting the spirit of the principles set forth in the Official Languages Act.
We are faced with the challenge of trying to rebuild and extend the spirit of 1967, the spirit of excitement and hope that characterized our centennial year. I say with some sadness that this government has succeeded in widening the divisions among Canadians to the point where it is difficult to see where any government, even one dedicated to disunity, could have done worse.
I wish to state what this policy of bilingualism means to me as a Canadian. Within the limits of practicability, Canadians should have the right to federal government
Official Languages
service in English or French. The public service should be attractive to English and French Canadians alike. Government officials should be encouraged to learn both languages in such a way that they never feel coerced. This should be so especially where it means that a public servant will be able to do his job better because of his knowledge. It does not mean that public servants, whether French- or English-speaking, should be penalized because they speak only one of our two official languages. The true spirit of bilingualism in Canada ought to be, and I am sure it will be, one of attitude and commitment to a certain perception of our society.
As a member of this House I would not like to see real bilingualism destroyed by a government that has become so preoccupied with mechanics and numbers that it forgets that in government buildings there are people who are very much concerned because they live in what I referred to on an earlier occasion as the eye of a bilingual hurricane. When we look at the problems of Canada, we look to the eye of that hurricane, the public service of Canada. We must not forget this very important principle.
In our search for equality, the feeling of equality and the commitment to equality we must not forget that entering into the public service and advancement within it must be based on equality of opportunity for all Canadians. The public service must be a place where Canadians can work together. In the time that I am here, I hope I will be able to ensure that the public service is a place where justice is not only done to every public servant but where justice is seen to be done as well.
I say to all members of this House that bilingual institutions have their own significance that sometimes goes unnoticed. Their presence is precisely a guarantee that the individual Canadian has a right to deal in his own language, with his own government. Bilingualism involves the right to be unilingual. That is my understanding. That right applies to both French- and English-speaking Canadians. The great misunderstanding that has arisen is that bilingualism in Canada has become equated with a form of coercion. That is what it means in some quarters. I am committed to the assurance that this will not occur and that this feeling will not continue.
Reference has been made to the bilingual resolutions which we will have an opportunity to debate in a few days. Those resolutions contain nine points. There ought to be a tenth point, namely, that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." We can put all the fine sentiments on paper in both official languages, write books and paragraphs, make speeches in this House and elsewhere, do all the things expected of Canadians, make calls for unity, concern, understanding and compassion but they will not mean anything if those on the treasury benches, whether from the party that presently occupies that place, or this party that soon will, do not do their part to ensure that the real spirit of those fine words are honoured.
One of the major problems of the bilingual policy in the public service results from the government's failure to administer and administrate realistically. The cabinet has authorized more and more money for training in the public service, much more than $30 million. But the effectiveness of the program has been undermined. The government has failed to understand or accept the fact that the
26314-29J

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
language training program requires adjustments within the public service by the public servant. It has taken the government far too long to grasp the implications of the significantly low success rate and the high drop-out rate in language training. The government has mistakenly added language training to the workload of public servants without providing extra personnel. This has had a very serious effect at various levels in the public service which have spoken about it through their associations.
A survey of drop-outs established that at least two-thirds of the drop-outs 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 respect to bilingualism. However, this must not be misconstrued-and I do not think the people I have talked to ought to be misconstrued-as being in opposition to the principles set forth in the statute.
We are pleased that the government has seen fit to establish, under the auspices of the Treasury Board, an extensive program to hire replacements for public servants assigned to intensive language training courses. The practice of pulling 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 on their part, thus affecting their opportunities.
Leaving language training to attend to departmental matters, and then returning only to find one has fallen far behind, has discouraged too many eager people who want to learn a second language, whatever that language may be. The double-banking system which has been proposed to ensure that a position is covered when a civil servant is on language training may be an answer to this problem. It may well do away with the frustration and fatigue caused by the dual responsibilities of departmental duties on the one hand and language training on the other.
There is the question of advancement. I believe these language courses which some public servants can take and which others, at the moment, cannot take ought to be broadened so that all public servants, or at least those who want to attend language courses, have access to them. I believe there is still a lack of opportunity that many public servants find to be a great threat.
For example, there are approximately 55,000 women in the public service of Canada. About 15,000 of them are in the secretarial-stenographic group. Many of them are classified as ST-5s and if they are not bilingual they will probably remain ST-5s for the rest of their career. On the other hand, if they were capable of taking dictation in both official languages, they could move up to the ST-8 category. At this point they are not being permitted to take language training. Given this kind of irritation, it is no wonder that people are emotional about bilingualism in the public service, and the responsibility that rests upon the government, and indeed on this parliament, is a heavy one indeed. It is this government's failure, whether it likes to accept the responsibility or not.

The proof of the pudding with respect to the real spirit will be in the eating of that pudding. We have a long way to go in this country to restore, within the public service and elsewhere, the true meaning and the true understanding of what was meant when the statute was passed. I hope that with good will and understanding on all sides, by people in all parts of Canada, we will reach that objective. The responsibility for seeing that this is the case begins in this House of Commons with the government, which must ensure that that which has become the focal point of present difficulties, namely, the people who work within the public service of Canada, are given the proper atmosphere within which their talents can be utilized for the benefit of this country. In the name of those people, many of whom I have the honour to represent, I ask in the House tonight for that understanding.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling that the motion we are dealing with tonight as presented by the Creditiste party is an irrelevant one. The motion urges the government "to find realistic and specific ways of safeguarding the rights of French and Englishspeaking Canadians in a much more just and reasonable manner". In fact, the government motion under item 34 on the order paper is designed to fulfill the aims of the Social Credit motion as it relates to injustice to French- and English-speaking Canadians.
On October 30 of last year the Liberal government discovered, that among other things, a large number of Canadians were indeed disturbed by the attempts of the Liberals to create an instant bilingual society in this country. Indeed, the great secrecy with which the Official Languages Act was being implemented, combined with injustices done in the name of bilingualism, created feelings of unease and resentment among many Englishspeaking civil servants, and this could not help but manifest itself in similar feelings on the part of English-speaking Canadian citizens throughout this country. This resentment stemmed not from any disagreement with the concept of Canada as a bilingual country but, rather, from the suspicion that the government was acting in an autocratic and prejudicial manner. For my own part, I think perhaps this had some basis in fact.
I agree with the Official Languages Act and that Canadians of the two major cultures should feel at home in their communications with their government. But the Official Languages Act is in no way a bilingual policy for Canada and the Canadian people. In many aspects of the civil service, ease of communication may exist in the predominant use of one language because certain occupations may not immediately require facility in both the official languages.
One of the major faults in the government's Official Languages Act is that the relevant policies were never adequately explained to the Canadian people. Somehow or other the people of Canada, perhaps by a method of osmosis, were supposed to presume what was the aim and the thrust of the government. Contrary to the members of the Liberal Party, who see this act as the great panacea for all Canadian bilingual aches and pains, I view it as relating to only one aspect of Canadian bilingualism.
What is the government trying to do to develop and to nurture a truly bilingual society, keeping in mind respect
May 17, 1973

