1973-06-05

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM ALBERTA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a delegation from the Legislative Assembly of the province of Alberta led by the Assembly's Deputy Speaker, Mr. William Diachuk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Diachuk and his five colleagues are in Ottawa participating in a program of parliamentary visits and exchanges between federal and provincial legislatures sponsored by the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It will be agreed, I am sure, that these exchange visits will be of benefit to Canadian legislators, to their respective parliaments, and to Canada as a whole. On behalf of all members I extend to our distinguished colleagues from the province of Alberta a most hearty welcome.
[ Translation]
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House of Commons, I wish to call the attention to the presence of our parliamentary colleagues from Alberta and to extend to them a warm welcome both in Ottawa and in our parliament.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last night I spoke in the House in the debate on the resolution and amendment on bilingualism. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of the House to page 4417 of Hansard and, in particular, to a gross error that appears in paragraph No. 2. Ordinarily I would not rise to correct a printing error in Hansard but because this error is of such a serious nature I am left with absolutely no alternative but to do so on a point of order.
I fully realize that this Hansard error will no doubt please those sitting opposite and I expect that the trained seals will holler as usual.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member by his words is now putting himself out of court. If the hon. member wishes to make a correction to Hansard he should do so now without making a speech.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am reported as stating that I have always been "an outspoken proponent of all forms of racism and bigotry."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In reality, Mr. Speaker, I stated that I have always been "an outspoken opponent of racism and bigotry".


An hon. Member:: When did you change?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You can have him, Bob.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I should like to finish my point of order without replying to the seals. I have discussed this matter today with the editor of Hansard who informs me that it was an honest mistake by the Hansard staff. He further agrees that the Hansard error should have been spotted before it appeared in print. Naturally I accept this explanation, but the explanation in itself does not undo the most damaging nature of the error without my rising at this time to correct the matter.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I must state that I find this error rather incredible because all those sitting in this chamber at the time of my remarks know that I did not say what Hansard has attributed to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I think it is unfortunate that the action of someone on the Hansard staff made it appear otherwise. I should also state, Mr. Speaker, that I furnished Hansard with a text of my remarks which very clearly shows that they did not contain this very offensive phrase. I must also say that I do not believe-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member got the floor for the purpose of making a correction to Hansard. He has already indicated what the correction is. I agree with him, and I am sure all hon. members also agree, that the hon. member for Leeds has a point in wanting to make the correction. It was important that he should rise at this time, but I do not think he should make remarks which at this point will provoke a debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 5, 1973

Ways and Means TRANSPORT


TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF AIR CANADA AND CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I have the honour to table copies, in both official languages, of the annual reports for Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways for the financial year which ended on December 31, 1972.
Mr. Speaker, neither of these reports has been certified by auditors. The auditors' reports will be tabled as soon as the bill on the financing and equity of the Canadian National Railways, which provides for the appointment of auditors, has been adopted. The annual reports are tabled now in order to conform as much as possible to the existing legislation and to give hon. members the opportunity to examine the activities of Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways for 1972.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this point before. No matter how fast the minister read, he was making a statement on motions. Reading it rapidly did not alter that fact and he has no right to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Gerald William Baldwin: As I understand it, the hon. gentleman stated that he was making application to table documents under Standing Order 41(2). I think that ministers should bear in mind the point I have raised and drawn to Your Honour's attention and to the attention of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member for Peace River is well taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If a minister chooses to make remarks when he tables a document, certainly it changes the situation. The minister, of course, has the right to do this at any time and members in opposition also have a corresponding right if they wish to make comments by way of response to statements on motions.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to read this one slowly. In accordance with Standing Order 60, subsection 2, I request that an order of the day be designated for consideration tomorrow of the notices of ways and means relating to income tax

tabled on May 29 and those relating to the excise tax and customs tariff tabled on February 19.


Mr. Hales:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we leave motions I wonder whether I could ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is prepared to make a statement on motions on the Zambian situation.
* *
*


EX TERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my statement will be very brief. The President of Zambia, President Kaunda, has apologized, both directly to us and in a public speech that he made in Lusaka yesterday, with respect to the murder or killing of the two Canadian girls. He has offered his sincere apologies to the Canadian people.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Was anything said about compensation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There should not be questioning at this time. The hon. member, if he wishes, can ask questions during the question period.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion if I may have the unanimous consent of the House. In view of the tragic events in the United States, in view of the recent statements by a former Liberal cabinet minister and in view of the numerous promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That this House requests the government to immediately introduce legislation to limit and control election expenses that would include provision for limitation on spending and full disclosure of sources of funds for both candidates and political parties.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
June 5, 1973


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the rapidly increasing mortgage rates which now have gone up to the disastrous level of 9V4 per cent, and in view of the fact that at this rate a home owner with a 25-year mortgage of $20,000 will pay an outrageous $31,720 in interest charges alone, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier):
That this House direct the government to implement forthwith a policy which would (a) set the NHA lending rate at a level not exceeding the prime lending rate and, (b) direct federally chartered financial institutions to set aside certain proportions of their annual investments for housing at this prime rate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss such an inportant and urgent matter that we should not run the risk of letting it deteriorate further and impede the Canadian economy.
I refer to the problem of feed grain concerning not only grain producers but also increasing the agricultural producers in eastern Canada.
I move, seconded by the member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House adjourn to consider immediately the solutions to the problem of feed grain stocks for eastern producers in order to assure them fair prices and remove that difference of almost $1 per bushel between eastern and western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that I should point out to the hon. member that his motion is essentially a motion to adjourn under Standing Order 26. This motion should be moved with prior notice, in accordance with the standing orders.
Since the hon. member has not given notice to the Chair, his motion is out of order.


PRICE PARITY FOR FEED GRAIN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 in order to discuss a very urgent matter.
Oral Questions
Since the Canadian Livestock Feed Board has proved its inability to find a short or long term solution likely to ensure that eastern farmers will obtain parity prices for feed grain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture be instructed to review the estimates of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and consider the possibility of recommending to the House that the powers of this Board be increased in order to make it more efficient, and failing this, that the estimates made available to this Board be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[ English]


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury) moved: that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, May 31, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the increase in the mortgage rate of one half of one per cent since April 1, which means an addition to the cost of an ordinary home of approximately $3,000 when projected over the normal life of a mortgage, will the minister inform the House whether the increase in the mortgage rate to this extent is consistent with the government's policy? If not, what action, if any, does the government propose to take to offset this increase in the cost of housing?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the banks, trust companies and life insurance companies that they are dedicating more funds to the housing and mortgage market in order to counteract and stabilize the trend toward higher inter-

June 5, 1973
Oral Questions
est rates. Of course, this is part of an economic situation in which we are enjoying a very rapidly expanding economy with tremendous competition for credit. Over the past six months the economy has been expanding at an annual rate of 11.6 per cent.


BANK INTEREST RATE ON LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESSES, FISHERMEN AND FARMERS-MEASURES TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: When the increase in commercial bank rates followed the increase in the rate of the Bank of Canada an undertaking was given that the rate would not be increased on small business and similar loans up to $100,000 or $200,000. In view of the fact the minister made a great deal of this, and in view of the fact this seems to have been virtually abandoned by the banking system, does the minister have any comment to make?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the rates being charged by the banks for general loans and small business loans. The five larger banks in particular are in effect charging a dual rate, giving a preference to smaller loans. I would be glad to send the hon. gentleman the rate structure which establishes what I have said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This question arises from the increase in the number of bankruptcies in the first four months of 1973 compared with 1972. Is the minister actually taking any measures to ensure that sufficient funds are available to fishermen, farmers and small businessmen with a view to halting the escalation in the rate of bankruptcies that seems to be taking place?


John Napier Turner: As I have said before in the House, the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada is such that credit is available to meet the expansion in the economy. The governor of the bank and I have indicated to the chartered banks, which appear to be abiding by this policy, that in the allocation of credit preference is to be given to small business, particularly for loans under $200,000 or, in some cases, $100,000, to farmers, fishermen and businessmen in the slower growth areas of the country.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT COMPEL LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO ALLOCATE CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENT TO HOUSING WITH INTEREST NOT ABOVE PRIME RATE
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising from the first answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the fact it is precisely the current economic situation which makes it more lucrative for banks and other financial institutions to invest in sectors of the economy other than housing, will the minister take steps to make it mandatory that the banks and other federally chartered lending institutions allocate a certain percentage of their annual investment to housing at rates that do not exceed the prime interest rate?


John Napier Turner: I do not have any authority under the Bank Act to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


John Napier Turner: But I would point out to the hon. gentleman that figures recently released by Statistics Canada show that our housing starts are still over 260,000 a year.


Mr. Hees:: Nobody will be able to buy them when they are built.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of State responsible for housing was expressing government policy when he stated over the weekend that lawyers are charging exorbitant fees in connection with mortgage transactions and other real estate deals?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Surely this is not a matter of government policy. It is an opinion expressed by a member of the House of Commons.


SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS TO BANKS TO ACCEPT LOWER INTEREST RATES ON HOUSING MORTGAGES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in light of the fact he has agreed, on behalf of the government, to accept an amendment to the National Housing Act setting a ceiling on interest rates on direct loans by CMHC. Would he consider trying to reach an agreement with the chartered banks to bring interest rates down from 9 V* per cent to a reasonable rate so that people with ordinary incomes could afford homes?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I shall be happy to discuss that suggestion with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who is the person who should make any representations in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue. If hon. members wish to pursue this matter, we will return to it later.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of that reply by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would he be prepared to discuss with the lending institutions, the banks and the insurance companies, the placing of a ceiling on interest rates under terms and conditions similar to those brought forward by us as an amendment on the order paper, and approved by the government, in order that people earning average incomes may afford homes?


John Napier Turner: I must point out to the hon. member that the interest rates reflect the tremendous domestic expansion in the economy and international rate structures-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 5, 1973


John Napier Turner: -and those happen to be the facts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That happens to be Liberal policy.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence, I will put my question-


An hon. Member:: He is in the House.


David Réal Caouette: So he is here. He is moving closer to the Creditistes, Mr. Speaker, he will soon be with us.
Mr. Speaker, I will then direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Canadians are happy to know that family allowances will be paid at the rate of $20 a month as of January 1. Will those allowances be paid directly to Canadian families or will they be distributed by provincial bodies?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, those allowances will be paid directly by the federal government.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Will those allowances be universal, will they be subject to certain restrictions or will they be distributed evenly to all young Canadians.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, those allowances will be universal and taxable, and a provision gives the provinces the possibility of introducing legislation to vary the amounts above a certain ceiling according to the age or the number of children in each family.
| English]


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION-CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER INCREASE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the family allowance legislation be introduced in the House of Commons during this month of June? May I also ask the minister whether, in view of the rising cost of living, the government is considering making the allowance an average of $25 a month rather than $20?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question the answer is yes. As for the second part, may I say I am not surprised at the hon. member's suggestion.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Belle-chasse has a supplementary after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


INQUIRY RESPECTING FAMILY ALLOWANCES PAID BY QUEBEC
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Following the discussions between the minister and the Quebec Social Affairs Minister, will the family allowances now paid by the province of Quebec to a certain group of children continue to be paid, or will those allowances be automatically discontinued under a possible agreement?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is an answer that will certainly be given by the Quebec government itself, which is responsible for the administration of its own allowances.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the declaration of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities yesterday that the federal government is not going to be restricted to the role of providing money to solve urban problems, is the government unwilling or unprepared to hold significant talks on the number one municipal problem, the imbalance in tax revenues among the three levels of government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that we are prepared to talk about, though the forum is something that has to be agreed to by the three levels of government or administration meeting at the tri-level conferences. I believe it would be in order for this subject to be brought up at a tri-level meeting and if it were I am sure the minister would be prepared to deal with it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Have you advised the provinces that you would be prepared-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question should not be asked directly but must be put through the Chair.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I will direct it through you. Would the Prime Minister inform the House whether he has in fact advised the provinces and municipalities that at either the October tri-level conference or elsewhere they may bring up this matter?

June 5, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter is on the agenda for the tri-level conference which I believe is to be held in October.


INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING SIZE AND GROWTH OF URBAN AREAS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of the remarks of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs about various growth problems of small, medium-sized and large urban areas, is the government preparing any over-all growth policy of its own with regard to the various sizes of urban areas? If so, which minister is responsible, and when will a detailed policy be outlined?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the ministry of urban affairs and housing is responsible for co-ordinating government policies in these general areas. The minister, who is present in the House, is prepared to answer questions on this matter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the government designing over-all guidelines of its own with regard to small communities and large cities and, if so, when will these separate guidelines be made public?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, but as I pointed out yesterday to the mayors there is a need for provincial growth strategies that federal policies can be supportive of.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the very brief announcement the minister made today, may I ask him whether the President of Zambia offered compensation to the families of the two Canadian girls who were killed by Zambian soldiers? If not, is it the intention of the minister to press Zambia for compensation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no, the President of Zambia has not offered compensation. I can say to the hon. gentleman and to the House that the apology offered by the President of Zambia does indicate, I think, a greater awarness of the concern of the Canadian people at the death of these young women. I have also taken the rather extraordinary step of sending a special envoy to Zambia to underline the nature of the concern of the Canadian people, and I expect he will be there shortly.


ALLEGED BEATING OF TWO CANADIANS IN TANZANIA
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a related supplementary question for the minister. It appears that two Canadians were beaten and held incommunicado for 30 hours in Tanzania because they strayed too close to the president's residence on April 29. Did our High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam file a report, were these Canadians in fact beaten, and did Tanzanian officials refuse to contact our High Commissioner?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the incident is that the two Canadians in question relieved themselves on the lawn of the president's palace.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: Did they get compensation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings.


George Harris Hees: That is a tough act to follow, Mr. Speaker.


PENITENTIARIES
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the latest incident of a sexual assault combined with injuring with intent to kill committed in Montreal by Leonard Miville, who is serving a life sentence and was out on a 12-hour pass, when does the government intend to stop allowing these dangerous criminals to go out on pass, particularly unattended, and thereby be able to continue their assaults against the rest of the population?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the temporary absence in question took place in September, 1972, although the trial of the man only took place yesterday. I might say that since that time we have tightened up on temporary absence passes on two occasions, and I announced some arrangements last Friday to do just that.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact today is World Environment Day and the Minister of the Environment in a message has expressed Canada's commitment to the pollution clean-up
June 5, 1973

of the world's environment, as was also expressed at the Stockholm conference a year ago, will the minister inform the House on this historic day whether or not the government of Canada is committed in any serious way to the clean-up and protection of the environment in our own country and, specifically, does he plan to use the Canada Water Act to deal effectively with the urgent problems of pollution clean-up which are found in a number of rivers and lakes throughout our country?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to cleaning up our own environment and looking after our neighbouring waters and air and we will, of course, use all our laws including the Canada Water Act, to do so.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will he enlighten the House and the concerned Canadian public of the intentions of his government respecting its environmental policy in view of the fact that as recently as two weeks ago the federal cabinet decided to assign the protection of our natural environment the lowest priority in its legislative and spending program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestions are not in accordance with the facts.


REMOVAL OF QUOTAS ON WHEAT AND BARLEY- POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES TO MEET CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTRACTS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board. Does the fact that the quotas on wheat and barley have been removed entirely indicate that in the opinion of the Wheat Board there is a shortage of necessary grains to meet current or immediate future contractual responsibilities?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not. There are adequate supplies of grain to meet all the commitments on the Wheat Board. What the open quotas do indicate is that for the third year in a row we are having record sales of wheat and barley, and also that a certain number of farmers are holding back delivery because they feel a great deal of income tax will be assessed against them, so other farmers are being given a full opportunity to deliver all they want.


John George Diefenbaker: Stripped of the statistical misinformation given by the minister, having regard to the contractual responsibilities of the government of Canada I should like to ask whether there is any possibility that the government will find itself in the next two or three months in the position that it will have to purchase wheat from competing foreign countries?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no chance of that.
Oral Questions


CONTINUATION OF PROGRAMS ACTING AS ALLEGED DISINCENTIVES TO PRODUCTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of what appears to be a shortage of supply, can the minister indicate whether it is his intention to continue programs that act as disincentives to grain production?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is clearly false. In the time of very heavy surpluses and very heavy supplies which were considered as an onerous and price-lowering factor in the world, there was a temporary curtailment in 1970 of the all-out effort to sell grain. Since that time we have been able to talk to the farmers about moving toward a position in which they can test their production capacity. This year, for the first time in many years, we are able to say to them: Go out and use fertilizer and sprays and produce grain in the most effective way you know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that a sufficient number of members are seeking recognition to ask supplementary questions on this very important subject that we could spend the rest of the question period on it. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca on a supplementary question, followed by the hon. member for Assiniboia on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and the hon. member for Portneuf.


PRESENT POSITION OF GRASSLANDS INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, can the minister clarify the position of the grasslands incentive program at the present time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, three years ago we developed the grasslands incentive program with the objective of assisting the movement of approximately four million acres of grain lands into grass because of the tremendous, clearcut, long-term and stable potential of the meat producing industry. This year, in order to complete the third year of the program, we added some additional money so that all farmers who apply can seed grass this year and be eligible in this the final year of the grasslands incentive program.


NUMBER OF CONTRACTS DELAYED BY WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board pointed out to the Standing Committee on Agriculture that the board had been holding back on making agreements in terms of exporting grain because of the level of grain on hand as of July 31, and the need at the end of the crop year, can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board inform the House how many contracts have in fact been delayed by the Canadian Wheat Board?

June 5, 1973
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to describe this situation is to make it quite clear that the Wheat Board has been continuing to enter into contracts with our regular customers. However, in a mood of conservatism and caution, it has not been undertaking contracts with several potential new customers until it was assured that the capacity of our handling and transportation systems and our supplies would not be strained by the commitments we want to make with our regular customers. I know, of course, that all hon. members are happy that the moisture conditions now existing on the Prairies and the added number of acres that have been seeded will allow the Wheat Board to go all out and sell-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the President of the Treasury Board and a supplementary question to one of his colleagues. Has the Treasury Board approved or is it giving consideration to the approval of funds for the purchase of a used "Cosmos" aircraft from the United States?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board has no program for the purchase of aircraft, used or otherwise.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister indicate under what regulations the two manpower centres in Quebec City are operating differently? Indeed, one of those centres is in a position to offer rather good jobs to the unemployed of the area involved, while the other is operating as a sub-agency with only left-overs or lowly paid jobs to offer the applicants?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could have been placed on the order paper. If the minister can give a brief answer, the Chair will recognize him for that purpose. [English]
The minister can reply briefly.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard of the allegation, but I will certainly look into it and see if there is any substance to it.

[ Transla tion]


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the minister ensure the House that he will take advantage of the minor study he mentioned to consult those mostly responsible, namely the managers of the centres involved?


INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST BY DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE FOR USED COSMOPOLITAN AIRCRAFT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I wonder if I might ask the charming minister whether her department has sought-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, when I speak to a good looking woman I wish she would listen. I wonder if I might ask the minister whether it is a fact that her department has asked for a used Cosmopolitan aircraft, or one of the Cosmopolitan fleet, from the Department of National Defence and whether that request has been denied?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does he intend to refer the reports of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to the Standing Committee on Transport?


Jean Marchand: It is
automatic, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of recent figures projecting over 2500 deaths, 90,000 injured

and an economic loss of $2 billion because of automobile accidents in Canada in 1973, and in view of the continued increase in the medical and non-medical use of drugs and the relationship of that use to many accidents, can the minister indicate whether he is considering additional tests to be included in the Criminal Code, particularly in those instances in respect of which breathalyzer tests are negative?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations along these lines from the Canada Safety Council and the matter was discussed with the provincial Attorneys General. So far as I could tell this was not a matter in respect of which there was any great feeling that steps were required at this stage, but we will be raising the matter further with the uniformity commissioners.


DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE-INQUIRY AS TO POLICY STATEMENT
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the growing problems of drug and alcohol abuse, will the minister table in the House or make a statement on motions in the near future on the long awaited government policy with respect to the problem of drug and alcohol abuse?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I replied to this question before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when my estimates were being studied.


* ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Since at present the death of children or individuals without dependants imposes little liability from the civil law point of view, at least so far as the quantum of damages is concerned, has the minister considered bringing the situation to the attention of the Law Reform Commission or, in areas of federal responsibility, has the minister plans to attempt to fix a minimum value, even if it be symbolic, for a human life which is taken by the act of another person?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not brought this subject to the attention of the Law Reform Commission. So far as civil liability is concerned, this would be clearly within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


MONITORING OF SALES TAX AND TARIFF CUTS TO ENSURE BENEFITS REACH CONSUMERS-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who, if he has a very long memory, will recall that he promised at the time of the budget to monitor the cuts in tariffs to see that they were passed on and to make a report to the House, as he said at that time, before the Easter recess. I should like to ask the minister when we may expect that report and whether he will make it during the lifetime of this parliament or in the next parliament?


Gerald William Baldwin: Or in the minister's lifetime.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: During the lifetime of this parliament, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As we have waited since the middle of February for this report, can the minister now give us a firm date when we will receive the report?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, I do not think I can do so yet, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Following representations made by 3,000 citizens from the lower St. Lawrence area and Gaspe who met in Matane over the weekend, and in addition to having delegated the Minister of National Health and Welfare, would the Prime Minister inform the House of the government intentions with regard to the economic planning of this area, and more specifically of its strategy, in the light of the Quebec government's intentions for this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously, this is not a question that I can answer during the question period. A statement should be made not only by myself but by several other ministers, either on motions or during the ensuing debate.


MEASURES TO IMPROVE GENERAL AND SPECIAL ARDA AGREEMENTS
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I should like to put this question to his parliamentary secretary. In light of the fact that the Native Council of Canada representing Metis and non-status Indians met the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on April 11, at which
4436

June 5, 1973
Oral Questions
time the council members indicated measures that could be introduced by the government to improve the general ARDA and special ARDA agreements, is the minister taking any steps to correct some of the weaknesses in the general ARDA and special ARDA agreements?
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the minister did meet the delegation in his office, and the assurance he gave the association is such that we have reason to believe that they can expect some changes to be made following their representations.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Can the parliamentary secretary tell me when his minister expects to make an announcement regarding changes in these agreements?
[ Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is currently visiting the province and is at present carrying out a study of the reforms to be made to regional development programs and ARDA agreements; I think it would be untimely to set a date today for the changes to be made following the hon. member's question and the representations that have been made.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the situation with regard to the United States dollar and the price of gold on the world market, would the minister kindly make a statement to the House explaining the situation as seen by the government and also explaining the decision of the government to ride along with the U.S. dollar? In this I would hope that the minister could observe a greater degree of accuracy than that displayed in the general financial review presented on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is suggesting that the minister do this by way of a statement on motions rather than give information now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will he do it?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the destruction by the CBC of some irreplaceable films, for example, some of the films of the Plouffe family, and will the minister obtain from the CBC an assurance that no more destruction will take place pending a decision on the preservation of important archival material?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought to my attention by several people and I will undertake to discuss it with the corporation. As the hon. member knows, Public Archives are already doing a fair amount of important work in this area and I hope this will increase.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question about a criminal by the name of Blanchard who recently escaped from William Head and was subsequently recaptured. Would the Solicitor General inform the House how it came about that a criminal like Blanchard, convicted of vicious crimes including rape and inflicting grievous bodily harm, came to be held in a minimum security institution like William Head from which he escaped to commit other vicious crimes? I am wondering whether upon recapture he was returned to William Head.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the record of Blanchard. I was not aware that he had been convicted of rape. As far as I know, he is not presently being held at William Head-


Gerald William Baldwin: Is he on leave?


William Warren Allmand: -but I will find out where he is at present and report to the hon. member.


COMMISSION OF SERIOUS OFFENCES BY LEONARD MIVILLE WHILE ON TEMPORARY ABSENCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could correct the answer I gave earlier to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I said in my answer that Mr. Miville had committed his offence in September of 1972. On rechecking my records I find it was on March 13, 1973.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that there are just a few minutes left before the end of the question period. I was hoping that before the end of the question period the distinguished frontbenchers might give the Chair an opportunity to recognize some hon. members in the back rows. It seems to me that just about each one of the frontbenchers has had an opportunity to ask questions today. Perhaps we might follow up this matter tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West.

June 5, 1973


INQUIRY AS TO RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS AS MAXIMUM IN LIGHT OF ESCAPES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, it is almost a question of privilege to be mistaken for the hon. member for Ottawa West.
I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General and ask him whether, in view of the number of escapes referred to by other hon. members, there is now a change in government policy with regard to penitentiaries that would result in reclassifying certain medium security penitentiaries as maximum security penitentiaries, and if such a directive has gone out why we were not advised on motions of this change in policy?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there has been no directive changing medium security institutions to maximum security institutions. On the other hand, we have been upgrading the security on the perimeter of medium security institutions, but we have not changed the program or the internal security within medium security institutions.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Some four weeks ago I asked the minister if Air Canada computer centres would be moved from their present locations and consolidated at Dorval. Has the minister any information on my question?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I put the question to Air Canada at the first opportunity and I have not yet received their answer, but I will check again and give the answer to the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the government has increased the rates at the port of Vancouver from 3 cents a net ton to 3 cents a gross ton, which means an average cost of 60 per cent more for ocean vessels using that port, and in view of the fact that the port had a profit last year of $1.5 million, can the minister explain why the increase was necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That kind of question is not in order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to give an explanation which normally ought to be given by way of a statement on motions.
Oral Questions HEALTH


PRESCRIPTION DRUGS-POSSIBLE STUDY TO DETERMINE EFFECT OF COST OF ADVERTISING ON PRICE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the minister's proposal that federal and provincial laws be changed to allow direct advertising of low cost prescription drugs, has the minister's department undertaken a study to determine the effect of the cost of advertising on the price of prescription drugs?
[ Transla tion]


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if his department has reached a formula to reduce the delay in processing appeals in regard to Canada Pension Plan disability applications?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House agreed to give first reading to a bill to help people wishing to appeal the minister's rulings in cases of total or partial disability. As for the hon. member's question I think that if he looks at the replies I already tabled in the House, he will see that delays are not now excessive.
[ La ter:]


REQUEST FOR REASSESSMENT OF DEFINITION OF WORDS &quot;SEVERE AND PROLONGED DISABILITY&quot;
William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the great number of pending cases awaiting departmental decision will the minister consider making a reassessment of the definition of the words "severe and prolonged disability" with respect to the Canada Pension Plan?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the existing legislation provides for disability and any change whatever would call for an amendment to it, a matter which anyhow is to be discussed with the provinces in the fall when we shall revise the whole situation pertaining to the operation of the Canada Pension Plan.
26314-67J

Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the statement by representatives of Canada's leading fishing interests in Nova Scotia that our offshore trawler fleet is in need of major modernization, and that even ships built only ten years ago are in many cases virtually absolete, is the minister giving any consideration to establishing a meaningful trawler building program which will assist in replacing ships outdated by technical developments in both equipment and fishing techniques?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member and the House will be glad to know that we have the biggest trawler building program in Canadian history under way at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are reaching the end of the question period. However, the hon. member may ask a supplementary.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister indicate when this policy was announced and what form of subsidy his expanded trawler program is taking?


John (Jack) Davis: The policy was announced in 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF TERMS OF CONTRACTS FOR EXPORT SALES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in somewhat the same vein as a question he answered earlier. Since he has indicated that there will be a larger than normal final payment to wheat producers, could he make available the terms of grain contracts made many months ago, which would not prejudice any negotiations at the present time, with countries such as Russia, China, Brazil and India, to name a few, as these long-term contracts take up a big portion of our export wheat sales and would be of great benefit to grain producers?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is presenting an argument in support of his question. The minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is quoting accurately what I did say, although I am confident there is every reason to expect a substantial final payment on this year's pool. It is

not the custom of the Canadian Wheat Board to make available actual prices in contracts for commercial reasons.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is he now able to inform the House what action will be taken on the request of the Premier of Newfoundland for assistance for Atlantic area fishermen who are unable to fish because of ice conditions in the area?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under review and a submission will be made to cabinet shortly.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question which is in a way supplementary to that which was asked by the leader of the Quebec wing of the Progressive Conservative party, namely the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
As a result of the Canada-Quebec development agreement for the Gaspe region, the Lower St. Lawrence and the Magdalen Islands in 1968, which was renewed in 1971, in view of the representations made by the "Operations-Dignity" whose members met on Sunday June 3 in Matane, does the government intend to renew this agreement when it expires in 1976.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this renewal would take place as a result of a recommendation from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and I prefer to see it done following a statement by the minister or his distinguished parliamentary secretary.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has he had any representations from corporations, such as those that make up the Tourist Association, that the proposed corporation tax for manufacturing and processing companies
June 5, 1973

should be extended to all corporations and, if so, can he tell us what his reply was?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have had all sorts of correspondence about the tax, and of course the response will have to be given on second reading when we debate this measure in the House.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Ontario, Mr. William Davis, declared in the Ontario legislature yesterday that the setting of the terms of reference for the board of review over the building of the Pickering Airport was pretty well a matter for the federal government, and that in setting the terms of reference the ball was in the federal government court, can we expect a statement from the minister fairly soon as to the terms of reference of that board of review and its composition?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I met last week with a minister from Mr. Davis' cabinet, Mr. Bennett, who asked me to arrange a meeting of main officers of the two governments interested in this issue in order to consider the mandate of the commission. If Mr. Davis changed his mind since then, we will act accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse and next the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, and then call orders of the day.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the feed grain issue still remains unsolved and because the production of certain types of foodstuffs seems to be slowing down alarmingly in Eastern Canada, can the minister advise the House whether, in addition to subsidizing transportation at the rate of 40 cents a ton, he will announce very shortly further steps aimed at solving that problem to the satisfaction of Eastern Canada producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are always studying ways and means of making sure that the people in dairy production and in
Oral Questions
other forms of agricultural production in Canada are treated in an equitable fashion.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises from the answers he gave earlier in the question period to the effect that family allowance payments would be universal and that the provinces could adjust them. Can he assure the House and the people of Canada that the provinces will not be able to absorb family allowance payments into other programs, so that children in all parts of Canada will not get any less than the universal payment?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member sees the legislation which we will be presenting to the House, within a few weeks, I hope, I believe he will be reassured in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be imposing on your good will to ask for unanimous consent of the House to return to motions so that we could give the minister an opportunity to make a statement on the increase in the tonnage rates charged at the port of Vancouver because this is a very important and controversial issue in that area, or maybe the minister would consent to make one tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking unanimous consent to revert to motions. As hon. members know, after the question period every day we could have questions from members who would want to use the return to motions for the purpose of having statements made. I would ask whether there is unanimous consent for the purpose of returning to motions.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have recognized, as I have, that there was not unanimous consent for that purpose. Perhaps he could bring it on tomorrow.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West rises on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can get the unanimous consent of the House to return to motions in order to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs about a question that was posed in one of the communiques from the Zambian authorities regarding the deaths of Zambians, I believe in the city of Hamilton. The

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
minister wanted to look into this to ascertain the problem. As I understand it, the government of Canada gave full co-operation at that time, as well as and in particular, the city of Hamilton. I wonder if the House will agree to return to motions in order to answer this very important question because it may have affected our diplomatic relations.


Mr. Speaker:: I could inquire whether there is unanimous consent but my impression is that this point was inquired about yesterday or the day before by way of a question and a reply was given by the minister.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 4318).
That this House,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following Principles for achieving the foregoing:
(1)	that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will be first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French of English may be used;
(3)	that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
(4)	that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten 
years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal Public Service, will be entitled to apply for any job that has been indentified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willingness to become bilingual;
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the Public Service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
(9)	that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the Public Service to bilingual positions;
do further approve the Government of Canada, and, in particular, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned Principles; and
(ii) do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the Public Service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French Language Units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the Governments of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual character of the National Capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the Public Service by members of both the anglophone and the francophone communities.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain a lot of people in Canada are very concerned with these regulations and feel that we should get on by negotiating with the civil service associations of Canada-after an election which made a change in the direction-in order to provide some protection for those apparently not able to protect themselves.
Speaking on this subject yesterday, I said that I did not see how we would be able to enact a bill of rights on language and language protection. Since then, I have given some consideration to the type of legislation that we have used on other occasions. I am thinking of the type of legislation that was used when we amended the Criminal Code and a large number of acts in order to include a specific idea in those acts. This bill was put together in a form that would allow the various acts to be opened only for the purpose of providing the protection that was desired. I have also had the opportunity of reading several of the statements issued by the Civil Service Association to the effect that it was not interested in having these regulations put into legislation. The association thought amendments might be needed from time to time and was in the process of negotiating for amendments to the regulations.
If I had not been assured by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, that the terms of these regulations were being provided as a protection for all civil servants, I would not have voted for the Official Languages Act. Those assurances were given by the government of the day. They were given to parliament and I am just as firmly committed to this protection today as I was then. Mr. Speaker, I am not the least bit desirous of having parliament pass what I would consider to be a basic bill of rights for unilingual employees in the civil service, either French or English, or for those bilingual employees, which is going to destroy this protection.
June 5, 1973