for the other cultures that exist in Canada? May I for a moment talk about the creation of a bilingual country, a country that has respect for the two major cultures within its boundaries. While the federal government disburses large amounts of money to provincial departments of education for second language instruction, there is no stipulation, or no essential machinery set up to ensure that these funds are in fact used for these purposes. Consequently, in many provinces these funds are finding their way into school construction programs, salaries for other than second language staff, and so on. They are not being used for the purpose for which the federal government designed them. To create a bilingual Canada, surely we must start with young children. We have to start in the elementary schools and with pre-school education programs. Why is second language instruction not started by educational television before a child gets to school, and continued right through the early years?
The federal government ought to allocate funds for the proper training of teachers of the second language. Cultural exchange should be encouraged and expanded, especially exchanges between groups of young students. The federal government, in its disbursements to provincial governments for second language instruction, should attach strings, and such funds should be allocated for pre-school education as well as for in-school education.
Perspective must be used in viewing the proper role of the Canadian federal government in the attempt to create and maintain a bilingual society in our country. Bilingualism in Canada will not stand or fall on its implementation solely at the public service level. To simply create fluency in both languages would be to fall short of the ideal of bilingualism and biculturalism. Knowledge and understanding of sister cultures, with resulting new attitudes, will create respect for those cultures and cannot fail to lead to a united Canada.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps from the early days of Confederation, French Canadians, particularly those of the province of Quebec, have had snow jobs performed on them and have been fooled by the so-called great bilingualism policies of the federal government. Experience has taught them, in the province of Quebec particularly, through successive elections at four-year intervals, to interpret election language and to reach the conclusion, after repeated disappointments, that bilingualism was actually a convenient parade sword to brandish exclusively during election campaigns, to be hastily returned to its sheath once victory had been achieved.
We listened a moment ago to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) who, by the way, is certainly not a worthy successor of his predecessor, Mr. Gilles Gregoire, who, when speaking of bilingualism, put forward striking arguments, quoted figures and spoke plainly.
When the hon. member for Lapointe referred to silent members, I had the feeling that he was speaking of members of his party, because as far as bilingualism is concerned, I have not often seen Liberal members get excited, except during election campaigns.
Official Languages
As regards Progressive Conservative members, it is quite unfortunate to realize it, but including their leader, they also consider bilingualism as a political asset in order to save face and try to save the last two ridings they still have in the province of Quebec.
I heard the hon. member for Lapointe say earlier that he was going to forget what little Latin he may have learned. I wonder why he refers to a third language, when we have such a hard time having a second one recognized.
Mr. Speaker, the House will have to take into account several factors in the implementation of this policy as well as in the development, if I may say so, of programs designed for the whole country. Hon. members from all across Canada have a tremendous responsibility to assume in this field. Perhaps they are less aware in western Canada, in the Maritimes or in Newfoundland of the social crisis existing in Quebec.
We must not hide the truth. In Quebec, at present, people think in increasing numbers, and it is much more serious. Often in the past people woke up too late. Hon. members should not do the same. Something is happening in Quebec and we must be blind not to see it, or still, we would have to hide our head in the sand. What happens then is that we get a big kick in the pants. I have a notion that many here are about to get one.
The Social Credit stand on bilingualism is a realistic one, and it will enable all Canadians from coast to coast to be heard and respected when dealing with the government. Of course, attitudes will be hard to change. In the exclusively English regions without any contact with French Canadians, problems of understanding and integration will persist, of course. In other words, many will find it hard to accept the French fact in Canada.
The Social Credit is recommending the establishment of parallel departments, so that when a French Canadian deals with a department, he will be sure to speak to a French Canadian. He will be sure to obtain an answer in French when phoning a department. He will be sure if he writes, to get an answer in French. He will not have to wait for three months to obtain a reply and the services of three translators will not be necessary. The French Canadians have been and still are considered as the poor relatives in the Public Service. This at least is shown not only in the findings of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, before the House Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on Tuesday April 10, 1973 but also in answers provided by the various departments, Crown corporations and other government organizations to the questions asked on January 17 last and which remained on the order paper until we obtained the answers yesterday.
Les us look at those answers signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid). The questions asked were as follows:
Has the department, the agency or the board concerned adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
And the second question read as follows:
What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
Then, to check if progress had been made in the field of bilingualism the following question was asked:
In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
Finally, to complete this information and to see what efforts the government was making to encourage bilingualism a last question was asked as follows:
By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?
I will not talk about the stereotyped answer that we received on the first question: it was invariably that departments' policies on bilingualism are based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policies and directives prescribed by the government.
That answer, Mr. Speaker, does not teach us anything new. It simply confirms that if bilingualism does not progress or indeed progresses so little in the departments or government agencies it is on account of the policies and directives established by the government or as a result of the deficiencies of those policies and directives.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to the answer given to the second series of questions: What number and percentage of employees of such and such a department or organization are French-speaking only, English-speaking only or bilingual? Some of the replies were suprising, as for example the following from the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The Department claims that its files do not contain this information, in other words that there is no way of knowing how many of its employees were Frenchspeaking only, English-speaking only or bilingual in 1968, 1969 and 1970; but the department adds that it received $11,000 in 1970, $174,000 in 1971 and $671,000 in 1972-73 for the development of bilingualism. It is amazing to learn that $976,000 has been spent to promote bilingualism, but that nobody knows how many unilingual or bilingual employees there are in this department.
The replies from the Department of National Health and Welfare are vague, imprecise. For example, this department and the Treasury Board Secretariat claim quite seriously that all non-bilingual employees are considered as unilingual, and that there is no way of telling how many are French-speaking only or English-speaking only. Finally, however, we learned that in 1973, for example, there were 6,559 unilingual employees, which is 91.2 per cent, and 565 bilingual employees, which is 7.9 per cent. This is typical of our findings in all government departments.
Mr. Speaker, the replies given by the various government departments and agencies on bilingualism indicate that contrary to what some people suggest, "French Power" is not a fact yet in Ottawa. Unilingual French-speaking people are a very small minority. In some departments and agencies there is not even one employee whose working language is French. French-speaking people must speak English to get a job in the Public Service, which is not the case for the majority of English-speaking public servants.
In conclusion, I would like to quote the remarks made by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Spicer,

before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on April 10 last. Mr. Spicer said, and I quote:
I would not wish to take more of your time with this introductory statement. But I believe I should recall what I have said many times, most recently in our second annual report: from our observation post, we definitely do not have the impression that the cause of bilingualism is advancing with giant steps. We sometimes hear that the French language and French Canadians are in the process of taking over the Public Service. However, the figures do not support these fears. On the contrary, the French language is still not getting a fair shake in the Public Service.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Spicer said "still not getting a fair shake". He goes on to say:
Last year, I quoted rather discouraging figures on jobs filled in the public service in 1971, showing that it was then roughly ten times easier for a person speaking English than for a person speaking French to enter his country's service. The following new figures, even while reflecting a slight modification, will show you what I mean.
Here are the total number of appointments in the federal Public Service in 1971 and 1972 by language
requirements.
1971	1972
Bilingual	9.1%	7.6%French	8.3%	11.0%English	79.2%	75.6%Not Specified	3.4%	5.8%
-that is, for which no specific language requirement was shown in the report.
Of course there exist cases where an English-speaking public servant feels that he or she is in difficulty because of the implementation of bilingualism programs. When such cases arc brought to my attention they receive precisely the same careful and impartial treatment as any other case. Some Members of Parliament have indeed had occasion to send to us, with satisfactory results, constituents with problems of this kind.
The great majority of our English-speaking fellow citizens still display, it seems to me, an instinctive goodwill and open-mindedness. The phenomenon called English "backlash" exists; but I believe it has often been over-blown. There is another, and I think more dangerous, reaction we should never forget: French skepticism. To prevent our French-speaking countrymen's skepticism from sliding into outright cynicism, and to prevent them from seeing in bilingualism policies just another "trick" of the federal authorities to win them over, the pace of language reform must not be slowed down, but sanely and sensitively speeded up.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the alarming remarks made by a senior public servant who is paid to observe and report facts honestly. In fact, Mr. Spicer has shown a great deal of honesty in making such a statement, especially after an election where some members, particularly in western Canada, got themselves elected by riding on the back of French-speaking people, the so-called "French power".
These alarming remarks should incite all members to think and act in such a way as to show that indeed they have faith in this entity which is called Canada and to foster the economic as well as cultural growth throughout the country.
The federal government's policies on bilingualism must not be merely a safety valve enabling a minority or group acting among Canadians to express itself. It has to be something concrete and not, as I said earlier, only such a bluff as to make the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) forget his Latin.
Policies will have to be adopted to educate especially the Anglophones for, unfortunately, they are sadly lacking in
May 17, 1973

that respect. They need to be educated to a new turn of mind, that French-Canadians might be accepted in the ten provinces of Canada, that they might take pride in being Canadians, that they might feel at home wherever they are. And when I speak of the right to bilingualism, I mean specially that of the French-Canadians, because it does not seem to bother the English-Canadians very much.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to take part in this debate because I consider the motion completely out of order in view of the fact that the government already has on the order paper a motion which is to be discussed next week. However, something was said today that gave me a strong injection of adrenalin. I find I must react to those comments, otherwise I will not be able to sleep tonight.


An hon. Member:: Reactionary?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, revolutionary. In the speech made in the House a short while ago by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) we heard what I would call some very strong accusations. Knowing him as I do, and knowing his integrity, I hope he has not made these accusations seriously. I hope the hon. member is not trying to mislead us or the country into thinking that what he said is the Bible truth.
He said something to the effect that selling the concept of bilingualism to the people of Canada was the responsibility of the Liberal party. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I consider myself to be above that kind of partisanship. I think it was well said today in the House by both the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) that everybody in the House has a duty to sell this policy to the country, not just the members of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If we are talking about selling the policy, let us sell it with fair play-and fair play means that it must be sold honestly. What was used were innuendoes, accusations and insinuations. Examples were given of minute details which are irrelevant to the over-all discussion, which should be on policy statements, objectives, aims and goals. I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton knows very well what I mean by aims and goals. The aims and goals are to treat everyone equally and to tell the truth. I do not think this has been done here today.
I am sorry to point out, Sir, that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is the only English-speaking member of the House who has spoken today, except for the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who is a member from Quebec and who knows what it means to treat minorities with equality and justice. He knows this because he lives in Quebec and has done that. However, I am in a minority group in Ontario, where I have lived for 100 years with injustice.


Mr. Epp:: You don't look that old.
Official Languages


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am 43. I might not look as if I were 100 years old, but I feel like it sometimes.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you see your chiropractor?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you want the floor, I will give it to you; otherwise, let me have it for a few minutes.


An hon. Member:: You don't deserve it.


An hon. Member:: We are all listening.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said that public servants should not be penalized. He said something to the effect that there should be an attitude of commitment to a certain perception of our society, or similar words. When one reads the report for 1971-72, of the Commissioner of Official Languages, when one reviews the press reports of speeches made in Ottawa during the last election and understands the sentiment that was behind the insinuations that public servants in Ottawa were being mistreated and dealt with unfairly, all one has to do is to look at the statistics to see that that is not true. Nobody was treated unfairly, if to treat unfairly is to give French-speaking citizens some kind of right of access to the public service commission. I think what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said is totally wrong.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that before the hon. member makes accusations about what I meant, he should read the blues of my speech. I have just read them.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Then I rise on a question of privilege. I respect my friend; we know one another very well. However, before he comes to the conclusions that he seems to have reached he should read very carefully, if he has an opportunity, the blues of the speech which I made tonight, or read Hansard tomorrow.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will read the blues, Mr. Speaker, but I took down some of the hon. member's statements word for word, and also I heard him. I will see tomorrow if it reads the same way as it sounded.