I am not sure if the Civil Service Association believes it can negotiate bilingual districts. I am not sure if it thinks it is capable of making the decisions that will be necessary in determining those areas to which this resolution will apply to and those areas to which it will not. I have not found the Civil Service Association to be very strong, Mr. Speaker. I have found civil servants to be passive, to go along with almost anything that was decided as long as they got more money. I have known many civil servants who have fallen into the bad graces of the government. One of these later became a cabinet minister in this House, but he had sat for several years in an office with nothing on his desk because somebody had decided he was "in Coventry" and he just took it. I have not found civil servants to be strong willed, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think they are able to protect themselves. I am not of the opinion that either the Civil Service Association or the civil service is so strong in an advisory sense that they can protect themselves.
I am sure there are going to be amendments and changes; I am sure amendments will have to be negotiated but I am also sure, representing as I do a number of people of both French and English extraction who speak one of the official languages, and in many cases both the official languages, that those people agree with the terms of this resolution. They believe that we should have a bill of rights in respect of language in Canada in order to eliminate many of the problems that have developed over the last few years.
I have heard of very few cases that were pursued to arbitration, even when a person was told that he no longer had a job because it was now classified bilingual and he was not capable of taking bilingual training. I have seen jobs red circled. In many cases I am sure that the person took a position lower than the one to which he was entitled rather than make an issue. I am sure that is true of the association. However, it is possible the association will develop until it reaches a level of competence in the adversary system which will enable it to negotiate on behalf of those who are aggrieved or who feel they are aggrieved under the terms of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I was of the opinion that we could not put the terms of this resolution into legislative form, but after discussing the problem with several competent persons I think a general principle could be written into the various acts to give this protection. One bill could be formulated which would include the terms of the resolution as they affect a large number of acts. I am concerned that we might spend weeks and weeks discussing all the acts that would be involved to which this principle would apply, such as the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Act, the Armed Forces Act-you name it. The principle applies to almost every act that involves civil servants. If the government really wishes to make this a firm declaration, then I suggest it should be a firm declaration and the only way that can be ensured, Mr. Speaker, is to have it in written form.
It has been suggested by my leader that this protection should be written into the collective agreements and this is certainly worth considering. He says it is better than writing it into the law. That may be so. We argued that the bill of rights was not of much value, that its provisions
Official Languages
should be written into the constitution. In fact, over the years the bill of rights has been used on a limited number of occasions with success in the courts because there has been an air of unreality in the way it has been applied by the courts. History might well prove that the same situation will apply in this case, and that legislation may be developed out of this resolution. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any member in this House who is not ashamed of his lack of ability to enforce the terms of this resolution as it applies to the civil service.
Members of this House who sat on the estimates committee actually considered the members of the parliamentary security staff one by one. They said, for instance, that such and such a man is French, and another is English; that such and such a man has a French name but does not speak French, and this one only speaks a little English. Mr. Speaker, we played the numbers game. We are not interested in equality of opportunity, but played the numbers game. The members wanted so many men to be on this side, and so many on that side. I am referring, of course, to the linguilistic capability of the men. There was nothing anybody on the committee could do about it, because that was the attitude of many members who support either side of this particular argument. The fact is that we started adding up numbers and the committee said, "We want so many in this group and so many in that group." There was no reference to whether or not we had introduced criteria on how to promote people who are competent, about whether we have given opportunities for people to learn a second language, if that is necessary, or how it would be possible to promote people in areas where a second language is not necessary. We did not do that at all. Instead, we played the numbers game. I think most members of that committee are ashamed that we played that game.
I think this resolution is only a pious resolution unless it really provides some protection for civil servants, and provides it without it being necessary for the civil servant to make a lot of fuss. We are well aware of the number of civil servants in Ottawa who have tried to make a case about their position. How has that benefited them, Mr. Speaker? In the long run it may benefit the country, because what they had to say was of value in the decision making process. But, Mr. Speaker, those proceedings did not do anything for the people involved. In every instance of which I know, the people concerned did not resign voluntarily; they were forced to leave the civil service, and nothing was done on their behalf by the associations. The associations did not protect them. So, I am not enamoured with the role the associations have played in the past. It may be that they will do better from now on. I suggest, however, that unless the government is really interested in providing the kind of protection of which I speak, the resolution before the House will turn out to be nothing more than a pious resolution. It will be nothing more than a pious exercise unless the government is willing to provide protection; otherwise, these principles will be changed, and changed very likely according to the fortunes of the political parties in this House.
At present, the members are being asked to endorse a program that was not introduced by a majority govern-

Official Languages
ment. It is a program that was introduced by a minority government led by Mr. Pearson. It introduced these proposals. They have already been applied in the government's operations, if one is to judge by a public release of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). The civil service has had to abide by the terms of the program. That announcement has been made, but it was made two or three days after the election. That was not soon enough to save Mr. Blair or Mr. Francis. But, that announcement was made, and protection is being provided for the civil servants. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see, after another election, another declaration made by the President of the Treasury Board, or whoever may be making the declaration, regarding a list of points that are to govern this issue. I should like to see the kind of protection of which I have spoken agreed to by most members of the House, in the same way as almost every member supported the official languages bill. On the other hand, if we leave this matter so that there is doubt, and leave it in such a way that the individual civil servant will not have the right to apply for the protection suggested in this resolution, it seems to me there will be a lot of monkeying around with these rules.
I agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party who thinks there are going to be changes in this matter. I agree; I think there will be changes, but there will not be changes in the terms of this resolution. There are going to be changes in how the terms of this resolution will be applied in various departments. I am sure that there will be differences of opinion over whether a deputy minister, say, of a particular department, should be bilingual or not. However, I am sure, and I hope other members agree, that such matters can be negotiated by the associations of the civil service. However, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government itself will indicate that this resolution is not the end of this matter, but that legislative action will be taken to implement the terms of the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for St. Paul's.


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct privilege for me to be confused with the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) on the same day, as both members are about 20 years my junior. I appreciate the honour you do me.
My hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), for whom I have great affection, left me in some doubt at the conclusion of his speech as to whether he would support the amendment proposed by the leader of my party or not. I can only conclude from his last few remarks that he will not support it. I will. If the amendment does not carry, I will support the original resolution. I say that so that members of the House and the people of this country can know right now that, despite the published reports in what pass for newspapers in this city, the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative party will also support it.
I think we have to make clear at the outset of every address by every member of the House that we are not debating here the merits of the Official Languages Act or the merits of the bilingual policy of Canada. Those are

matters of public policy and were decided upon four years ago. All the parties in this House supported that position, and it is now a fact. We are discussing here a resolution which, if its principles are honoured, will extend greater job security to as many as a quarter of a million Canadians. That is all we are discussing.
I believe the resolution needs the force of law to guarantee those rights because, as more than one speaker has said, a resolution can be ignored and amended, but you cannot do that so easily with a law. The point was made by a speaker last night on behalf of the Liberal party that that party does not wish to accept my leader's amendment because this program requires flexibility and the law is not flexible. That is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker. Not one of the laws on the statute books of this country is flexible. That is why the laws are there. Flexibility is marvelous for a careless or tyrannical government. I used to negotiate labour contracts, and every time the employer said to me he wanted flexibility in the application of the contract, or in the application of one set of standards or another, I knew precisely what he was talking about. He wanted power to do what he wanted, when he wanted and how he wanted to do it. So, I will not buy this need for flexibility. If a law is passed and is found to be a bad law, it can be brought back to this House for amendment. It happens every day of the week.
The hon. member for Timiskaming said twice during his speech, once today, I believe, and once last night, that he did not want to vote for my leader's amendment because he was afraid we would be here until July amending all companion pieces of legislation which would need to be amended in order to be in accord with the amendment proposed by my leader. I say to him that if it becomes a matter of legislating greater job security for a quarter of a million of my fellow Canadians, I will stay here until July, or until one year from July, if necessary. I do not think we can allow such considerations to get in the way of discussing this amendment.


William Arnold Peters: But I made an alternative suggestion, too.


Peter Reilly: There is a final point while I am discussing the amendment. It has been suggested by some people, both in this House and in the newspapers, that the motivation behind the submission of this amendment is far from what it seems. It has been suggested that the real reason for this resolution is to force division in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada so that the Liberals can then go into Quebec and say this party cannot represent the people of that province. I would not like to believe that is the case. I have heard it said a great many times. I have resisted going along with the idea. However, I believe there is one way in which this government can demonstrate its good faith in a very palpable fashion. That is by giving this resolution the force of law by supporting the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: When it became necessary during the last election campaign to cope with the issue of bilingualism, I worked a long time before taking any position. I represent
June 5, 1973

Ottawa West, a constituency in which a great many families have connections with the Public Service of Canada. I consulted the Public Service Alliance, the Professional Institute of Public Servants and finally struck this position, that the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and all companion acts, should be amended to provide for impartial binding arbitration of all disputes including those which may center on bilingualism. As those acts now stand, public servants are not represented in massive areas of their employment. There can be no grievances and arbitration of hirings, firings, transfers or promotion, things which go to the very core of an employment relationship. I proposed that that be changed.
That was the only position I took in public on the matter of the public service. However, even when I pointed out my only objection was that public servants could get no representation of an effective kind, I was called a racist, bigot and many less complimentary things than that. This is the kind of misunderstanding and ill will among politicians in this country that has to stop if it is to stop among the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: This resolution should not be allowed to fall into the hands of those whose only purpose is to exacerbate in order to get attention in this country. This is not a call to arms for another replay of the battle on the Plains of Abraham.
When I saw the nine points outlined by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) some months ago, I remarked that they paralleled in almost every regard the recommendations I had made during the election campaign. My colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), said essentially the same thing. I believe the resolution ought to go into effect. I believe that not only the nine points, but the appendix that was added at the behest of some members of the Liberal caucus should pass because that, too, is fair and should be a matter of law. I invite members from the Ottawa area who are not of my political persuasion to scrutinize this proposal very carefully, see whether they can vote for it and try to influence some of their colleagues to do the same.
We must guarantee people in the Public Service of Canada the right to an effective appeal. There is no such right at the present time. Someone who feels he has been discriminated against on matters affecting his bilingual ability or lack of it may do one of two things. He may appeal to the Public Service Commission, which is not an effective right of appeal since that is his employer, or he may go to the man who has been described as the language ombudsman, a man for whom I have a good deal of regard. On the only occasion I asked him to investigate a case, he did so swiftly, courteously and effectively. I suggest that public servants should be forgiven if, on occasion, they question this man's dedication to the cause of perfect equality in the public service where language is concerned. Some of his phraseology is at best colourful. While I admire a man who speaks colourfully, in a delicate area like this, a man's credentials can very easily be called into question because of public utterances.
I suggest to Your Honour and my colleagues that there is a great deal of mischief being done in this country by
Official Languages
people who invoke the constitution. They invoke it on both sides. We have not been able to find a way to even repatriate our constitution. In my submission, it is time wasting and mischievous to become involved in long drawn out disputes about whether a two language policy is constitutional. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us here last week in what I thought was an excellent speech, it is not matter of history, but a matter of hard political reality. We have to cope with it here and we have to cope with it responsibly.
I want to address myself to an issue the Prime Minister has raised many times, both in this House and outside, national unity. We were told on many occasions that it was necessary to maintain the Liberal government in office because they and they alone were concerned with national unity. I have a different concept of national unity than wanting to make sure that the Official Languages Act is enshrined for all time. It is an important issue and I do not wish to denigrate it. However, alongside some of the other pressing issues that face this country, it is relatively minor and elitist because it concerns a small number of people.
The danger to national unity does not reside in whether this or that resolution passes this House. The danger to national unity lies in the fact that this government and governments before it for 100 years have not cared enough about the problems that vex the daily lives of the people in this country. In Montreal a few years ago, a handful of dispossessed and disaffected people rebelled. What did the government do? Did it prevail on the old friend of the Prime Minister, the mayor of Montreal, to build some houses? Did it prevail upon the city of Montreal to provide more green space and clean up the water and air? Did it give its attention to the children in the slums which have been described by the late Saul Alinsky as the worst in North America? The government did not do any of those things. It busied itself by trying to throw as many citizens in this country in jail as it could.
We do not need secret police groups operating in the East Block. That will not help national unity. What we need is a government that will know every time a child grows up in a slum the government is responsible. What we need is a government that will know that every time a woman is mangled or killed at the hands of some unskilled abortionist because no legal way is open to her the government is responsible. What we need is a government that will know every time an old person rots away in a tenement with an insufficient amount of money at the end of his or her life that the government is responsible. The government, in order to deserve to continue to be the government, must address itself to these problems because these are the real problems to national unity in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: When the Prime Minister introduced this resolution, he favoured us with a quote from the father of this country, Sir John A. Macdonald. I want to return to him a quote by Sir Wilfred Laurier. It is this:
Any policy which appeals to a class, to a creed, to a race, or which does not appeal to the better instincts to be found in all classes, in all creeds and in all races, is stamped with the stamp of inferiority. The French-Canadian who appeals to his fellow countrymen to stand by themselves, aloof from the rest of the conti-
4444

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
nent; the English-Canadian who appeals to his fellow countrymen on grounds affecting them alone may, perhaps, win the applause of those whom they may be addressing, but impartial history will pronounce their work as vicious in conception as it is mischievous and wicked in its tendency.
I do not believe there is a member in this House who could not subscribe to these views. I hope enough goodwill prevails among all of us here today that we can dispose of this measure in a manner which befits the Canadian House of Commons.


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


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, as a Liberal, as a Franco-Ontarian, but foremost as a Canadian I thank the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) for the support they showed this past Thursday for the motion we are now discussing. I sincerely hope that members of all parties similarly support it.
I sympathize with the views of the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) that service in French from the federal public service is occasionally found wanting, and that there is need for greater participation by Francophones in this institution. However, I personally feel that our government's declaration attempts to deal with these problems in an orderly, humane, and responsible manner. Furthermore, I find unacceptable certain likely consequences of Mr. Matte's amendment, part of which proposes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I would remind him at the outset of his remarks that he should refer to an other hon. member by his riding rather than by his name.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the hon. member for Champlain. Therefore, I find unacceptable certain likely consequences of the amendment which proposes that all departments of the federal government-


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, when the House is debating a motion we are supposed to talk about the motion, not about others which have been ruled out of order for having been moved at the wrong time. We are now discussing the progressive conservative amendment and it seems to me that is the amendment on the order paper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In any event, Mr. Speaker, the two-nation thesis has long been rejected.
This government has in the past been accused by some people as being overly preoccupied with the question of bilingualism, especially as it relates to the public service. Well, as long as there are instances when the public service does not whenever feasible and whenever there is

the need, as was documented in the two annual reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, deal with the public in English and in French according to the public's choice; and as long as the public service does not, as I shall illustrate, offer equal opportunities to French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians to work in the language of their choice, I maintain that this alleged preoccupation is warranted. Indeed, there are good grounds for arguing that it should probably be intensified.
While I will be speaking this afternoon primarily on how this declaration affects Francophones, let us not for a moment forget that it is directed at both major linguistic groups in Canada; that it offers certain guarantees, and certain rights to both English-speaking and to Frenchspeaking public servants and to any Canadian who wishes to work for the public service.
Let us remember that the public service is the prime instrument through which federal laws and regulations are administered. It is the single largest employer in Canada. It is one of the sinews which binds together our geographically diverse country with its linguistically heterogeneous population. Thus, it is critically important that the public service reflect in its compositions the population of the country. Given the Canadian reality of 16 million English-speaking and 6 million French-speaking inhabitants, clearly it is essential for the sake of national unity and for the sake of rendering effective services to ensure that in all government departments there are sufficient materials and personnel to serve the public in English and in French according to its choice, and for English and French to enjoy equal status as languages of work within the public service so that everyone will feel at home.
Although this is neither the time nor the place to examine in detail the history of bilingualism in the public service, it is nevertheless appropriate to note that for many years, indeed for generations, Francophone Canadians have voiced their concern for the need to have a public service which could deal with them in French, and in which they could work in French. However, it is only since the early 1960's that governments at the federal level have taken a serious interest in attempting to realize these goals.
If it seems to some people that there is too much government activity on the question of bilingualism, this may appear to be the case to them because so little was done concerning this vital issue prior to the mid 1960's.
This past decade has witnessed a desire for epanouisse-ment among many groups in Canadian society-certain injustices against minorities were certainly not willingly committed. We have a certain amount of catching up to do as regards minority rights and so it is that today we speak of the rights of women, the rights of natives and of ethnic groups. The French-speaking minority is now living through that catching up period. Francophone minorities look upon Canadian federalism as an economic union and also as an association, a socio-cultural and linguistic agreement which strives towards the same goal-a prosperous Canada, endowed with two official languages and several cultures.
The premise of my argument will be to establish that the existence of francophone minorities in Canada guaran-
June 5, 1973

tees the objective of the government's resolution, that is a functional, bilingual federal institution. If we are to avoid, Quebec becoming the only place where francophones can feel that they are able to live and work in French and becoming the homeland for all francophone Canadians, it is essential that the federal government take effective measures to implement institutional bilingualism and provide increased opportunity for francophones who desire to do so to work in French.
The motion that we are discussing today constitutes one of this government's attempts to realize these goals. Unless francophones can identify, to the extent that anglophones do, the federal public service as being their public service and the national capital as being their capital, the continued existence of a strongly united Canada from sea to sea is threatened. For a federation can exist only as long as its constituent parts feel that they are a vital part of the federation. History is replete with examples which substantiate this point.
That federal bilingual institution will be functional inasmuch as the supply of institutional bilingualism meets a firm demand throughout the country. However, in provinces where anglophones a're in majority, the guarantee of that demand rests on francophone and bilingual minorities which have that responsibility and even that obligation.
In 1973 in Canada, there are 926,105 francophones living in provinces where anglophones are in majority. Those bilingual Canadians whose mother tongue is French fought for their rights since Confederation. Indeed they fought for their education rights to be recognized by the province. School being the extension of the family, it was a guarantee for the survival and development of their own entity. However, it is true that the French minorities outside Quebec have had to organize, to protect their rights, their mother tongue. They did so at their own expenses, at the cost of great sacrifices.
Mr. Speaker, I talked about that problem in this House last March 20, and I quote from page 2431 of Hansard where I said:
All efforts made by the federal government will be of little use if we cannot maintain in all provinces a strong, lively, and dynamic French-speaking group which would lead the way and make a place for itself under the sun thanks to all sorts of provincial and public institutions designed to promote and encourage the French culture.
I continued later:
Those efforts towards the establishment of bilingualism, Francophones have made them since our country was founded, but under present circumstances, the francophone minority can no longer oppose single-handed the anglophone giant of unilingual-ism. They must be given specific and efficient help if they are to continue living and fulfilling themselves in French.
The great majority of unilingual English-speaking people enjoyed a good education system which was tailored to their economic resources. For some of them in public service who make an application for a management job or who hold a position which eventually will be designated bilingual, they have merely to perfect their qualifications by becoming bilingual.
Official Languages
The principle of equal opportunities in public service is very important for us. Unhappily, because of a defective education system in their own language, the great majority of French-speaking minorities have no access to the middle or higher echelons of management. In 1965, in Ontario, where 500,000 French-speaking Canadians are now living, a very low percentage of bilingual Frenchspeaking Canadians were continuing their secondary education beyond grade 10. The large majority were bilingual owing to the force of circumstances and the importance to express themselves in both languages. On the other hand, they were disadvantaged with respect to formal, academic, technical and vocational education because there were no French public schools.
Fortunately this situation has changed in recent years. Even if the battle will always be difficult, at least in Ontario-you just have to read the daily papers to realize it-the present school generation will eventually have opportunities of access to the public service with the same academic, technical and vocational ability as the English unilingual applicant.
The principle in the second part of the resolution under study has almost not been applied as regards bilingual French Canadians now in the public service. They did not have that adequate technical, vocational and administrative training that their English fellow-citizens had.
Joining the public service and staying there at a lower level cannot be considered as equal opportunity. To have equal opportunity means being able, depending on one's abilities and one's own merits, to reach the middle and top management levels. It is surprising and even ironic to note that the federal government in the fall of 1972 had sponsored 21,000 civil servants, especially among the intermediate and higher ranks, 80 per cent of whom are English-speaking, who had registered for French courses. The unilingual English Canadian was thus provided with the double qualification of bilingualism.
Do the sincere English-speaking groups, whose socioeconomic classes had enabled them to acquire a higher education in their own language, appreciate that bilingual measure of the government and consider for a moment the unfairness done to French-speaking minorities too often disillusioned and frustrated?
Have such groups of right-minded and honest Canadians thought that to benefit really from equal opportunities the bilingual French-speaking Canadian would perhaps need a similar federal fund not to learn English but to enable them to better their own professional proficiency in the administrative and technical fields?
French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians do not enjoy equal opportunities to work in the public service in the language of their choice. It is the intention of the declaration to ensure that both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians enjoy equal opportunity, when competing on the merit principle, to be appointed to the public service. Too often in discussions regarding this question the facts are neglected. I would now like to discuss some realities concerning this matter.
The 1971 annual report of the Public Service Commission states the language requirements of the 66,675 appointments made to the public Service during the year
26314-68 i