An hon. Member:: Put your old campaign speech away.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I did not have to use it in my campaign in Ottawa East; this was not an issue. But someone else made it an issue in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was very impressed today with the remarks of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) and I should like to mention two minor points after which I shall resume my seat because I am saving my main speech for next week.
The rights of individuals in Canada, institutional bilingualism, individual bilingualism, that whole question, as the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) said, must be studied in a spirit of good will and good

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
faith. But I do not agree with the hon. member when he says it must be treated in an apolitical way.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we can discuss that important Canadian matter apolitically.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said:

"This issue of language is not one for political gain". That is what one hon. member opposite said this afternoon. It is not so funny now.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will repeat the statement: "This issue of language is not one for political gain".


An hon. Member:: That's for sure.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I invite all hon. members opposite to make positive statements on how we can improve this situation, not how you can beat it or destroy it.


An hon. Member:: Let us hear you.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You will hear me next week. Intolerance, innuendoes, accusations-you are experts at that. I will repeat it for you so you might listen and understand.


Paul Yewchuk: All right, repeat it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have been attacked. Minority, French-speaking groups across Canada have been attacked for a number of years. But recently, in Ontario at least, there has been a breakthrough. Since 1968 there has been understanding and comprehension. At least now we have a system of government appreciation of what
500,000	Franco-Ontarians want and expect, and that is equality, justice and what the hon. member opposite was mentioning a few minutes ago. Justice has no partisanship; justice is not a thing of party.


Paul Yewchuk: You have been getting justice from a Conservative government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are pretty good at this, but I will handle you the next time you speak.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would ask hon. members to comply with the standing orders and address the Chair. I do not think that we have much to gain through those interventions and those exchanges, but if we stick to the standing orders, it will help the proceedings.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go on, because the speech which I will deliver next week will be much more important, but I wanted to make the point.

The Creditistes who applauded did not understand. They want Canada to become like Belgium, but they will not get it. This is all I wanted to say.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that when discussing such a serious matter, so important for good understanding among Canadians, one can hear stupidities like these which were heard a moment ago.
Mr. Speaker, it is also unfortunate to see that the present government, and those that preceded it, indulge, over the years, in endless talk of bilingualism. Now, we see the government backing away from the solution at the very time when all Canadians thought they could at last put their finger on the real solution to the serious problem of bilingualism in Canada. Unfortunately, we are disappointed, as all Canadians will be when they see that the government, in meaningless texts, do not produce the solution which we had been allowed to expect. The government is backing away from the problem. It is afraid of it. After having created a commission of inquiry for the purpose of defining a problem which was already known to us, it was not necessary to spend $10 million of public funds to learn what the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism taught us.
The commission, after extremely costly work, merely confirmed what most Canadians, and we in the House, already knew so well.
Mr. Speaker, on many occasions, the Creditistes have noted certain things, especially since 1962, and I, for one, when I first came to this House, found to my great surprise in a country which I thought was bilingual before 1962, that even in the House of Commons it was difficult to assert the rights of the French language. It was still more difficult than today, I admit it, at least as far as the House of Commons is concerned to command respect in our language, so that sometimes in the House, we were compelled to break the rules of that Canadian institution which should set the example in Canada. We found much to our surprise that our guide of parliamentary procedure was still only written in English.
After that, some Quebec politicians made fun of us. Others made silly remarks about our fight for the French fact in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, other members, for example, even Liberals, have congratulated us, on numerous occasions on our stand concerning bilingualism in Canada, not because we were narrow-minded, but because at the outset, we were surprised at the facts that existed in 1962.
Mr. Speaker, I could give many other examples of what happened in the House of Commons and outside. On many occasions, we have unfortunately found that the ministers statements are too often handed to us only in English, and I don't want to blame the ministers directly, because they receive statements prepared by departmental officers. A minister comes in the House and goes through the statement he has to make in a few minutes. At the same time, we also go through it. That is the main reason why we too often receive in English only statements that should be in both languages, in order to respect the bicultural character of the House of Commons and of Canada.
May 17, 1973

Mr. Speaker, there is also a situation that many hon. members find shocking. Even if some of us are familiar with the English language when, for instance, we phone certain departments, I would say that 95 per cent of the time, we are told-

"I am sorry, Sir. I am going to get you someone who can speak French."

And, Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of "Sorry, Sir" since 1962. We are in 1973 and these departmental officers give me over the phone the stock reply:

"I am sorry, Sir. I have been unable to find someone who can speak to you in French".
[ Translation]
And they have so much trouble finding someone able to answer in French that I am unfortunately obliged to wait often for five, six, seven or eight minutes before I can find someone in the department, when he is not gone on his coffee break, to give me an answer in my own language. And very often we do not have enough time to wait indefinitely for those honourable gentlemen of the public service and I might be accused of being impolite, but I often had to hang up in desperation.
Another subject supports very well the grievances that have been stated in this House since 1962. Let us say a word now about all the methods used in the different Departments. We had confirmation in this House, two years ago, that all bills were first drafted in English, as well as all administrative forms and that they were translated afterwards in French.
I do not have enough time to give proof of that tonight. But one has only to open the first three files on the desk of any member, which the member uses whenever problems crop up as to some electors, to find out that the forms were translated. As a matter of fact, they leave a definite after taste which shows that the original was drafted in English. I will give you an example-


Jean Marchand: The same thing happens in English.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The honorable Minister of Transport says that the same thing happens in English, which I readily admit. But if it is the same in English, it is an awful mess in French. This is the best example of what I am suggesting. When during the last election campaign, following heavy rainfalls in the province of Quebec, the farmers had to fill out a form in order to receive that famous $400 compensation for the loss of their crops, the most important question in this form, where the farmer was asked whether his 1972 income was lower than in 1971, was disgracefully worded. The best proof is that I have received over 700 complaints from farmers entitled to that $400 amount but who have answered the question as they understood it at first sight and which seemed to mean exactly the contrary of what was requested from them.
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, I could elaborate much longer on the way those forms are written and on the stupidity of the civil service which only gives the appearance of being bilingual because it is a "function of translation." There are no bilingual people in the Public Service. And in today's La Presse were quoted figures the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) obtained yesterday in this House.
English unilingualism is faring well...
. . . 88.9 per cent in the Department of Environment, 65 percent in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; 84 percent in the Department of Agriculture, 37.1 percent in Information Canada; 27 percent in the Public Service; 61.2 percent in the Treasury Board, 72.8 percent of the Secretariat of the Treasury Board; 61.4 percent in the Department of Urban Affairs; 48.1 in the Tax Review Board; 81.5 percent in the National Energy Board; 46 percent in the Canadian Radio and Television Council; 72.3 percent in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; 28 percent in the Company of Young Canadians; 57.5 percent in the Tariff Board, 49.4 percent in the Canadian International Development Agency; 65.3 percent in Statistics Canada.
Those figures demonstrate exactly the opposite of what the Progressive Conservative party tried to have the people of Canada believe during the last election campaign when it was claimed, for instance, that a "French Power" had been set up in Ottawa and that the federal government was under its control. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we read articles in La Presse entitled "L'unilin-guisme anglophone se porte bien", (English unilingualism is faring well), which give statistics supplied by the public service, which itself is involved, we cannot doubt those statistics on public service unilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Progressive Conservative party tried to sell the false slogan of a "French Power" in Ottawa, and I am not obliged to repeat what I have already said time and time again, that is, that the Progressive Conservative party is the most anti-French Canadian party we have ever known since confederation.
Mr. Speaker, had that party been so pro-French Canadian, had it been so much in favour of bilingualism in the public service, today they could do better than the Liberals who are now in office and they could at least have given us a heritage as far as bilingualism in Canada is concerned, a heritage that we do not have today and that we are all seeking.
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that we must still talk, after 100 years, of the so-called bilingualism in Canada, which should no longer be a problem, particularly in the public service and must ensure that bilingualism in Canada is fully respected and that everyone, as the hon. members for Champlain and Drummond (Messrs. Matte and Boisvert) said, be he a French Canadian or an English Canadian, can communicate with federal departments and agencies in his own language. Mr. Speaker, as far as the grievances we had to air in the House are concerned, we should not be called anti-English; we are pro-Canadian, we want the implementation of bilingualism in Canada and we want the Canadian people to be no longer laughed at by being fed wrong solutions or hopes that federal legislation will never make possible.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, with but 12 minutes remaining before ten o'clock I felt obliged to
3902

May 17, 1973
Official Languages
rise and say a few words. X wondered why a party which I have always felt identified with national unity in the best possible sense, the Social Credit party, should have found it imperative and necessary to use this particular day to debate this very sensitive subject, when they knew full well that within a week or two they would have ample opportunity to discuss it more fully. At that time they could make a case that all parties could duly endorse, because this is really an all-party position on official languages, and they could do it in the most non-partisan manner, at the same time having full rein of the privileges of the House of Commons to make their case known across the country.
It is very perplexing to know why we have been subjected to this type of diatribe for most of the day. That is the best way to describe what has been the content of the speeches of the Social Credit party. I know of no one in that party who is more concerned about the case of bilingualism than I am, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and others who grew up in the minority in the province of Quebec, who understand what fair play is, who have never had to suffer economically or in any other way because they come from a minority position in la belle province.
I came here in 1962, Mr. Speaker, and I have seen the progress made since then. For the Social Credit party to suddenly take a negative attitude-and they speak for a large number of the people of Quebec in many important ridings-to give the impression which permeated every speech they made today, that there has been absolutely no progress in the case of bilingualism and the exercise of the rights of French-speaking Canadians in this country, in Ottawa, in the national capital, in the House of Commons, in the government and in the opposition, is to misrepresent the progress that has been made. It may have been slow, but nevertheless it has been made in good faith because of the co-operation of all parties over the last ten years since I was elected to the House of Commons and since the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) was elected.
To pretend that no progress has been made is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, and the hon. member knows that. I am perplexed and do not understand precisely what is behind this deliberate attempt to jump the gun on what will be a very important debate in this House of Commons in the next week or two.
One thing was said tonight, and it could very well have been a slip of the tongue; I do not know. An hon. member from the Ottawa area said, quite properly, that if the Official Languages Act was supported by the government and only the government, then we on this side of the House are guilty of not having explained it properly to Canadians across this country. But I was under the impression that this act was adopted unanimously by all parties in the House, and therefore all parties are obligated to explain that piece of legislation.
The first person I would turn to as an example of one who accepted that responsibility is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who, although not one of the younger members of the House, has painstakingly day

after day taken the trouble to learn the other official language of this country because he wanted to do so. His progress is there for all of us to measure. It is an example to hon. members on both sides of the House as to what can be done if we approach the language problem in the proper spirit. If he can do this, surely public servants can do it, if that is the price of progress and promotion in certain sensitive areas of the public service.
To skirt that fact is to play politics with an issue that could very well tear apart the very fabric of this country at a time when the average Canadian finally has accepted the reality that this is a bilingual and multicultural country and that every person has the right to be serviced, when dealing with the government, in either of the official languages. It is the responsibility of the public service to make sure that Canadian citizens are given that service in their own official language. This principle applies no matter whether we are talking about correspondence, oral communication or any other means of communication at our disposal.
We cannot run away from that fact after years of tortuous progress, after the courageous policy brought in and enunciated by the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and adopted in this House after inspiring speeches by the then leader of the opposition, by the then leader of the NDP and by the leader of the Social Credit party, who has had the courage to stand up in the most nationalistic areas of Quebec and endorse bilingualism as a logical and realistic step for the future. If he had been here tonight and had listened to some of the silly speeches made by members of his party in his absence, I wonder what he would think. He would be ashamed of some statements which have been made to the effect that no progress has been made in ten years, because if that is so then all efforts throughout the past and in other cultural areas by people of various parties have been for nothing.
There is not enough time between now and ten o'clock to list the progress which has been made as a result of the efforts of the Social Credit party from 1962 onward. As I remember, it was the Social Credit party that raised the unfair position of French Canadians in our Crown corporations. People were saying that you could not find a single French Canadian capable of sitting on the boards of directors of our national railway.
That issue was raised by the Social Credit party. The chief spokesman was a Social Credit member, Gilles Gre-goire. I have not forgotten that debate. Today, many Canadians whose mother tongue happens to be French head Crown corporations. One heads Air Canada, another the CBC, and others play prominent roles in other Crown corporations. I am thinking also of departments such as the UIC, Supply and Services and many other similar departments. They are headed by Canadians who happen to be French-speaking Canadians in the same way as I am a Canadian who happens to be English-speaking.
We have got over this problem. As I have said before, in another decade we will get over the concept of hyphenated Canadians because our youngsters are more enlightened than we are, thank goodness. They understand that bilingualism is a mark of culture, understanding and education and that you are richer if you can speak two or more languages. There is hardly anyone of my generation on
May 17, 1973