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
1971. The figures include both appointments of former public servants and the appointments of new employees. The language requirements of these are as follows: 5,509 or 8.3 per cent required French-language capacity only, 6,047 or 9.1 per cent bilingual capacity and 52,821 or 79.2 per cent required English capacity only; the language requirements for 2,298 positions, 3.4 per cent, were not indicated.
In his appearance before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee the Commissioner of Official Languages presented data regarding the language requirements for the appointments made to the public service in the year 197273. The figures indicate that 7.6 per cent of the positions required bilingual capacity, 11 per cent required French only and 75.6 per cent required English only.
Furthermore it is quite widely known the underrepresentation of francophones in the public service is more pronounced in the upper than in the lower level positions, and that the opportunity to work in French decreases as one moves up the hierarchy of occupational levels. Granted, this declaration is not a panacea to all problems involving bilingualism in the public service. However, panacea's just don't exist for complex problems of this nature.
That is why it is a resolution, not a statute. It spells out in specific terms the guidelines being used for implementing bilingualism in the public service and for identifying bilingual positions. Let us remember that not all positions but approximately one tenth or 25,000 are slated to become bilingual positions.
After carefully examining the content of the resolution, I feel that no one can in all honesty claim that it contains any elements of injustice. The formal commitment by the federal government toward institutional bilingualism in the public service is relatively recent; it dates from April 6, 1966, the day the right hon. Mr. Pearson presented the declaration to the House of Commons.
One of the principles stated in that historic declaration was, and I quote:
-the linguistic and cultural values of both English speaking and French speaking Canadians will be reflected through civil service recruitment and training.
This national representation, well balanced and satisfactory, will include in our public service 10 per cent of bilingual employees and ensure as well that all unilingual Canadians have the right to work in the public service in the language of their choice.
Major changes in complex organizations, such as the federal public service, are rarely achieved without some friction. Institutional bilingualism, if it is to be effectively realized, will likely require both changes of an organizational nature and some changes in values within sectors of Canadian society. As politicians, as the elected representatives we can reduce the amount of friction involved by examining objectively the actual content of the government's policy regarding bilingualism in the public service. I think that it is due time to invest in the "bilingualiza-tion" of our unilingual citizens and that it is also essential to invest in the improvement of those who are bilingual. If we use all available assets to that effect, we will succeed in reaching our objective, that is respect for and development of our two great languages and cultures as well as the citizens concerned.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, successive Canadian governments have been labouring for a decade to make it evident that the federal administration reflects the equal partnership of the French and English founding people. The constitution formally recognized both French and English in 1867 in the federal field and in the province of Quebec. However, it has become evident to us that this recognition was incomplete in many respects, and often disputed where the French language was concerned. The equal status of the two languages must be established without a shade of doubt. From now on, I will proceed in my mother tongue.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) waited a long time before introducing in this House his resolution on bilingualism. When he finally introduced it on April 13 last, Canadians were expecting a realistic proposal that could snatch the government policy on bilingualism out of the stand-pattism that has characterized it since the passing of the Official Languages Act. On April 13 last, Canadians were disappointed. Of course, it was not the first time that this government disappointed them, far from it.
But after publication of the Spicer report, which pointed out the numerous inadequacies of the bilingualism program as administered by this government, the government was expected at least to go in the direction shown by the Commissioner of Official Languages and take steps to give a new start to faltering programs on bilingualism in the public service.
Not only are the April 13 proposals not heralding a new start of the faltering programs on bilingualism, but they clearly show this government's intention to confine itself to fine statements and good intentions.
Things have improved very much since 1962 in the federal public service, in federal institutions, as far as bilingualism is concerned, and the struggles led in this House by the Creditist members for the recognition of the French fact are historical.
It is true. There was much progress and improvements to enable a French-speaking member or a French-speaking Canadian to feel at home everywhere in Canada.
But since 1969, not only was there no improvement, but conditions deteriorated unceasingly. The Liberal government passed the Official Languages Act and then thought that the bilingualism problem had been solved. As if pronouncements of goodwill were enough to make French exist in the federal administration.
Some people said that the government was trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds by passing a law on bilingualism without taking any positive action. As a matter of fact, what the government is doing is much worse than that: it is trying to get the hare to run after the hounds! It takes advantage of the good faith and confidence of English- and French-speaking Canadians.
The Social Credit party intends to bring an amendment aimed at giving a concrete bearing to the meaningless proposal made by the government on April 13 last. The
June 5, 1973

Social Credit party proposes specific measures which, if they are implemented, will bring an end to the everlasting debate on the language question and finally allow the House to tackle the economic problems of the country.
It is the failure of the government to take realistic measures on bilingualism which gave rise to the uneasiness existing in the civil service and within the population on this matter. What the Social Credit party is proposing is simple, but someone had to think of it. Instead of spending millions of dollars to try and teach a second language to civil servants who are a few years away from retirement, and instead of favouring injustice by trying to implement a quota system which goes against the principles of merit promotion, the government should consider creating two parallel administrations, one English and one French. Why should we force a second language on those who do not want it? Why should we spend millions of dollars for language courses which are bound to fail miserably?
The parallel administrations proposed by the Social Credit party represent the final and ultimate solution to the bilingualism problem in the civil service.
Let the government create, according to geographic and population circumstances, a French section and an English section in all departments, according to their respective administrative needs. Then, we will all be served and administered in the official language of our choice.
The employees of the civil service will be promoted exclusively on the basis of their respective merits without fearing racial and unjust policies.
This is in short what we propose: the adoption of logical and realistic measures to solve the problem of bilingualism in the civil service. The government therefore must stop beating about the bush and decide on a course of action. Everybody is sick and tired of listening to the commonplace remarks from the government side. While English-speaking Canadians feel they are being victimized, French-speaking Canadians want a federal administration in which they can feel at home.
The government must therefore make up their mind and assume their responsibilities; they must abandon these declarations of principles which are as empty as useless, and cope with the task of establishing parallel administrations in order to satisfy the true needs of the Canadian people.
This is what we are asking for in the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte); we request the support of all hon. members of good will so that this program which is in line with what all Canadians have been hoping for may be set in action.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this resolution as one who voted against the language bill in 1969. I should like to say that time has in no way changed my mind that the language bill has been and will continue to be a divisive factor in this country. Perhaps eventually the country will be divided, and it may well be that history will record the language bill as the final divisive force. I think any student of history would say that the relationship between the French province of Quebec and the balance of the country, mainly English-
Official Languages
speaking, has made for a very difficult, unstable nation, but this country has given its people freedom, a reasonable standard of living, and in the final analysis those are the most important things for any individual.
One of the differences between this debate and the one that took place in 1969 is the indication that the Rallie-ment des Creditistes members, speaking for their voters in the province of Quebec, have indicated that bilingualism does not answer the objectives of those members who gained 30 per cent of the popular vote in Quebec. These views cannot be disregarded. These hon. members have indicated by this amendment that the present bilingual program will not solve our language difficulties in the civil service. There is much to be commended in respect of this amendment, but with the creation of French-language units we are already moving in the direction of a dual or parallel civil administration as suggested. I welcome that viewpoint and agree with it. It is timely at this stage in that it gets the bilingual problem out of the area of being untouchable and the suggestion that if it is not embraced in its entirety, Canada will fall to pieces. This debate is now placed in the political area where a decision can be made on the basis of what can be accomplished.
The stand taken by hon. members of the Creditiste party would indicate that a sizeable number of Francophones do not see in the bilingual concept a rational and reasonable approach to the idea of a bilingual civil service. Time at this stage will not allow a considered comment on this amendment, but I have long been of the opinion, in a general way, that the thrust proposed by hon. members of that party is reasonable, right, and will get around many of the difficulties in which we now find ourselves.
The attitude of the Liberal government that all those who oppose the bilingual program are to be found only amongst the Anglophone population of the country, and that all those people are bigots, must now be discarded, because in the Francophone segment of our country there are substantial numbers who are not happy and presumably must be classified also as bigots. The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) has stated in no uncertain terms that the present provision for bilingualism in the civil service will not in any way solve our problems. The sizeable number of voters in the province of Quebec who place their trust in the Social Credit party would indicate there is a large group of Quebecers who are looking for other means of satisfying their aspirations than the Official Languages Act, and I doubt that the Social Credit party at the last election numbered many Westmount Rhodesians among their supporters.
The attempt by the language bill to create a bilingual civil service to solve the French-English problem has created more difficulties than it has helped. Few would question the right of Canadians to receive federal government service in their official language, but it is an entirely different thing to make the civil service bilingual and to make all public servants speak both languages. This is an intellectual solution to a very difficult problem. It is a solution that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), being bilingual, has arrived at by the following process of reasoning: "We have a French-English problem ... I am bilingual . . . others are bilingual; we will solve this problem by making everybody bilingual".

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
Having two official languages creates very great problems. This has been the case in all countries where there are a number of languages spoken. We only have to consider Belgium and South Africa to appreciate the great problems involved. The fundamental difficulty lies in the fact that no individual is bilingual. Everyone has a mother tongue and a working knowledge of a second language. Most people can say a few words in another language, but to be able to converse and work in the second language requires a high degree of proficiency in the language.
The measure of the bilingual ability of a person is of necessity an extremely subjective judgment and open to wide interpretation. For instance, a person may be grammatically correct in his use of the second language but his accent may make it impossible for anyone to understand him. I am sure that all members of the House would prefer that a witness in a committee who is making a valiant attempt to speak a second language, and often being grammatically correct, would speak in his first language and allow the interpreters to translate his remarks.
Functional bilingualism has always been present and would have served our needs adequately had we followed a sensible language policy. The present Official Languages Act allows for recruitment of civil servants on the basis of their linguistic abilities without regard for the merit of the candidates concerned. In view of the present structure of our civil service, we will shortly have a civil service whose prime aim will be language competence. It will be composed of an elite whose goal of excellence will be language training and who will be unaware of the fact that their primary function is to serve the public.
No one would deny that the civil service, as set up before the Official Languages Act, created a hardship for unilingual francophones. Remedial measures could have been introduced, and in fact were introduced in many cases and acted upon, to increase the percentage of francophones up to their census representation. Before the Official Languages Act was brought in it was difficult for unilingual francophones to enter the civil service, but anglophones from all over the country had an opportunity to obtain employment in the civil service in Ottawa. The principles of bilingualism slam the door shut to all unilingual Canadians, both francophones and anglophones, and make it impossible for them to participate in the federal civil service. If the civil service was previously biased against the French speaking minority, the present act is biased against unilingual Canadians, both francophones and anglophones. The present civil service is recruited from a small group of people in Canada who are bilingual by circumstance, and therefore it is not representative of the country at large.
The fact that Canada is made up of 16 million anglophones who speak little French and 6 million francophones, the majority of whom speak no English, means that that segment of the population which is bilingual is francophone by circumstance. It has been widely suggested that only 10 per cent of the civil servants will be required to be bilingual, but when one considers that this 10 per cent will be made up of civil servants in the top executive echelons-the people who make the decisions and carry on the daily business of the government-one
(Mr. Ritchie.]
realizes that an almost impossible situation will arise. Those people will have to be recruited from the small group of Canadians who are bilingual, and experience proves that these are francophones.
It is entirely unthinkable and unacceptable that this top 10 per cent of civil servants who are francophones should dominate the vast majority of civil servants who happen to be anglophones. Only if the top level of the civil service were to represent the numerical language ration of the country at large would the present bilingualism policy be acceptable. It is bad enough for the majority to dominate the minority, but for a minority to dominate the majority is intolerable.
We may well wonder why this resolution was not incorporated into the Language Act, because now it has no legal validity. The reason is that the people of Canada in the election of 1972 indicated their very grave concern about the language policy of this government. Language difficulties and unrest are increasing. Indeed, it is one of the major issues in the Air Canada strike. This unrest will certainly increase as time passes.
A much more practical solution to our language problem is available. So far as language is concerned, our country is divided, with Quebec being the main centre of the francophone population and most of the rest of the country being mainly anglophone. Western Canada especially is now becoming unilingual anglophone. The development of a dual civil service is an easy and practical way of bringing harmony to the language groups in Canada. There is no reason why a unilingual francophone should have to learn a second language to advance in the civil service, or vice-versa. The civil service could be structured in such a way as to recognize the basic principles of providing service in both languages. For those' who say that a dual civil service would be too expensive, let me point out that we must recognize the enormous expense of providing language training in our attempt to make our civil service bilingual.
The resolution brought forward by the government makes no sense and carries no weight with anyone. At best, it can be said to be a moral directive to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) so long as the present incumbent occupies this position. It is not binding on any of the selection committees of the civil service. The only logical reason for bringing forth the resolution, which is intended to reaffirm legislation already passed, is a political one. It is an attempt by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to ensure his political base in Quebec and to continue to humiliate anglophones in the rest of Canada. It is an attempt on his part to show his superiority as a bilingual person over unilingual Canadians. It certainly attempts to demonstrate that all unilingual Canadians are second class citizens in this country.
The indication which the government gave that it will not accept amendments from the opposition to put the resolution into law demonstrates that the government does not intend to abide by the resolution. If the principles of the resolution are not put into legislation, even lip service will not be given to the aims it attempts to achieve. Regardless of whether the guidelines in the resolution are incorporated in the act, they will not be very effective. Even the clause which makes it possible for a unilingual
June 5, 1973

person to apply for a position that is designated as bilingual means very little in fact because, practically speaking, the job will always have to be given to a bilingual person. A department head will be reluctant to allow a position to remain vacant for a year while the new employee is learning a second language.
To give an example of this let me quote an official who spoke in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration on the staffing process. He had the following to say:
Mr. Chairman, we have developed a process, a staffing process within the department, whereby positions that are considered to require bilingualism to fulfill the duties are open to all employees of the department. In the event that a unilingual person is considered to be the best person in a competition and that a properly qualified bilingual person does not qualify, under those circumstances, the unilingual person is awarded the appointment-
Does this not indicate that only in exceptional cases, where no suitable bilingual person is available, does a unilingual person have any chance of getting a job? In a practical way, one cannot quarrel with any department head who would want the position filled at the earliest opportunity.
The Official Languages Act has created a great deal of disunity and divisiveness. In this resolution we are concerned about the effect of the act on people already in the civil service. But I have always said that if we are to make everybody in the civil service bilingual, we could put everyone who is unilingual on pension and we would even then be farther ahead. It is slowly and surely coming home to unilingual Canadians that the civil service in Ottawa is closed to them. There is a realization in unilingual western Canada that there will be little chance for people from that area in the Ottawa scene. There are those who say that there should be a greater degree of second language teaching in schools across the country, but it is certain that in western Canada there is little point in learning French as the second language. In my area, for every person who goes to Quebec, 20 go to Mexico, so if there is any stimulus for learning a second language, the preference would be for Spanish. Internationally, French is used relatively little compared to Russian, German, and, I suppose eventually, the Oriental languages.
We can forecast that in western Canada there will be a steady decline in the teaching and use of French as the second language. This might be regrettable, but I do not think this trend can be reversed, and indeed it would make little sense to attempt to reverse it. The Official Languages Act makes the western Canadian feel more strange, more apart from Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I support the amendment put forward by my party. I think it will improve the resolution and put some teeth in it. Otherwise, the resolution, as it now stands, is not worth the ink with which it was written.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in the debate on this important resolution. The importance of our debate on this fundamental question of bilingualism in the public service cannot be overstated. There is nothing more and nothing less at stake than this country of ours, Canada. I am very
Official Languages
pleased with the support that the various groups representing the public service have pledged to the principles embodied in this resolution. I cannot help but believe, too, that the well-being and good will of our political system in Canada will also be strengthened by the affirmation of this resolution.
I have followed the debate closely and with great interest, and would like to pay tribute to the hon. members who have spoken strongly in favour of the resolution, particularly the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the leader of the NDP, and many others. I know that questions were raised on the other side of the House by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) on why we introduced this resolution. One of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain was that we were trying to divide his party, among other things. Mr. Speaker, this could not be farther from the truth.
I would like to say very sincerely that I have admired the way in which the Leader of the Official Opposition has conducted himself on this question. He has been unwavering in his stand. He has not varied one iota in the stand he has taken on the question of bilingualism, and I commend him for that.
In gathering together a few ideas for my remarks today, several thoughts crossed my mind. The first is that it is a well known fact that I am neither of French nor English ancestry, and therefore I have no particular axe to grind. I might also say I have some real questions about the theory of the two founding races as expressed by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), because my ancestors knew this land well before either of those groups arrived.
A second thought, and one that greatly disturbed me, was particularly relevant during the last election campaign and its immediate aftermath. We did not talk much about national unity, bilingualism, and the other ties that bind our diverse country together. We assumed, rather naively, that a great deal of the stress which had fostered disunity and misunderstanding in Canada had been alleviated over the years. We, as a government and as a parliament, failed to demonstrate the true spirit and the real facts behind bilingualism.
In my own campaign I talked about national unity as often as I could. At all-candidates-forums, coffee parties, townhall meetings and so on I, like the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), encountered very few red necks whom one could call bigots for their stand on bilingualism. However, I did encounter a lot of misunderstanding about the application of bilingualism in the public service.
The last parliament gave nearly unanimous support to the Official Languages Act in 1969. However, in my view, as parliamentarians we failed to demonstrate the leadership that was necessary to explain the rationale of the act, as it was being implemented, to the people of Canada. We cannot permit a situation where misunderstandings like that can develop, with the racial tensions that such misunderstandings might heighten in the future.
Several other thoughts hit me. In addition to being of neither French nor English ancestry, I am a western Canadian and a former civil servant. From the way some

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
people have been ranting over the years one would assume that I have all the credentials to be one of the most anti-bilingualism people in the country. This is not so. I believe that the great majority of Canadians would support this resolution. But it is seldom that this group grab the headlines because, quite frankly and sadly, the positive beliefs that they hold just do not rate headlines.
No one can or will deny that there are certain forces in Canada which seek to subvert the unity of the nation. The Official Languages Act and its application are a target of this narrow, vindictive group. But Canadians are a tolerant people, and I am confident that they will continue to pay little attention to the small minority whose narrow outlook on life permits them to play to the basest of human emotions, fear, hatred and bigotry, emotions which result largely from a sad lack of knowledge and understanding.
From my point of view, a very important consideration with respect to this entire question centres squarely on my own ancestry. I feel very strongly that there is no way that Canada, as a nation, can recognize the rich heritage and diversity of the many groups that have joined together to build the great nation of Canada, and that will continue to work together in the future, if we do not give vital recognition to the principles and the application of bilingualism and multiculturalism. The eventual result of adopting a narrow approach would be for Canada to become a melting pot, like our neighbour to the south. This is directly contrary to the spirit and the vigour of Canada-a spirit of unity amidst diversity.
I believe that our government has committed itself to the right course for the cultural survival of Canada. I believe that our multiculturalism program, and its vigorous application, will help remove a lot of the misunderstanding which exists among several segments in Canada with respect to the bilingualism program. Multiculturalism and bilingualism and biculturalism go hand in hand in the recognition of human rights in this land of ours. These elements cannot be separated, nor can the spirit which underlies them.
We have heard several people say, particularly in western Canada, that the government is shoving French down our throats. They also complain about the cost of the bilingualism programs. Those two statements are probably the most common manifestation of the lack of knowledge of this program which exists in certain parts of the nation. It is our duty to do a better job of telling it the way it is. No one is forcing anyone to do or learn anything because of the act or this resolution, and I firmly believe that the cost of the program is small when one stops and considers what is at stake-Canada. Mr. Speaker, we may not all be able to speak to each other in either of the official languages but all of us, as Canadians, must be able to speak to each other with our hearts. When it comes to understanding what this whole issue is all about, it is heartfelt understanding that is all important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate briefly for the purpose of saying a few words with respect to what I believe is the one and only issue before the House of Commons. Certain-

ly, the issue that I wish to pinpoint in a moment is the only one that is now dividing us in this debate.
We do not have before us the question of the Official Languages Act or the question of bilingualism in Canada; we do not have before us an amendment relating to bilingual districts or to the activities of the Commissioner of Official Languages. All we have before us is a resolution that relates to employees in the Public Service of Canada in so far as the language question affects them.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that even the resolution which is before us in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and which contains nine main principles, is not now an issue. I realize that when the vote comes there may be some who will vote against it but it is clear that the vote for the resolution, whether it is amended or not, will be overwhelming. I realize that there are those who have argued that it was not necessary to bring this resolution before the House of Commons, but in any case now that it is here it does not divide us; we are agreed that the principles set out in the Prime Minister's resolution ought to be applied with regard to employment in the public service. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that leaves us in this position; that the only issue-and it is the only one I am going to talk about-is whether those principles should simply be endorsed by a vote of the House of Commons in favour of the Prime Minister's motion or whether those principles should be written into the law, namely, into the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and several others referred to as "appropriate statutes".
Sir, I do not fault the Leader of the Opposition or the seconder of this motion, who is my good friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), for submitting their amendment and for making the case for it in terms of their wanting to get as much of a guarantee as is possible for the public servants in whom they are interested. If I may put it in the simplest terms, it just happens that I do not agree with them. I, too, happen to be concerned about the rights of public servants. As most if not all members are aware, I am concerned for them when they reach the point of retirement but I am also concerned about their rights as working public servants.
I am terribly aware, as is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who stated his position yesterday and as is the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) who spoke today, of the agony and fear that were experienced by many public servants in the national capital region and other parts of Canada when the guidelines being applied by the Treasury Board and the government in general were less favourable to the rights of public servants than would be the case if these guidelines came into effect. Therefore, I readily understand their desire to see these better guidelines given as much force, as much guarantee as is possible.
Even so, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the matter of the language question as it applies to employment in the public service is one that is still being sorted out. It is my information, not only from what I have read in the newspapers but from my talks with officials in the public

service unions, that they are tremendously satisfied with the measure of consultation that they had with the government in the drawing up of these guidelines. That satisfaction is not retroactive-it does not go back to some earlier circumstances but I understand that so far as the consultations that resulted in the drawing up of these guidelines were concerned, they were fully satisfactory. But the officials of those same public service unions I believe-and I say this to my good friends from Grenville-Carleton and Ottawa West-I believe that they speak for their members, I believe that they speak for the public servants of Canada generally and particularly for the public servants in the Ottawa area when they say that they do not want even these guidelines to be frozen into our statutes, to be given the rigidity of law. To use their own language, they say there are still some "bugs" to be worked out, there are still some points to be made clear. When one looks at the resolution one sees in it, for example, a couple of dates which may well have to be moved forward or backward and there are other points which, in the course of two or three years might well need to be changed.
I believe that the leaders of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service Canada are quite right in their contention that they want the present situation to obtain, they want still to be able to engage in consultation with the Treasury Board and with the government to work out the best possible arrangements in this area. It may come, the other side of 1978, that it might be a good idea to put principles in this area into our law. I am not even sure of that. I am not one of those who say this would be all right for a few years from now but it just is not all right now; I am not even sure it would be right a few years from now.
Along with my tremendous respect for the force of law and living by the rule of law, I also have great respect for the principle of consultation and collective bargaining. Precisely because this whole matter is the sensitive one that it is, precisely because it is such a human situation calling for consultation, I call on my friends who have placed this amendment before the House not to press it to a vote. I am not expecting to persuade them to withdraw it, but I plead with them not to press it to a vote. I plead with them to listen to my argument and my appeal. I am trying to do this not in terms of a confrontation. Rather, I believe that the spokesmen for the public servants of Canada are right in their contention that the best way to work this out, to continue the process of arriving at an agreement, is to leave it on the basis of consultation and not to write it into the law with all of the rigidity that can result therefrom.
I am doing my best to refer to my Ottawa friends in the affectionate terms that we sometimes use in the House of Commons. I have already done so with respect to the two at the west end of the city, and I hope the hon. member for Ottawa West will not mind if I say that I smiled a bit this afternoon when he said that laws are not inflexible-we change them all the time. In fact, his words were "It happens every day of the week". Now, my good friend from Ottawa West knows better and if he does not I ask him to consult the public servants of Ottawa. They know, for example, that there are improvements they would like in the Public Service Employment Act and in the Public
Official Languages
Service Staff Relations Act. Do we get amendments to those pieces of legislation every day of the week? We have not had an amendment to either of them since they were passed in 1967 or 1968. I remind him also of a piece of legislation of which all public servants in those constituencies and throughout Canada are aware, namely, the Public Service Superannuation Act. We scored a great victory here in 1969 and 1970 when we obtained the provision for the escalation of the pensions of retired public servants. However, there was written into the law on that occasion a provision that limits that escalation to 2 per cent per year, no matter how much the cost of living might rise in any one year. There have been recommendations galore, in fact, there are recommendations from advisory committees in this field, to the effect that that 2 per cent ceiling be removed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I see my hon. friend for Grenville-Carleton and my hon. friend for Ottawa West applauding. And if there are any other members from the Ottawa area here, they will applaud, too. However, if my hon. friend from Ottawa West was correct in his statement, that we can get these statutes amended every day of the week, why has it not happened? No, Mr. Speaker, this goes on and on and on-


Peter Reilly: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; although I have great affection for the hon. member, I do not believe he has interpreted correctly what I said. I said that it was precisely because laws are not flexible that it is desirable, when enshrining the working rights of a quarter of a million Canadians, to do it in such a way as to remove the possibility of day to day amendment. I did say also that if a law was found, after a reasonable period, to be unworkable, it could be amended, and we do that here all the time. That is the business in which we are engaged. I did not mean to suggest that laws are flexible. They are certainly not, and it is the opposite meaning that I seek.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not quarrel with the hon. member's restatement of what he said earlier. I thought it was a correct restatement. There were two aspects to that comment, as he has now confirmed, namely, that one of the benefits of law is that it is inflexible, that it is there as a guarantee. But he also said the other thing, and it is the other thing on which I wish to comment. He suggested that when a law needs to be changed, it can be done easily. It happens every day of the week.


Gerald William Baldwin: All you need to do is change priorities, as this government does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend thinks it would be any different if his party sat on the other side of the House, I have news for him.


An hon. Member:: It would be worse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have sat in this House when parties of both political stripes have been in control of the government and I remember how long it

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
took, with Liberals or Tories in power, to make headway in the area of superannuation to which I just referred. It is unfortunate right now that the 2 per cent ceiling in the Superannuation Act is there and, although there are recommendations galore for change, and although I think everybody is for that change, we have not been able to get that change, because the government is not willing to bring in the necessary bill.
I realize that we must have law, and we must have a firm law. We must know what it says. Yet, surely, in dealing with an area that is as sensitive as this, an area concerning the day to day lives of a quarter of a million Canadians, we should not put these principles into the form of a rigid law at least until we have got the bugs worked out, at least until those who are involved in the operation are satisfied that we have principles that can be put into law without doing damage to any of those 250,000 or 275,000 Canadians who work in the public service.
Speaking of law, Mr. Speaker, and I took a look at the act, in order to be sure of what I am saying, the Official Languages Act as it stands says almost nothing on this issue. There are no details in the Official Languages Act about employment in the public service. Indeed, the only reference to the subject is found in the very last subsection of the Official Languages Act where it is said that the public service must carry out the principles and aims of the Official Languages Act, subject always to the maintenance of the principles of selection of personnel according to merit as required by the Public Service Employment Act. There is some argument about that. Actually, a great deal of the trouble last year was over whether or not the merit principle had been set aside. I draw hon. member's attention to the suggestion that this be solved in the manner suggested in one of the paragraphs of the Prime Minister's resolution which reads:
that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
I think it is a good idea that there be such a resolution, and I think it ought to be looked at, studied and worked on; but, until it has been tried and until it has been found that it is a proper way to interpret the merit principle, I do not think it would be a good idea to write it into the statute. So, one might go to the various other things that are in the resolution and one might comment on the Official Languages Act and the other statutes that apply in this field, such as the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
We are dealing with a terribly important, terribly sensitive and real human situation, and I am glad that there are persons like the officials who speak for public servants through the staff associations and who are concerned about this. I think we should leave the matter in their hands, to be resolved by consultation between them and the Treasury Board. They are alert. If they are being exploited or led down the garden path or let down, we will hear from them. Moreover, we are here, ourselves, to hear directly from public servants if these rules are not being applied.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we would be buying more trouble, not less, if at this stage of the game we were to put these principles into law. They are good. Again, I do not fault my friends of the Progressive Conservative party for

having gone all the way, for having accepted them and for having said that they are so good we should make them law. I suggest, however, that we are still dealing with a human situation and that the best way to take care of it is through the process of consultation. My belief that the consultation has been satisfactory is not based merely on what the Prime Minister or the President of the Treasury Board said; it is based upon what representatives of the public service unions themselves have said. They like the present setup. I think it should continue. I believe that when we pass this resolution in the form in which it is before us in the name of the Prime Minister, it will not be simply a case of our approving these nine points; it will be a case of our giving our moral support and endorsation to what the public servants themselves are doing to resolve this important issue. On that basis we are prepared to support the motion as it was introduced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council rises on a point of order.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the comments that were made last night, as recorded at page 4425 of Hansard, in which are reflected the agreement that was reached by the representatives of the various parties on the continuation and conclusion of debate on Government Order No. 34. I understand that that agreement is still in place and that debate on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will terminate at the end of the sitting today, that the vote will be taken on that amendment when government orders are called tomorrow, which then would allow the Social Credit party to put its amendment, and that the vote on that amendment and on the resolution itself will take place at a quarter to six tomorrow. If that is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, we might consecrate it in the form of a House order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. A firm understanding was reached among the parties to that effect last night. We are now agreeable that it be made binding by an order of the House at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I, too, confirm that that was the understanding we reached last night. I might say that one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), has raised one point with me, and I think I should bring it forward. It is this: That the government should undertake not to make two or three statements on motions tomorrow which would need to be responded to and which would waste up to an hour. On that understanding-although I do not ask that it be part of the agreement-that we will move to this item of government business as quickly as possible tomorrow, we agree to the proposed order of the House.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I was present yesterday when the agreement was made. It was understood that the debate would be concluded tomorrow evening provided members from our party could take part in it. And since only one could speak today, there are still
i
June 5, 1973

five or six, and it will be up to the government to provide the opportunity for them to speak.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, it is always somewhat embarrassing for me when there is an agreement between the political parties. From time to time I asked the government leader in the House to let me know the intention of the House. Now I have not been consulted. I have no delusions of grandeur, Mr. Speaker, but since the hon. member who preceded me said that his party wanted more of its members to have an opportunity to speak, and since I have not taken part in this debate, I am prepared to co-operate with the House to the extent that the Chair will, I hope, take into consideration my wish to speak before the end of the debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think that can be done, Mr. Speaker. I can understand hon. members who have an irresistible urge to speak in this debate. They should not be denied that opportunity. This can be worked out. It is highly desirable to fix a certain time for ending this debate. If it is passed tomorrow, Thursday and Friday will be supply days. It will be extremely difficult for members who want to participate in the vote to know when it is going to be. We are trying to accommodate the hon. member so that he and those who want to speak will have that opportunity. If we do not do that, the date for the vote will be very indefinite. Under those conditions, I hope the order might go as suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are two matters at issue; first, the agreement reached among the parties and, second, a request that the Chair recognize the suggestion of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). With regard to the second issue, it was my understanding that the party of which the hon. member for Roberval is a distinguished member wishes to have two speakers today and perhaps two tomorrow, although they may wish to have more. I think the Chair could take a direction within the spirit of the wish of various members that these members be allowed to have their opportunity to contribute. If that is the wish, and the Chair does have that discretion, perhaps I could put the question. Is there agreement to the suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: In order to avoid interrupting another hon. member, it is my understanding that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), who was to proceed with private members' hour, has agreed to forego his right. I understand there is no one else. We might at this stage agree to dispense with private members' hour. I know we have not reached five o'clock, but possibly Your Honour could put the question and we could then carry on with this debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as has been suggested, we agree after consultation to have two members speak today and two tomorrow, if that is possible.
Official Languages