both sides of the House who does not say, "I wish I were fluent in the other language."
Learning another language is like learning music. It is not easy. We have to be tolerant and understanding of the civil servant who cannot learn another language and finds his progress blocked. That is why hon. members must look at the resolution that was placed on the order paper in April. They will find that ample opportunity is now given for the unilingual civil servant who has been in the civil service for a number of years to apply for a bilingual position so long as he says, "I am prepared to learn the other language and I am prepared to accept the assistance of someone who is bilingual."
Certainly, if we cannot accept the nine points enunciated on the order paper, this country will not be together very long. This applies to everybody here. I think we all support the resolution. That is why I think the members of the Social Credit party are doing this issue a disservice by rising in their seats today and advancing the pretext that absolutely no progress has been made in the public service here in Ottawa. That is false. Everybody in that corner knows that I am just as much a Canadian, just as much a Quebecker, just as bilingual and just as dedicated to the concept of bilingualism as the hon. gentleman who just sat down, and I am political enough to recognize political expediency. It is wrong to say that no progress has been made under the Liberal government, because that is not the fact.
May I call it ten o'clock?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate, even for a few minutes, in this debate so as to tell my colleagues, especially those who are presently on the government side, that today they have put this House to shame by sneaking away under the pretext that a so-called debate has been delayed for over a month. The Minister of Communications has himself stated that a resolution had been put on the order paper on April 13 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Since then, we have been waiting. A former Minister of Labour has told us, one moment ago, that some progress has been registered. I shall just refer him, in view of the limited time that has been allotted to me, to yesterday's Hansard where he will find figures which put any honest Canadian to shame.
At Statistics Canada, for example, we find 2,453 English unilingual employees, that is 65 per cent of the staff and 318 French unilingual employees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to point out that pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 58 the proceedings on the motion have expired.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I point out-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. After ten o'clock questions of privilege cannot be entertained.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If a question of privilege exists, it can be raised tomorrow immediately after we begin our sitting.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised the question of privilege before you began to read the questions to be discussed after 10 o'clock. Consequently, I feel that I was then entitled to raise the question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is probably not a question of privilege. The Chair may have been inexact, within a few seconds, as to whether it was ten o'clock. However, the Chair felt it was ten o'clock and called it ten o'clock.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was after ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that over the past two and a half years I have urged the government repeatedly to tell this House why it has not been able to foreclose on the delinquent Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgage on Rochdale College, Toronto. Two years ago I spoke on this topic during the adjournment proceedings. At that time the mortgage on Rochdale was $340,000 in arrears; today it is more than $800,000 in arrears. This is scandalous. On that occasion I was answered by the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of labour. He said there were social as well as financial considerations involved in the Rochdale affair and that on the positive side the government would have to consider the role that Rochdale plays with respect to the youth of Toronto and the surrounding area. That was very interesting. While I am not pressing this case because of its moral implications alone, I would like to give the House some background on the actual role that Rochdale plays in the Toronto area.
First, the Toronto police, the Toronto council, the town council of Mississauga and the Peel county coroner have called for the closing of Rochdale. It has been labelled a festering abscess in the side of Toronto, and Peel county coroner Dr. Martin Dobkin said that it was probably the largest drug distribution centre in North America. Fugitives from justice seek and find refuge in Rochdale. When the police attempt to make an arrest with a legal warrant, they are set upon by the hooligans who make Rochdale their home.
26314-30J

May 17, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Over the years that Rochdale has been in existence under the patronage of the federal government, many deaths have occurred in the college, most of them connected with the use of drugs. These deaths range from murder to suicide to accidental death. Most of them involve boys and girls in their teens. Young girls are lured to the college, influenced to take drugs and then kept there for the pleasure of the hoodlums, drug pushers and other social misfits. Some youths who have lived for a while in Rochdale have been described by doctors as human vegetables.
Only a few days ago yet another youth fell to his death from an upper floor window at Rochdale. Later, someone went into his room and threw a box of burning garbage out of the window. The box fell on a six-year old girl playing in the street. She is in the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, in serious condition.
The school boards in the Toronto area have amassed evidence that the drugs which find their way into the schools can be traced to Rochdale; that is then the source. This year alone there have been more than 1,000 arrests of people in the Rochdale building or seen leaving the building. Some of these people are wanted criminals, but the vast majority are charged with drug offences. When this is multiplied by the five or six years the college has been in existence it can be seen that it is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
There is another scandalous aspect of this sordid story. That is the fact that the federal government is pouring thousands of dollars per year into Rochdale in Opportunities for Youth and Local Initiative Program grants. This allows the college to survive and to carry on its out-and-out war on society. The people of Canada are paying for this. It is a crime.
Rochdale and the city of Toronto are presently locked in battle over whether the so-called college should pay nearly $750,000 in back taxes. I say to the members of this House who represent Toronto ridings that their constituents are being blackmailed by the federal government. The federal government's refusal to foreclose and recover the property, and their policy of supporting the college with OFY and LIP grants, is helping the hooligans who run Rochdale to avoid meeting their responsibilities.
Earlier this year, Mr. J. A. Houston, Ontario regional director of CMHC, told the Mississauga town council that CMHC was powerless to foreclose the Rochdale mortgage. This is strange indeed in light of charges made this week by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who charged CMHC with being too hasty in foreclosing mortgages. He cited the example of a constituent who had been forced to sell his home to avoid foreclosure by CMHC because of arrears in mortgage payments amounting to $358. On the one hand CMHC cannot collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from a rats' nest like Rochdale, but it can quite easily force the sale of a private home to collect $358. It could be that the homeowner in question was unfortunate enough to be a responsible, law-abiding Canadian citizen.
If there is something in the National Housing Act that prevents CMHC from collecting arrears or foreclosing on institutions like Rochdale, then we had better have a close look at the National Housing Act while amending legisla-