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A very happy ending has been reached for both the members and the Chair. I will now put the question that private members' hour not be held today and that we continue with the business currently being considered. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Fisheries- Request for action to alleviate problems caused by grey seals in certain areas of Atlantic; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Indian Affairs-Aboriginal rights-Validity of Royal Proclamation of 1763; the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey)-Airports-Pickering township site.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p.4318).
That this House,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following Principles for achieving the foregoing:
(1) that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the
[Stage Direction]
June 5, 1973
Official Languages
French and English languages will be first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;
(3)	that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
(4)	that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal Public Service, will be entitled to apply for any job that has been identified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willingness to become bilingual;
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the Public Service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
(9)	that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the Public Service to bilingual positions;
do further approve the Government of Canada, and, in particular, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned Principles; and
(ii) do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the Public Service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French Language Units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the Governments of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual character of the National Capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the Public Service by members of both the anglophone and the francophone communities.
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I support the contents of the resolution before us. More important, I support the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I am proud to associate myself with his very thoughtful and responsible remarks in this debate. Let me assure him that his scars will soon heal. As a close observer of the last parliament, I remember vividly the debate in 1969 on the Official Languages Act. It was an important debate. With the enactment of that act, an important milestone in Canada's history was achieved. Members of the 28th parliament can be justly proud of their work at that time.
One of the great surprises to me as a new member of this House has been to observe since January of this year the process by which this government determines the order and substance of the business of the House. One would think that legislation urgently required by the nation would have first priority. Certainly, such legislation might

well bear some relationship to the promises and programs put forward in the previous election campaign and as a result of that campaign. Clearly, the economic issues were the principal issues discussed during the election campaign, at least in my part of the country, and one could hardly have faulted the government for introducing a series of economic measures following on the heels of that campaign.
Also, one would think that the order and substance of the business of the House might be determined by various events that suddenly occur, requiring immediate governmental action. The House, much to its credit, functioned along these lines last January with a resolution respecting the resumption of bombing in Viet Nam. In my view, this was a proper matter to be considered at that time. I was glad that Canada was able to speak forcefully and with one voice through the resolution put forward and adopted at that time.
But what have we here? Does the resolution before us represent a positive measure promised during an election campaign or a measure urgently required because of emergency circumstances? No. It involves essentially a matter dealt with in principle by the last parliament. It involves measures accepted by all parties in the House in the last parliament and enacted into law. I thought the principles of the Official Languages Act of 1969 were good. The principle of providing federal government services to Canadians in the official language of their choice is and was important. Also, the principle of providing access to the federal courts and all criminal courts in either official language was an important step forward. The office of Commissioner of Official Languages was created to be a sort of linguistic ombudsman. This has been, and will continue to be a most important and necessary function.
Why then do we need this resolution before us? It is not an amendment to the Public Service Employment Act or the Official Languages Act. It will have no force of law. It will not be binding on those administering the law. Perhaps we in this House can agree that there have been problems in administering the legislation. Even the government benches have conceded as much. Since 1969, it has been found that unilingual civil servants, both English and French, require special protection in the process of implementing this legislation. The nine points could provide this much needed protection if the government had chosen to give them the force of law. But it did not. It could have introduced the nine points as regulations under the act and thus given them legal effect, subject to scrutiny by the Statutory Instruments Committee. But it did not.
Instead, the government introduced a resolution designed to force all members of parliament to-to use the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) own words of January 8- "stand up and be counted". Yet the very form in which the matter was introduced negates any legal responsibility on the part of the government to see that the principles are adhered to, even if the resolution were unanimously adopted. It is playing politics with bilingualism in a way which can only be described as cowardly. At a time when diplomatic leadership is needed to assure Canadians, both French and English, that we can live together as a nation

under a strong government in Ottawa, we have a Machiavellian resolution politically designed to open old wounds and cause them to fester once again. What kind of contribution to national unity is this? Is it the only game the Prime Minister really knows how to play?
Obviously, there are two courses one can follow in response to a contrived scheme such as this. One is to vote against the resolution. I cannot do this because the principles and protection enunciated are too important to run the risk of my being misunderstood by a negative vote. The content of this resolution is sound and should be supported. The other course which is open is to give this resolution some teeth; to make the government, the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), the Public Service Commission and the Commissioner of Official Languages legally responsible for its implementation once it is accepted by this House. This is what the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition seeks to do. It sseks to turn the nine principles into law. Mr. Speaker, this amendment puts the government to the test: does it really mean what it says? Can it be trusted? Is it prepared to accept legal responsibility, as well as partisan political gain from a resolution which is so ill-timed and badly motivated?
Lest I be accused of making a purely political speech, let me suggest some advantages which would flow from the adoption of the amendment to make the nine points law. First, it would represent a much firmer direction to the government, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission to see that the principles and protections in this resolution are in fact applied. It would amount to parliament saying to these bodies: We mean business. You must have the bilingual positions identified and designated by December 31, 1978. You must open all competitions to unilingual candidates, French or English, who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual. You must protect the jobs of unilingual incumbents, even if their jobs become designated as bilingual. You must protect the promotion rights of all those in the civil service before 1966 with ten years experience, even if they are unwilling to become bilingual. You must provide effective language training where required.
By putting these and other principles and protections into law, you avoid putting Mr. Carson, Mr. Spicer and the President of Treasury Board into the invidious position of deciding between the enforcement of a statute having judicial sanction and the implementation of a mere resolution of the House of Commons, not having the force of law. The present resolution has no sanction in its provisions. Standing alone, it is merely a passive approval of certain measures with no power of disapprobation. Put into legislation, these difficulties would be overcome.
Second, the many thousands of persons having rights and duties under this resolution have no source of interpretation such as the courts, with respect to statutes. Various authorities may interpret the motion differently from one another and from occasion to occasion. Technically, the House of Commons would be the interpreter of its own resolution, and a person aggrieved by a decision of the authorities would have a remedy only by way of a petition to the House. But how workable would this be, considering the thousands of civil servants to be affected
Official Languages
by the provisions of the resolution? Surely it is better to put it into law, thus providing more certainty and uniformity in interpretation. This would apply particularly to decisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, arbitration tribunals and adjudicators hearing language grievances of federal employees under the relevant legislation.
Third, a final advantage relates to appeal rights. Last December, the President of Treasury Board promised the National Joint Council of the Public Service and Treasury Board that the government "was prepared to set up an appeal procedure if necessary". Yet the nine points contain nothing along these lines, and so far the government has not seen fit to make a specific proposal. By giving the nine points the force of law, as the amendment would do, we would increase the possibilities by which an aggrieved public servant, English or French, could pursue a remedy in the courts, whether by way of statutory appeal, right of review or prerogative writ.
An important new court, the Federal Court of Canada, was established by legislation in the last parliament. It permits easier access to a judicial remedy by persons aggrieved by decisions of federal boards, commissions or other tribunals. Regardless of the particular mode of access to the trial or appellate division of that court, which is now possible or would be possible under future amendments, it is certain that the principles and protections contained in the resolution before us will never represent a ground for going to court unless they are enacted into law. In their present state, however, they are impotent in the context of the judicial process.
What is the government's response to this amendment? The Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) spoke last Friday and ventured these observations: First, he said it was "amusing" that the opposition should favour actual legislation in the light of comments made prior to the passage of the Official Languages Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, we accepted that act. The Leader of the Official Opposition has crossed this country to obtain a broader understanding and compassion toward the act-a task often made much more difficult by the excesses, insults and indignities of the Trudeau government. It was not an "amusing" commitment which the Leader of the Opposition made them; nor is it, now, when he calls on the government to give the force of law to what it says. It was a deadly serious commitment.
Second, the Minister of Communications says that it would be extremely costly to go through the legislative process because it is quite painstaking. Surely, that statement alone proves the political motivation behind the resolution. The government really does not care enough to give the principles of protection the dignity of becoming law as long as it can achieve its political purposes. What would be the cost that would be so high? One would have thought that the government would have gained a little more respect for the legislative process since last October. I hope that the legislative process will not be treated as lightly as it has been. To refer to a comment made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it is difficult to enact laws in this parliament; however, it may be easy to enact some important principles

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
into law and then have those principles implemented and applied through regulations, which are made, repealed, and then remade every day of the week.
Third, the Minister of Communications said that to amend the legislation would be a loss of time. A loss of time for what? The government is prepared to devote five days of House time at this point in our history to the discussion of a language resolution and to give it priority over housing legislation, tax legislation, family allowance legislation, much needed amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act-all matters of the utmost urgency. Yet it has the audacity to suggest to the House that the use of legislation to give added weight and certainty to the principles and protections would lead to a loss of time. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. The government wants the political benefits of the legislation but none of the responsibilities.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) rejected the amendment on behalf of the government because, he said, there must be flexibility. It seems strange that the Minister of Finance should make this argument now when in 1969, as Minister of Justice piloting the original bill through the House, he did not see any necessity for flexibility in regard to certain detailed and complex provisions relating to judicial proceedings which were contained in the Official Languages Act. He guided that act through the House and protected it against the onslaught of some provincial attorneys general.
These important provisions to which I have referred related to language rights of witnesses, simultaneous translation in the courts, and the language of proceedings in federal courts and in criminal cases in provincial courts. These were important provisions and protections which the government saw fit to include in its legislation. I am glad that the then minister of justice fought to put those protections into the legislation, even though some provincial attorneys general ultimately insisted that the protections be conditional upon provincial laws providing such protections in civil proceedings. The minister fought for those principles then and I only wish he would fight for them now. The protection afforded witnesses in the courts went into the law; why not protections afforded to the civil service?
To turn to the arguments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, his reasons for not supporting the amendment are that the nine principles and related matters are still being sorted out. If they are still being sorted out, why does the government bring forward this resolution now? There are urgent items facing this House and the country, yet the government has seen fit to proceed with this resolution now. Surely, we have proceeded far enough and have sorted out sufficiently the principles and general statements now to go 100 per cent of the way.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that really we do need flexibility, again reiterating the argument made by the minister of justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance.


Ronald George Atkey: Excuse me, the Minister of Finance. The hon. member said that the legislative process was a little too rigid for the task at hand. I do not need to tell the hon.

member of some of the devices available in legislation to overcome rigidity. Legislation has been enacted in this House in which provision is made that automatically, as of a certain date, the House or a committee of the House will undertake a review of its provisions. One also has other means of automatic termination or automatic review, committee screening or committee scrutiny, of particular pieces of legislation. The legislative process can be and has been part of the on-going process of consultation to which the hon. member referred, and which I agree is very important. So the government has flexibility even though it proceeds with legislation. I suggest the flexibility is there through the vehicle of regulations. Then, we have an important new joint committee of this House and the Senate known as the statutory instruments committee. It really has not done very much yet but I suggest it could perform a valuable function by reviewing the regulations, which are the traditional instruments of flexibility, and that the government should seriously consider this in this particular context.
I honestly urge members of the government, particularly the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Communications who are not here at the moment, to reconsider their objections to the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that those objections are what might be termed "knee-jerk" reactions-automatic responses whenever the opposition proposes something positive. I candidly admit that sometimes the opposition, or individual members of the opposition, have "knee-jerk" reactions to government proposals; this is the very nature of the institution in which we are all working. But I think it would be in the interests of this country for the members of the government, and indeed the members of the party to my left, to reconsider their position seriously, to examine the resolution before us and to ask themselves whether they agree with us that it should be given teeth by being incorporated into law.
Let me conclude by touching on broader items but within the context of the language question. I agree with others in this House who have said that this government has made a fundamental mistake in its approach to language rights. In my view, this fundamental mistake is that it sees protection of language rights as the only solution to problems in Canada. It is an approach which concentrates only upon institutional values and ignores more fundamental claims to economic and social equality which can only be achieved through more effective policies relating to prices, incomes, social services and regional disparities, policies certainly more effective than the government has provided to date.
This simple, straight-line approach of the present government ignores the fact that man's salvation, whether he be a francophone, an anglophone, or a member of a third linguistic group, is not merely to have services from his government in his own language; that is only part of the problem. Too often we look at the provision of government services as the cure-all. Surely, it is equally important, if not more important, to ensure that the individual has a climate of freedom-freedom to seek a job or vocation, freedom to travel, to join organizations, to read, to earn a decent living, to have decent housing, to develop himself spiritually and intellectually, and to gain the respect and admiration of his fellow man. These are some of the goals
June 5, 1973

of Canadians whatever their language. Language is important. But language claims often tend to be outward manifestations of more basic human claims made as a result of a wide range of social, economic and cultural deprivations. Let us get on with the task of meeting some of the problems faced by this country. The principles of the language resolution will help, but they are not the only solution to national unity. Most Canadians agree with these principles; let us pass them now. I would be happier to enact them into law, but regardless, let us pass them and get on to other things. There is so much to do; let us get on with the job.
I should like in this debate to associate myself with the thoughtful remarks of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition and even the leader of the NDP. These are the true leaders of this country, the people to whom the great majority of Canadians look for guidance, leadership and direction. Most important of all, these are the leaders of the young people of this country who have articulated their goals and their aspirations. Young Canadians want many things in relation to language; they want educational support to the provinces for second-language training. Sometimes they wish the government would do a better job of explaining its bilingual policy to their parents and grandparents, as this would mean their goals and aspirations might be easier met. Most of all, young Canadians will support this resolution and its contents, whatever its form, so let us get on with the job.


Mr. Pierre de Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks with a quotation from the B and B Royal Commission report. Paragraph 243 read thus:
The possibility of national disintegration has forced a reexamination of the linguistic policies of the Public Service. The debate is no longer about efficiency, merit, patronage, and representation, but rather between thorough-going reform and schism.
"Reform or schism", that is indeed the subject of the debate we are holding these days. Some complain, and I understand them, about this matter being brought up, it is of course a subject which arouses passions and reveal plainly the prejudicies of a good part of our population.
However, in my opinion, we will have to settle this question once and for all because as a great historian said in a book entitled Maple Leaf Forever the story of this country has always been unstable and precarious precisely because our major problems have never been discussed and never been settled at the satisfaction of our two great majorities.
When you read the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism whose members were chosen among our most competent citizens and when you see at each page the injustice inflicted upon our Frenchspeaking people you cannot but feel frustrated and I would say you cannot help crying over such small results achieved after 100 years.
I would quote only a few pertinent paragraphs. Paragraph 730 reads as follows:
730. On balance, however-
Official Languages -despite all the progress made-[DOT]
-extensive optimism is not warranted. In an organizational structure where the English language and culture predominate, there are still many factors blocking the progress of Francophones.
The three most important involve their adjustment to settings where English is dominant, their aversion to making geographic moves outside French-speaking areas,-
-and this is understandable-
-and problems of social relations and sponsorship.
I now quote from paragraph 752:
Everywhere in the Public Service there is great concern for recruiting Francophones, but the desire seems to be for men who will fit easily into the existing structure. The desire for Francophones was rarely complemented by a willingness to provide the intellectual atmosphere and working conditions for the development of their talents-The greatest drawback Francophone public servants must face is the cultural milieu of the federal administration: it is so overwhelmingly "English" that it is difficult for Francophones to identify with its problems or with the style of life, honour, and prestige of its officers.
I now quote from paragraph 767:
The greatest obstacle to equal partnership in the federal Public Service-The factor that most impedes a strong Francophone presence is the environment of the Public Service: its underlying assumptions and conventions, its prejudices, and, most important, its language, all of which are overwhelming of English-speaking Canada.
The discrimination of which the French-speaking population has been the victim had been exposed some years before by the Glassco Commission which was set up by the official opposition and had been made known much earlier by the French-speaking group since the beginning of the century. Let us remember the Lacroix amendment, the Jean committee, the amendments proposed by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and all the committees set up in the past: we see that progress has been slow, that the French Canadians have suffered from injustice and that the resolution before the House is in my opinion a very small effort to remedy the situation.
Some maintain that the Official Languages Act has settled those problems. Let me emphasize what the Commissioner of Official Languages wrote, a few weeks ago, in the report submitted to the House. On page 12, we can read and I quote:
Although the Act has been in effect for well over three years, it is painfully clear that many government agencies still consider the Act part of a distant and irrelevant archive. As a result, they have too often proven unwilling-
In the legal sense, unwilling and malice are the same thing, Mr. Speaker.
-or unable to effect significant reform without the Commissioner's intervention.
And he quotes several examples, particularly on page 9, some of which are shocking.
And that is why many French Canadians-myself included-are being humiliated every day in Ottawa because of the way they are treated as French Canadians and that is why I am not surprised when French-speaking public servants come to me and say that they can no longer live in such a hostile environment and prefer to go back to the province of Quebec.

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
And that humiliation, once again, is an every day reality, and many examples could be given merely on the way the French language is respected even here within the walls of this Parliament.
I just mentioned the alienation of French-speaking public servants. One could talk about the alienation of English-speaking westerners who are no more adequately represented in the federal public service. One could also talk in passing about the alienation of English-speaking Quebecers who are absent from the provincial public service. One can also talk about the absence of native groups. But I know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is making considerable efforts in that respect within his department. I was speaking a while ago of alienation English-speaking westerners who are also right when they complain, because in a federal government, a government that should represent citizens from all Canada, all areas-maritimes provinces or Quebec or western Canada-should be represented as Ontario has always been.
My other comment is that considering all the efforts that were made during the last half-century, the amendments to the regulations of the Public Service Commission, the laws that were enacted and the resolutions that remained a dead letter, I believe it is high time we had a control system as they say in English a monitoring system-to check the progress that will be made.
The resolution mentions efforts to appoint Frenchspeaking people. I could quote regulations going as far back as 1908, about efforts in that, field. One needs only recall the right hon. Lester B. Pearson, the hon. Maurice Lamontagne and many other leaders who also talked about efforts to appoint French-speaking people. Moreover, let me recall that in 1955 the number of Francophones in the public service amounted to 22 per cent and that this percentage has not increased since. I believe that a close supervision will be necessary to make sure that there is progress.
And to think that more than 65 big statistical charts were prepared by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission and that not a single one was kept up to date, while we know very well that statistics on almost everything in Canada, except this question, were of some concern-one might say that to talk about that is inelegant, disgraceful or improper-I think that work will have to be done over again and kept up to date.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the fate of the French-speaking group in this country for the last 100 years does not speak well for us; it is not one of the most beautiful pages in the history of this country. Not only are we a minority submerged in an English-speaking environment, but everything has worked against us.
I do not wish to go back very far, but let us consider only the immigration policy for the past 100 years. Nothing has been done during the past 100 years to prevent immigration from jeopardizing further the dangerous position of the French-Canadian people.
Finally, as to the measure for the establishment of French language units, I think that the only model acceptable is that suggested by the commission, especially on pages 284 and the following of the report, where it spells

out what are French language units, that is a department where, parallel to unilingual English language units, we would have an equally important unilingual French language section in addition to common bilingual services. It is different from what we have now where French units, for all practical purposes, are located in certain parts of Quebec.
It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, in view of the situation I have just described, that we should notice that the percentage of resignations and departures among Frenchspeaking Canadians is, according to the statistics of the commission, much greater than among English-speaking Canadians. I think it is true that they cannot indefinitely bear this alienation to which they are submitted every day and eventually they leave the federal civil service.
I think that we should fight on a daily basis. Most of our past efforts have led to failures. We failed to make this country really the true champion of both cultures. Mr. Speaker, far from me the idea of uttering threats, but my humble opinion is that the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada is written down in history unless we succeed in making Ottawa and the federal government the champion of the two cultures. And to the extent where French Canadians will feel humiliated as they still do today, I think that this is the most dangerous seed for separation.
Obviously, it can be said that I am exaggerating, just as French Canadians said that English-Canadian westerners exaggerated when they complained when someone suggested doing away with the four small letters R.C.M.P. But this reminds me of a sentence by Albert Memmi in his book "Le portrait d'un homme colonise": "When someone complains about the injustice he is suffering from, he is always told that he exaggerates".
Mr. Speaker, during the five years I have been here, I have too often witnessed the humiliation the French Canadians are suffering from. I live with it every day and I say that the issues of poverty or economic disparities or others are not at the root of the need French Canadians have to separate, to assert themselves, but it is this constant humiliation in which they are held.
Insofar as I am concerned, it is a daily tragedy to live in an environment which is, not hostile, but unaware of our dignity, and I say to myself that were the English-speaking Canadians to suffer the same prejudices, they would not tolerate them either.
This country is made of two majorities, and together they can form a country where we can really offer to the world an example of tolerance and civilization.
Otherwise, it must be remembered that the Frenchspeaking Canadians have a territory of their own, that they have their own government, and if they are humiliated further, it would be most easy for them, overnight, to find a way to live in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to fight, to keep this country united, but I hope that everyone in this House will want to face this problem once and for all. All our statistics prove what the two Royal Commissions of inquiry and the present Chairman of the Public Service Commission have denounced, including the "discrimination" against the French-Canadians over the past few years.
June 5, 1973

It is important to recognize this and to take the necessary steps to keep our country united. Of course, this will mean concerted efforts and a high price; but it all this depends upon our scale of values. Do we want a united country or not? If the effort is really too great, let us say so. If economic values must have priority, we might as well join the United States. However, I have always thought that we stood for other values and, in this respect, to my mind the co-existence of various groups within the same community bears witness to a civilized society. It is pointless to dream of understanding between men, between peoples of the world who have never met if, in this country, where we have been living side by side for the past 100 years, we cannot achieve more mutual respect.
Mr. Speaker, a debate such as this one today is essential. It must be devoid of political considerations. I mentioned earlier, and other hon. members repeated it after me, that it has been said that it is indecent to speak of co-existence between various groups which have never gone to the roots of these problems; I, for one, consider that it is imperative that we talk about it now, if we do not want to face separatist and secessionist winds later on.
Mr. Speaker, we must recognize, as the Royal Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism stressed on every page of its report, the problem of the federal administration; as we can read in every paragraph of Volume III, it is the problem of discrimination against French Canadians. Let us read again all its recommendations; every one is related to the discrimination against Francophones.
That is why I wish I could have voted for the amendment moved by the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but, unfortunately, this amendment relates only to the first part of the resolution. I really don't understand why it cannot also include the second part of the resolution, which is a follow-up, a reply to the Commission's report.
This is, Mr. Speaker, what I had to say. I think that coolly and dispassionately we will have to tackle the problem as it is, that of a people who for 100 years have been denied justice. Surely there has been some progress, but as they assert themselves increasingly, and become aware that they must shape their own fate, two avenues are open to them; either, become equal partners, and I think that it is the only valid objective in the federal Public Service, or entrench themselves. We must all cooperate so that those two large groups, as well as all the others which have been unfairly treated, may feel fairly dealt with by the Canadian government. To the extent where the government or the entire country become defenders of the French as well as the English cultures- and that is the only solution-this problem will be solved. Any other procedure or solution is a palliative that will not stand the test of time and the awareness of the people.
That is why I think that this debate should be held on a higher level than that of politics; the time has come to make the same diagnosis as the Commission and say that the only possible solution for this country is to act so both majorities will consider themselves as equal partners.
Official Languages


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the speaker who just resumed his seat. I believe he spoke as a real French Canadian; he deserves our consideration.
I have read very carefully the resolution moved by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) concerning the use of both official languages within the Public Service. My speech will certainly not be as well structured and as colorful as the one made by the right hon. Prime Minister as I do not have the multiplicity of 90 per cent Englishspeaking technocrats who surround him to think and write for him, as is also the case with the Treasury Board President (Mr. Drury).
In fact, as I have said already in this House, that deep feeling of discomfort that exists in this parliament is due to the fact that the government is only the reflection of the bureaucracy-in the main, Anglophone-that reigned supreme over all successive governments.
In such a government, the minister, as well as the government member, completely loses his personality. That explains, in fact, why voters no longer recognize their representatives once they sit on the government side.
As, for 11 years now, I have made it a point of being realistic, I may be harsh towards some, but I intend, even so, to tell you the truth about bilingualism in the Public Service as well as in our federal courts of justice and Crown corporations. As I am not in power, I do not have to act according to the pleasure of a dictatorial bureaucracy and I can voice the views of the people.
In order to hide their incapacity to change anything basic, the government members, who have succeeded one another during 100 years of confederative life, have tossed around beautiful principles without ever achieving any concrete results.
The resolution introduced in the House on May 30 last is an unparalleled example of what I have just stated. At the beginning, it is the same old story, that is the principles concerning the official languages embodied indefinitely in Chapter 0-2 of Volume V of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.
Naturally, we are for those principles since we have adopted them, but we are for their implementation and not for their shelving. Mr. Speaker, here is the beginning of the resolution of the right hon. Prime Minister as given on page 4302 of Hansard:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That this House,
(i) aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following Principles for achieving the foregoing:

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
And following that hymn to the glory of the principles, the Prime Minister makes an extraordinary discovery. He discovers the reality of the country. After having repeated his song on national unity, he finds out that we are dealing with specific political and social realities. And I quote again the Prime Minister:
We are dealing with very specific political and social realities.
And a stark reality of our country is this: there are about 16 million English-speaking Canadians, most of whom speak no French. There are about 6 million French-speaking Canadians, a majority of whom speak no English. If only because of sheer force of numbers, either group has the power to destroy the unity of this country.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker: two numerically dominant language groups, both of them prevalently unilingual. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) reminded us last December:
That same President of the Treasury Board repeated that to us in his last speech which completed the one written for the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I want to warn the persons in charge at the office of the President of the Treasury Board about contradictions, when they state on page 4347 of the Hansard, and I quote:
It is part of this law that Canadians should be able to receive services from, and communicate with, their government in the official language of their choice.
That conditional mood, Mr. Speaker, well indicates that all Canadians do not now have that power to communicate, even after the passing of the Official Languages Act.
Why then does he state in the same paragraph, and I quote:
In Canada . . . the passage of the Official Languages Act made this the law.
Even if one is a seasoned civil servant, one need not treat everybody like morons.
I was also very much interested by the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-which easily harmonizes with the statements of the Prime Minister-although his predecessor was singing a different tune.
I was very much impressed by the frankness of the Leader of the Official Opposition who stated that this motion, which he will nevertheless support, is null and void. We can read his statement in Hansard on page 4314, where the Leader of the Official Opposition is reported as saying:
The adoption of this resolution-I emphasize this-is not binding on the government. It is a matter of law, despite what the Prime Minister said in the House of May 7 of this year in answer to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). One might argue, of course, that there would be some moral obligation on the part of the government to comply with the resolution, but there certainly could be no legal obligation on the part of the government, or officials administering the legislation, because this resolution cannot have the force of law, cannot change any existing law and cannot be binding upon those who are administering the law.
One realizes that the civil servants who hold positions are reassured. They will never be subjected to any obligations. That is a point which the Prime Minister strove to hide from the House, for fear of informing the Canadian people.

When the Official Languages Act was promulgated, it was evident that many civil servants were afraid of some transfers. When, after nearly 100 years, during which the public service was open only to unilingual English-speaking Canadians and a few perfectly bilingual Frenchspeaking Canadians, it was quite difficult for this predominating group to accept the arrival of a group which represents after all one third of the Canadian population. And I am quite moderate when I say this, since the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who can speak freely to the English-speaking people, stated in the House on May 31, and I quote:
Those of us who are English-speaking and who see that side ought to remember that the French-speaking Canadian has not had an opportunity to advance in the public service of Canada, not only for a century but for two centuries: not only since confederation, but for a century before confederation that was the situation in this country.
Those are statements which speak volumes and at the same time explain the reaction of the young people, particularly in Quebec, when they see such absurd and longstanding discrimination. Indeed, when the young people look at all the efforts made by the Creditistes since 1962 in order to be recognized as French Canadians, more specifically in this House, they cannot but be disappointed to realize the few gains painfully acquired.
An English-speaking member was pleased to praise the simultaneous translation now available in this House as well as in committees. But do the members newly elected since 1962 even know about the fight that we, of the Creditiste party, had to put up to get that service in all the standing committees of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I still remember as if it were yesterday all the sarcasm and the insults we had to put up with from our fellow citizens, some of whom were French-speaking. The latter called us "peasants" and "stupid" because we dared protest against English-speaking unilinguism which had always existed in committees.
At that time, at the end of our tether, in order to have few words of French in committees, we finally decided to boycott committee work until we obtained justice. The operation was successful because since then, we enjoy this marvelous system of simultaneous translation.
I frankly admit that many times I felt like giving up everything because of the attitude of my French-speaking colleagues who sat on those committees. And had it not been for the support of many of my English-speaking friends, some of whom are still in the House today and I could point at, I believe that we could not survive those insidious attacks.
Indeed, when we left the committee rooms after stopping any proceedings without interpretation, those sincere friends whom I will never forget even if they were not from my party, shaked hands with me and said, "Cheer up, you will win. Pay no attention to your fellow countrymen, only think of your cause, because you are one hundred per cent right."
Today, we hear those jokers, those third rate members who fought against us during those difficult years, say in the House that their party introduced the simultaneous translation and that they granted some other small concessions to French Canadians. They seem satisfied with the
June 5, 1973

crumbs obtained after much protest and pleading. It is because of such jokers that Quebec has never managed to take its place within the Canadian nation.
Let us stop saying "damned Englishmen" and let us look at ourselves in the mirror in order to see if we truly reflect the image ascribed to us by the people in Quebec. We have just conducted a little investigation on the percentage of French Canadians within the public service. And yet there are many French-Canadian ministers in the present cabinet. It is simply revolting, Mr. Speaker, to think that we make up one third of the population of Canada and that new Canadians outnumber us in the public service. Nevertheless, French Canadians in other parties say they are satisfied with the situation.
The Prime Minister boasts about being a dyed-in-the-wool French Canadian, but he has not dared yet hire a single unilingual French Canadian, whereas 90 per cent of his battalion is made up of unilingual anglophones, the few French Canadians working for him being all fluently bilinguals. "How about that?" as the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would say.
In another area, the National Energy Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat answered a question from the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) concerning the percentage of English-speaking and French-speaking civil servants. As far as the National Energy Board is concerned, out of 212 employees, 173 are unilingual anglophones, 1 is francophone and 38 are bilingual. At the Treasury Board Secretariat, out of 159 employees, 126 are unilingual anglophones, there are no francophones and 33 are bilingual.
As a result, I think the figures speak for themselves! We do not need any other proof. I said I would throw some light on some truths that honest Canadians will find shocking, but they must be told in this House. It is all very well to buy "translating machines", but what about the increase in the number of French-speaking employees here in Parliament? May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.
It being six o'clock, I leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at six o'clock, it is all very well to have bought and installed a simultaneous translation system, but the increase in the number of francophones in the Public Service of Canada must also be accelerated, mainly, at the higher levels of administration. As a matter of fact, I have found that it is extremely difficult for a French-Canadian, even if he is bilingual, to have precedence over an unilingual anglophone. What happens to the 7 per cent bonus for bilingualism designed for the bilingual employees? There again, some cards are not played according to the rules of the game. If I had the time to do so, I would mention hundreds of cases where people complained of discrimina-
Official Languages
tion to my office, in Parliament, and that I was able to look into. But, what can we do? We run up against a wall of silence at the higher levels of the Civil Service. Everything is done so silently that even the Members of Parliament can't break this silence.
I heard the Leader of the NDP say that this resolution should not have been brought before the House. In this regard, may I be permitted to quote his statement which is recorded in Hansard of May 31, 1973. And I quote:
In a sense, I regret that this resolution has been brought before the House, not for some of the reasons I have heard but for another and perhaps deeper reason.
I have learned that in life, particularly in collective life, there are matters with respect to which repeated argument produces confrontation and repeated confrontation pollutes rather than clears the air-
-I am not certain that it is the wisest step to bring this resolution before the House.
A statement was made by the late Mr. Pearson with regard to policies in the public service. That was followed by the adoption of the Official Languages Act, supported by all parties in this House. Some members opposed it, but all parties officially supported it. We had the introduction of new public service suggestions after volume 3 of the B and B report. Commissioner Spicer reported twice to this Parliament. There has been a great deal of discussion on the subject across this country.
One of the disturbing things about this kind of delicate, sensitive subject is that instead of discussion producing more understanding and clearing the air, it frequently rejuvenates prejudices and misunderstandings rather than allaying them. That is why I am sorry to some extent that this resolution is now before us.
The leader of the New Democratic Party seems to be afraid of delicate and sensitive subjects as he calls them. Well, we are not afraid of them at all, because we know how to deal with thorny subjects. You just have to pluck off their thorns.
That is why we are going to consider carefully the nine principles contained in the Prime Minister's resolution. Let me warn hon. members right away that even though we agree with the introduction and the conclusion of this resolution, we are strongly opposed to some items because they counteract the beneficial effects of the resolution itself.
The first principle reads as follows:
that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will be first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
We cannot accept to wait another five years after having already lost four. Indeed, since the act was promulgated, nothing has been done. People seemed convinced that it was only a matter of passing an act and that everything would go well in the public service. And as a consolation prize, the Prime Minister tells us that bilingual positions will be identified within a period of five years. It is that extension, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot accept.
The second principle reads as follows:
that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
That falls precisely within our principles of letting each citizen decide freely on those positions, French positions and English positions.
The third principle deals with standard knowledge, and I quote:
that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
And I read it purposely because the next principle contradicts this last one when it is says that knowledge of French and English is absolutely essential to be able to seek bilingual positions.
As for the fourth principle, we read in connection with competitions, and I quote:
(4)	competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates-
A bilingual position is set up and will be open to unilingual candidates-
-who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
It is somewhat as if we started to give a doctor's degree to a student wishing to become a doctor. It seems to me quite normal to require qualifications from someone for a competition. But everything is turned upside down with this resolution saying that unilingual candidates will also be eligible for competitions for bilingual positions.
The fifth principle reads as follows:
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
This is quite well, we admit it.
The sixth principle is as follows: that unilingual incumbents-
I think that the Prime Minister felt remorse when he included that principle in his resolution.
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain-
-simply in their position, not give a darn about bilingualism and continue to practise unilingualism just as in the two past centuries.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this provision is a backward step; we will prevent those who are qualified from holding positions which they would fill better than unilingual individuals. I continue the quotation dealing further with unilingualism:
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal Public Service, will be entitled to apply for any job-
... let us not forget that we are always referring to unilingual employees ...
. .. that has been identified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willingness to become bilingual;
It is fantastic, Mr. Speaker. The worse is still to come:
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the Public Service ...
... who have never worked in the Public Service . . .
. .. who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions . ..
Imagine the mess! And they will try to make us swallow that!
I frankly say, after reading those conditions, that it is impossible for us to remain unconcerned about those proposals which are a complete reversal of the idea which underlies the preamble to the resolution.
The Prime Minister suggests at first the establishment of bilingual positions to guarantee adequate service to both main ethnic groups in Canada, but those positions may be filled by unilingual employees. The only qualification required will be the desire to learn another language. Nobody may be compelled to learn another language.
When bilingual districts and bilingual positions have been set up by the government, several persons, including our young university graduates who are perfectly bilingual, will be ready to take over. We will then have a sufficient number of competent people to fill those positions without being obliged to submit ourselves to the principles included in this resolution which are "superlatively ridiculous" because it will have been pointless for the Prime Minister to arrive at such brilliant conclusions and then destroy them completely by imposing politically biased conditions. This is mainly the result of political fears: the liberals have not yet admitted their last defeat; they will resort to anything to get votes from our two main ethnic groups in the next election.
Although the first principles of the resolution are good, the three or four I have mentioned are quite bad and unacceptable to my colleagues of the Social Credit.
Here is the only solution: If we want everyone to be satisfied, two parallel systems should be established, one in French and the other in English. This will be costly, but not more than all the bilingual positions that will never be bilingual and that will always be English unilingual. The only way to work towards national unity and to meet the needs of both groups in the linguistic field is to accept the proposals made recently by my colleague for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) and by the other members of the Social Credit, namely to create two parallel groups within the Public Service, one English and the other French.
Thus, we will really be able to strive towards national unity within diversity. Because Canada is unity within diversity, let us respect this diversity and give each citizen what he needs to live and guarantee his language and his institutions.
Then we will start working seriously towards Canadian unity.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by extending my congratulations to the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who spoke this afternoon and to tell him, through you, Sir, that I appreciated the forthright and sincere manner of his speech and hope that he will accept mine in the same spirit.