tion is before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I cannot recall any such provisions in the government's amendment, and if it is true that CMHC is powerless to take action on the Rochdale mortgage let us consider this deficiency in the law at an early opportunity. This is public money, and I cannot stand by any longer and watch it being used as though it belongs to CMHC or to the government. This government scorns parliament, but none the less it is responsible to parliament. We have a right to know all the answers in the Rochdale affair and in similar institutions such as Ottawa's Pestalozzi College.
Some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that scandals like the Watergate affair cannot happen in Canada. I do not believe it, Mr. Speaker. This Rochdale affair is beginning to smell more and more like a mini-Watergate and it is time the government told us what is going on.


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


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has on several occasions expressed his profound concern, which I am sure is shared by all hon. members, about events which have taken place at Rochdale in Toronto. I want to make it perfectly clear that the federal government is prosecuting an action to gain control of Rochdale as fast as is legally possible. Indeed, the government began foreclosure action in August, 1971, and when CMHC was barred by the Supreme Court of Ontario from gaining possession of the building it was we, the federal government, who took the initiative of having an interim receiver appointed on behalf of all creditors.
I must say that anyone who suggests that the government is dragging its feet is displaying a disturbing ignorance of the facts of this matter. The interim receiver, appointed as a result of the federal initiative, has hired a large security force and has taken other extraordinary measures to police the building. We understand that the receiver will make an announcement relating to this matter tomorrow morning. In the meantime, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs wrote on April 13, over a month ago, to the metro Police Commission chairman and to the Attorney General of the province of Ontario setting out the federal position respecting Rochdale and offering full co-operation in the Attorney General's proposed investigation of that institution. With the consent of hon. members,
I wish to table copies of the minister's letter at this time.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that it is the job of CMHC, the mortgagor in this instance, to provide accommodation for Canadians under the National Housing Act. This the corporation is doing to the best of its ability. It is the responsibility of the police to enforce the laws relating to drugs.
I want to reiterate that the federal government has done everything in its power to prosecute foreclosure. Our handicap is that we have had to live within the law. Surely, among ourselves as lawmakers we ought to understand what that is all about.
May 17, 1973


MANPOWER-INTERNATIONAL NICKEL COMPANY- PROJECTED PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT LEVELS- PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO DEPARTMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) the following question, as reported at page 3370 of Hansard for April 17, 1973:
Has the minister obtained from International Nickel Company projected employment and production levels at this company over the next few years? If not, is it the minister's intention to ask INCO to provide his manpower consultative services with such information?
Subsequent to the question, the minister wrote me a letter in which he stated:
Like all the other private corporations, INCO is not required to make public information regarding its internal operations so long as it satisfies the requirements of any applicable provincial labour legislation.
This is a weak-kneed response from a government whose experience with boom and bust mining operations ought to have taught them something. The kind of reply the minister sent me flies in the face of any modern strategy of economic development. To illustrate, the Sudbury area planning study, carried out by the ministry of treasury, economics and intergovernmental affairs, dated March 1973, clearly states on page 9:
Actual growth will be determined by birth and death rates, migration patterns and particularly by economic factors affecting employment opportunities. In an economy dominated by two large employers, the plans of these two corporations are the largest factors determining employment opportunities.
It further states:
If substantial industry other than mining is established in the region, further additional population growth could be expected but the available evidence does not suggest such an assumption.
Our communities have to plan our development. INCO dominates our work scene and represents a great deal of public investment vis-a-vis deferred taxes totalling $238 million, no tax paid in 1971, tax holidays on new mines, depletion allowances, fast write-offs on equipment, municipal tax assessments on buildings only, population abatement grants, training on-the-job grants, manpower retraining grants and preferred freight rates to ship out our ore, and it is insulting to my constituents that we should be put into the position of having to ask about this company's plans. This company should automatically file its plans with the government and the community. The minister and this government have the colossal gall to say that this company's future plans are a matter of private concern.
It may be that this minister thinks this multinational corporation has been very sensitive and responsive to the dependence of the community upon it. But maybe the minister does not realize that INCO has as much concern for the people of the Sudbury basin as a tom cat has for a marriage licence. For example, the number of hourly-rated employees at INCO in July, 1971, stood at 18,224, and as of April 30, 1973 it was 13,487. This is a drop of 5,000 jobs at INCO in less than two years. In addition, some 2,000 salaried employees have been cut back in the same period.
Adjournment Debate
In addition to the jobs lost, our workers have paid often with their lives and more often with their health. Our environment has been devastated; air, water, vegetation and wildlife have shared a common fate as a result of noxious pollutants being spilled into the area. Our resources are being shipped out of the country. Neither the Ontario Tory government, the Liberal federal government, their buddy INCO nor other commercial interests have moved to create or entice secondary industry to provide for the future of the Sudbury basin.
Even now this government should instruct the CNR immediately to cut its freight rates in and out of northern Ontario as a first step in establishing a climate for economic development. This government's disregard for the residents of northern Ontario is matched only by the Ontario government's equally callous disregard, and is certainly in contrast to the many favours showered on the mining companies in whose back pockets they have found their pot of gold.
We of northern Ontario demand that INCO and other mining companies be compelled to sit down with government and labour and plan together an orderly development of our resources. We call on the federal government and the provincial government, with local input, to develop an economic strategy which will remove forever our complete dependence on the mining industry.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is no mandatory requirement on the part of business concerns in the private sector of the economy to disclose projections of employment and production levels to the department.


John R. Rodriguez: Why not?


Mark R. MacGuigan: However, industrial specialists and manpower consultants of the department undertake on a continuing basis short and longer term industrial sector studies. This is accomplished through a variety of liaison activities, associations, unions and other government departments and agencies both federal and provincial. In this way the department keeps informed of technological changes, market shifts and other trends in industry, labour, education, and so on, which may affect the efficient operation of the labour market.
Employment and production level projections of any company, including the International Nickel Company, are matters which the company may or may not wish to publicize. However, as the minister indicated to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in a letter of April 18, departmental officers enjoy a good working relationship with INCO, as indeed with corporations in all industrial sectors. We encourage employers to inform us as early as possible of any decisions that will cause significant employment shifts, expansions and dislocations. Moreover, close liaison with companies such as INCO enables the department to keep abreast of all developments touching on manpower matters.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has spoken of colossal gall. It seems to me the colossal gall is on his part, because he is suggesting that the constitution of Canada should be disregarded. What colossal gall that is, and for him to

May 17, 1973
Adjournment Debate
interject during my speech makes that all the more evident. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that labour relations in this industry fall under the provincial government, and if not, as a member of this parliament he should be aware of this fact. Perhaps he is not aware of the fact that unions find it very convenient to have full corporate disclosure for use in their negotiating proceedings.
I do not know whether or not the hon. member is carrying a brief for any particular body tonight in suggesting that information which would be useful to unions in negotiations should be made available, but it is not the practice of this government, and it is not permissible under the constitution of Canada to make such information about the industries of the country available. Even if it were permissible, it would not be appropriate because this is a field which is under provincial jurisdiction, as the hon. member should have known himself before he brought this question before the House tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before we get into another ten o'clock situation, may I call on the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


SOCIAL SECURITY-REQUEST THAT FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS BE TIED TO COST OF LIVING INDEX PENDING INCREASES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, the question I am debating tonight is very basic and deals with what I think is a normal and fundamental suggestion to the government, which if put into effect would tend to relieve the suffering of many hundreds of thousands of children of lower income families across the country until the government is prepared to implement the new family allowances benefits which they say will or should be afforded to Canadians in January, 1974.
My question was simply whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would table an order in council to tie present family allowance payments to the cost of living index using January, 1973, as the base month to ensure that families receive some improvement in benefits starting at once, and retroactively instead of having to wait until next year. The answer from the Prime Minister was, to my mind, immature, irresponsible and unworthy of a person who leads this country. I have been asking questions on family allowances ever since the white paper on income security came out in 1970, and I have been asking them in a manner which I think has been reasonable.
Since the beginning of the session I have asked the minister responsible, and the Prime Minister, in a responsible way, if they would implement the family allowance bill immediately, because I feel that it would help families with small children who cannot fend for themselves and would relieve the ever increasing calamity of malnutrition and high cost of living. All I get is an irresponsible answer that if it had not been for the opposition, the family allowance bill would have been passed in the last session of parliament.
What have we accomplished in three years, Mr. Speaker? All we have is a new paper-but this time the colour is

orange-telling the people of Canada that the government has a new approach to family allowances but that it cannot be produced until later in the year. The minister responsible for the original family income security plan was convinced in the last session that his bill-after changing it once during the session-was the best thing for Canadian children. A bill was produced that brought nightmares to those high-priced bureaucrats who were charged with implementing the bill, which in turn would have brought worse than nightmares to the mothers of the country, who would have received the benefits, because of the administrative details which it contained.
Here we are, almost three years later, with a government that is incapable of controlling the disease of runaway inflation, with an incapability of controlling the runaway cost of foods, shelter and clothing, but with a complete and utter lack of concern to implement federal increases in a bill which would relieve the inability of the low and no-income families to partially meet the needs of their children. The present family allowances bill could very easily have been amended as it presently exists, if there was any semblance of sincerity by the minister, instead of playing political football with poverty-stricken Canadians.
All they would really have to do, if they were concerned, would be to amend the clause in the present family allowance bill, which signifies the amount now received, by a greater amount. The only other clause required would be the insertion of a clause dealing with annual increases in the cost of living. This was done very simply under the old age security bill and the war veterans allowances bill, and it could have been passed in record time. But instead the minister plays footsie with the provinces at conferences, and to get every ounce of press value bamboozles the Canadian public and the press, those creative gentlemen who profess to know what is best for the country.
I could state almost word for word what the answer to my question will be. It will refer to the great master plan that exists. But regardless of what I hear, let it ever rest on the conscience of the government that they have already failed miserably to help the children of our country, that segment of our society which we should be preparing, as it is our duty to do, to become healthy citizens of Canada in later years. It is a national disgrace that the government has shown its apparent inefficiency to meet the problem that exists.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has indicated that he knows my answer in advance. I think he should have known his question in advance. He is really suggesting something that is diametrically opposed to everything that I thought his party stood for in the past, that is, legislation by order in council. How stupid can you get to suggest this?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should know.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do know, by virtue of this motion. The hon. member is really suggesting that we change the law by order in council. That is impossible. It cannot be done
May 17, 1973

within the law affecting family allowances to bring down an order in council which would, in effect, change the amount to be paid in relationship to the cost of living or any other factor. I thought the hon. member would have known that before he asked the question.
Second, I thought he would have consulted his colleagues who seem to spend so much time in committees and elsewhere opposing actions through orders in council or dollar estimates, or whatever, to supposedly frustrate parliament. Surely parliament is the place where one should deal with this question, not through order in council.
The hon. member talks about us playing footsie with the provinces. Surely it is not too much to expect a federal Member of Parliament to realize that we live in a federal system and that we have a federal government and provincial governments. We have proposed to the provinces a new family allowance program which would offer benefits up to $20 a month per child. At the moment it is $7.21. That particular proposal carries with it the caveat that the provinces have the right, and indeed the obligation, to choose their own provincial priorities and they can adjust that amount depending on age or other factors which they think are relevant to the children in their province.
Adjournment Debate
Surely that is not doing anything improper. Surely we have to recognize the kind of country in which we live. We live under a federal system and we have to abide by it. You call that playing footsie with the provinces! I tell you, if your party were in power, I do not think there would be any provinces to play footsie with, because they would all opt out of confederation if you had that attitude at any kind of federal-provincial conference. I want to underscore the simple fact that you cannot do what you suggest-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -and if you had done any research-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -in connection with the question, you would have known it before you even put it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a parliamentary nicety involved here regarding the reference throughout the parliamentary secretary's speech to the hon. member as "you". But perhaps the point has been well recognized by now.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, May 18, 1973