June 5, 1973

I rise as a western Canadian to take part briefly in this debate. No one can presume to speak for all of western Canada; it is a huge expanse of diverse interests and a multitude of cultures. It is this very variety that is one of our strengths. But we consider ourselves Canadian first and we put the interests of Canada ahead of regional viewpoints. At least, that is the approach of those for whom I speak in this House. With great deference to those who pioneered those great open spaces, with great respect to those who claim an affinity to languages and cultures other than English and French, we speak for the new west.
It is time for Canada to hear the voice of the new west. We are urban and up to date. We are cosmopolitan, with the virtues and vices found in central Canada. We have skyscrapers and traffic jams, cuisine and culture and computers; and lots of energy, both in the ground and in the bodies of industrious, ambitious people. In short, we have the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of Canadians everywhere. We want justice for ourselves, just as we are ready to do our part to obtain justice for all racial and ethnic groups in Canada.
The new west, then-and let this be heard clearly across the land-supports the principles of the Official Languages Act of 1969. Perhaps it was hard at first to swallow, because of our affinity with so many languages other than French, but the new west knows that it was a federal partnership of English and French which created Canada and we respect the principle that the future of one Canada, our Canada, depends on the maintenance of that partnership of equality.

Today, the Western provinces welcome the participation of the French-speaking Quebecers at the governmental level, and after hearing the points made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) on bilingualism among federal employees, nobody can question the issue of this discussion.
As the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is suggesting, the resolution should be annexed to the act, thus making it legal, and ensuring equal protection to all civil servants French- or English-speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: The amendment put forward by my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), is a move to secure both justice and solidarity. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has provided the real leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this spirit of justice and scrupulous concern for the rights of public servants is applauded by the new west. We know that if the government had been led in the past five years by that honest man from Nova Scotia, we in the west would not have felt humiliated by the downgrading of the monarchy, the diminution of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the gestures of contempt at the hands of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
It is lack of concern for our feelings and traditions that has exacerbated the acceptance of functional bilingualism. People in the west have felt threatened that government would be shut off from them unless they spoke French. It was the overbearing manner of the government that
Official Languages
aroused fears in people and created resentment. If the nine points introduced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the uplifting demeanour of the Prime Minister last Thursday had been in evidence these past few years, Canada would have been more at peace with itself, and the personal crises experienced by many in the civil service who felt their careers being peremptorily jeopardized could have been avoided.
I understand that the resolution before us protects the careers of unilingual public servants, whether they speak English or French, while at the same time guaranteeing services to the public in both languages. That demonstrates fairness, and I support it. L. W. Barnes, executive director of the Professional Institute of Canada, the certified bargaining agent for 38 professional groups in the public service, has said that the guidelines in this resolution represent a "great improvement". Claude Edwards, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the guidelines meet most of his objectives.
Let us not, therefore, debate endlessly a resolution that is good for Canada. In Mr. Keith Spicer we have a language ombudsman and I am confident that if we adopt the approach reflected in his second annual report we will make progress. Of course, in matters of bilingualism and multiculturalism a sense of good will and trust is essential. I want the people of Quebec to know that the new west offers that good will and trust.
Education, as everyone knows, is the key to bilingualism. It is in the kindergartens and primary grades that we can make the most significant contribution to developing linguistic fluency; that is where our money and efforts should be directed. English-French relations must be constantly improved for the good of our country. Let us end the two solitudes and work together to build a Canada that yearns to fulfil its destiny in the new global society. Statesmanship, not diatribe, is what this chamber needs and the country wants. I am proud to support the statesmanship of the Leader of the Opposition whose speech on national unity last Thursday was the finest moment the twenty-ninth parliament has yet seen.
Let those who would sow suspicions be trampled in a new harvest of national unity in which the rights of all Canadians are protected and fostered. Let us strive for a new level of national unity, conscious that the aged, youth, women, as well as language groups, must be able to plug into our society.
All this is what the new west wants. Our Canada is on a broad canvas. We have no time for narrow fixations or old battles. We want to spend our energies solving the economic and social problems facing us. In the west we have brains, energy and good will, and we will not be deflected from our task. I say to hon. members: "Let us get on with the job of helping all Canadians achieve their levels of greatness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take long in expressing my views on this subject. I do not believe that anything I might say would greatly influence other members, since I am sure this question has been on their minds for a considerable time and they have

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
already reached a conclusion as to the way in which they intend to vote.
I want to say a few words about the resolution, and I should like to say this at the outset. This is a very sensitive issue. A person's language, or mother tongue as it were, is so much part of his own personality, his family inheritance and background, that it is very difficult to deal with the subject in a large context. On a personal basis it is quite simple, because in personal, individual discussions one can show respect to another human being and this foreshadows, or should foreshadow, any background experiences of individuals involved in such kinds of personal relationships.
However, when government makes a formal decision with regard to the language issue the situation becomes more difficult to cope with, or to appreciate or understand what is involved. The course upon which any government sets out in dealing with language and linguistic matters is impeded by a large number of hazards, not the least of which are emotional feelings that stem from a person's childhood, his upbringing, his schooling and his associations in early life. Not the least of these emotional feelings are those concerning a person's current status if he feels his job or security is threatened either in a real or imagined way.
This is because government is generally insensitive to an individual's plight or his concerns. Government is too big, too massive an organization-and so are big companies-to be aware of any emotional sensitivities that a person has if his job is in jeopardy as a result of linguistic policy. The same is true if his stature in society is placed in doubt, or the way he grew up in life is threatened. In this regard, and for these reasons, I think that government has to be extra careful when dealing with such matters. It has to tread softly and carefully and to move tentatively when bringing about any alteration to existing language concepts within this nation.
Regrettably, I suppose, from the point of view of national unity about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government like to speak so often, the Liberal party has not as a government trodden softly. In fact, if anything it has trampled heavily in the area of language. This government has become associated with the imposition of language upon the public service, particularly with the imposition of the French language upon people in the public service who have worked for many years in a unilingual, English-speaking capacity. On the other hand, one can say this is only the reverse of the coin so far as the Quebecois are concerned, because for four years the English language has been imposed upon French-speaking people from and in Quebec. As I understand it, there has been a denial of opportunity in the past for people of French-speaking origin to move freely, especially in government circles.
However, I do not think that this has been the result of any deliberate or conscious act imposed by statute law or by declaration by the Parliament of Canada; it has resulted from natural outgrowth within the province of Quebec itself. This outgrowth in turn arose from the attitude taken by the late Premier Duplessis, who to my mind was

very parochial in outlook and anti-Canadian in view. He rejected any concept of federalism, rejected aid for universities, refused to accept grants for the trans-Canada highway, as well as a whole bunch of other things designed to assist in the development and growth of Canada as national policy. This outgrowth probably also sprang from an educational system that was geared largely to matters that were neither governmental nor economic but which were largely connected with the arts, and so on. So it is a question of trying to balance the books.
I do not like the term "French Canadian" although it is used pretty commonly, but there are many people of French-speaking origin who during the few years that I have been a member of this House have increasingly, and I think rightly, been demanding respect for themselves, for their language and their position. While it is true that they deserve respect in this regard, it is equally true that they themselves must also show respect. While there may be bigots of great stature, according to their own designation, both in this House and elsewhere of English-speaking background, there are also, regrettably, people of Frenchspeaking origin who are equally bigoted in their view of people of English descent.
A very sad moment in the consideration of the language question came about when the Prime Minister entered into the throne speech debate last January and gave what I would call, in the most polite terms I can think of, a terrible example of indiscretion so far as the language question is concerned. I think he did as much at that time to indicate that he had a closed mind on this subject as others who have spoken in the last day or so in this House have done.
What the speech of the Prime Minister did was to indicate that in January he and some of his colleagues were not really desirous of showing generosity in regard to the development of bilingualism within the public service. His was a comment that was made out of pique. His was a reaction and a response to something that took place on October 30 last, namely, the election. I do not want to dwell too long on that matter because it is an insignificant part of what I want to say.
By contrast, I think we also saw the other side of the Jekyll and Hyde personality that comprises the Prime Minister of this nation. In introducing the resolution to this House he was extremely contrite. He was sorry and rather reflective about his past errors and sins, which showed, I think, not a change in substance or in attitude per se but at least a change in technique and in approach.
Earlier, outside the House, I had expressed the thought that the Prime Minister was a bit childish in wanting to bring a resolution of this nature before the House and to test the authority of his government upon that resolution in terms of want of confidence. I said that if he had wanted an election based on the linguistic policy of the government, there would have been many people in this House, I for one, who would have been glad to accommodate him. But because I felt that the Prime Minister was childish and wrong in his approach is no reason why I have to be.
I am trying to assess as objectively as possible what the initial dangers are that exist in respect of the Official
June 5, 1973

Languages Act and its application to the resolution before us. I think there is great danger in trying to equate bilingualism with Canadian unity. The feeling of Canadians for this nation goes far beyond the question of the linguistic background of an individual or the lack of it, and to try to suggest that one is equal to the other is extremely dangerous.
There is a danger in attempting to bring into effect a policy of bilingualism or any policy of that nature. There is a danger in attempting to force upon Canadians any policy that touches upon Canadian unity. Surely it is dangerous to bring in any policy with the suggestion that the future of this country depends upon its acceptance- and that is the attitude of the government in respect of bilingualism. There is the suggestion that if bilingualism is not accepted, the future of Canada is likewise unacceptable and will fail.
This policy of bilingualism within the public service is a marked change from the attitude exhibited last year by the government. There is a tremendous amount of jealousy among various levels of the public service. There is a great hiving for positions by members of the public service solely for the purpose of advancement, increased power and less work. Many of these people are very narrow minded. There has been, there is and still can be an attitude on the part of certain individuals in the public service to force linguistic requirements on people who may well be at the lower levels of the public service.
Let me read one paragraph from a letter I received from an individual in the public service. This man is not an official of the Public Service Alliance or any other group; he is an uncomplicated worker in the public service. This is a two-page letter which goes into more detail than I could possibly cover in the time allotted to me, but I should like to read this paragraph which points up the situation better than I could. This man writes:
What distresses me more is the fear that now exists among English-speaking people. The French unilingual knows he has the support of the government behind him. If one dares to speak against the policy of bilingualism from an English-speaking viewpoint, you are immediately frowned upon or reminded that your job is your "bread and butter", etc.


An hon. Member:: That's a lot of nonsense.


Frank Howard: Somebody suggests that this is a lot of nonsense. If that suggestion came from the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), I know of no better authority on the subject of nonsense than he.


An hon. Member:: At least I don't take political advantage from a debate on bilingualism.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think the best thing I can do in respect of that hon. member is to ignore him.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Frank Howard: If I do that, I will place him in the category in which he has been placed by the whole cabinet.
There is also a danger, in this question of bilingualism in the public service, in relation to the development of a very small bilingual segment of our society, namely, the 250,000 people who happen to work in the public service. If the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) is
Official Languages
correct in his assessment of the fact that universities are moving away from the requirement of a second language for university entrance, I suggest he is also correct in that we find high school students not being required to take a second language in order to qualify for university courses. We find a tendency not to teach two languages in our schools from kindergarten upward. For this reason I suggest that when we embark upon a policy such as that contained in this resolution, we are in danger of developing a policy of bilingualisms solely and entirely for the purpose of the Public Service of Canada.
I sent a questionnaire to my constituents some two years ago. Hon. members should remember that the most westerly part of my constituency is close to what might be known as the riding of Japan. I asked whether the teaching of French in our schools should start in the lower grades, and the preponderance of those who responded were in favour of teaching the French language in kindergarten. That might be a good idea, but I must admit that in the two or three years I attended high school the classes in French were a waste of everybody's time, including the teacher's. I am sure that not one student graduated with much more knowledge of the French language than I did- and that is the ability to answer "Yes" or "No."
I suggest that this resolution has nothing to do with the teaching of English or French in our schools. The resolution standing in the Prime Minister's name seeks to guarantee certain rights for the people in our public service. It does not seek to guarantee a policy of bilingualism in this country. Presumably it ignores national unity. If a matter of this nature is important enough to this government that it should bring a resolution into the House in this form, it is important enough that the government should bring in a resolution that is acceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: This is a resolution which seeks to set out and recognize certain rights of the people, and so far as I am concerned, when the Prime Minister of Canada seeks to legislate in respect of the rights of people there should be flexibility and room for adjustment; there should not be any potential for interpretation, or misinterpretation as the case may be. These rights should not be negotiable.
I noticed over the weekend that one public servant, a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, came out in opposition to the Conservative amendment. Let me suggest, first, that I am not taking the part of any group or union in the public service and I am not advocating the right of such a group or union to negotiate in respect of any rights declared in law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: I should like to quote point No. 6 of the resolution as an example. This is the crux, the guarantee of the recognition of the right of a person in the civil service to work and to enjoy his work and not to be in fear of losing it because somebody changes the rules in the middle of the game. Point No. 6 reads:
That unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual-
I do not want the Public Service Alliance of Canada bargaining away that kind of right for two cents or three cents an hour or some other fringe benefit they might be able to get in a collective agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: The amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I think, is one which tends to keep the government honest, which tends to keep the government in a position of not only saying they believe in certain principles but that they are prepared to back up that belief with law. The statute amendments do not have to be in a dozen bills that come to the House. The principal point can be contained in one bill embracing the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Act and whatever other acts are involved.
To solidify those rights in law, which I think must be done for people working in the public service, ensures that they are not subject to tampering, subject to negotiations, subject to flexibility, subject to interpretation or misinterpretation. If they are to be permitted, as they are, just straight declarations of parliament subject to the whim or change of whoever happens to be in government, it will always be in the back of the Prime Minister's mind at some time in the future that he would want to get back to that comfortable, pre-October 30 time when he was king and there was no one to challenge him.
Let us put these principles into the law, now that we have a chance. Let us preserve those rights in law. Let us also take the position, as I have tried to say, that we should deal with linguistic matters in a respectful way and by so doing show that we respect the integrity of the individual. Thus, we will get some respect in return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference, first of all, to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that the teaching of French in high schools and universities is being stopped, and that if we are to have a purely bilingual country in the years ahead, the teaching of French should be continued in order to unify this country. I agree wholeheartedly with my friend the hon. member for Skeena that we should put our money where our mouth is. Let us put a bit of federal money into encouraging the teaching of French, not only at universities but in high schools and in public schools right down to kindergarten and pre-kindergarten for as many days a week as possible, as well as encouraging as much teaching of English in French schools as possible.
It is with some sadness that I rise to speak this evening. I have started to write a speech on this topic on a number of occasions but have been somewhat troubled and have had limited success, partly because I support the idea of bilingualism and biculturalism and in an effort to try to learn a language at which I consistently failed in university and in high school I took the opportunity of working for two summers in the region of the Saguenay valley and the little town of Port Alfred. I found it to be an enriching

experience and that despite what the public was saying, what the politicians were saying and what the press was saying, people are people and it does not matter whether they speak English, French, German, Cree or any other language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am sad because we as Canadians are losers again. In the throne speech the government preached two priorities, the first about economic matters and the second about social and welfare matters. Neither priority has been established to any degree in this parliament. Canadians have been fooled again. This government has falsely presented the facts, and I call this a misrepresentation. They have changed the list of priorities. I am also saddened because lurking in the background is Canadian unity.
In May and June of 1968 in the constituency which I have the privilege and honour to represent, namely, Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, one could see a sign on all the trees and telegraph poles which read "One Canada: Trudeau, McBride". In 1969 a language debate took place and my Liberal predecessor did not take part in it, I am informed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), because he felt that his constituents did not want him to speak in support of the Official Languages Act. I do not hide. I will speak in favour of the Official Languages Act and of this resolution.
In 1972, after the election of October 30, I was somewhat discouraged and disappointed in my predecessor, the Reverend Murray McBride, referring to the people in Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton as bigots, as was reported from coast to coast and appeared on the front pages of Vancouver newspapers and Halifax newspapers. This is the man who did not have the courage to speak in the debate on the Official Languages Act, yet he called us bigots.
In January of 1973 I almost rose in my place for the first time on a question of privilege when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was addressing this House and made a comment which could only be interpreted as meaning that we on this side of the House are bigots. I did not like that. Now, in June of 1973, we have heard the comment of that noble gentleman, that noble Liberal, that noble person, Mr. Jack Pickersgill. He created his own job for retirement, left his $37,000 cabinet post for his $50,000 self-created job, and as soon as he got out decided he was going to be a Liberal again and called all of us Tories bigots. If you define bigotry as not understanding or not wanting to understand another person's point of view, then it follows that he who calls a person a bigot is a bigot himself.
To my way of thinking it is unfortunate that the government of today and the Liberal party seem to have cornered the market on calling people bigots. Let us do away with that word. Let us throw it out of parliament. That word should be tossed on the trash heap before the word "liar". It is easy to prove somebody a liar, but you cannot prove somebody a bigot because bigotry is a state of mind.
I am also sad because although the government says it feels this question is important and is a matter of priority,
June 5, 1973

the Prime Minister did not feel it was important enough, nor did the majority of his senior cabinet officials-especially those from Quebec-feel it was important enough to stick around in this chamber and hear other points of view. They did not even have the courtesy to hear the points of view presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and by the leaders of the other parties. That is some sense of priority, some sense of wanting to understand!
Any segment of society, whether it be French, English, East European, West European, Eskimo, Indian or what-have-you, is entitled to a sense of security. I will always vote for and support that which helps give a segment of people a sense of security if it does not encroach upon other people's sense of security. I said much the same thing in the recent debate on capital punishment. I say French-speaking Canadian felt threatened, felt that their sense of security was in jeopardy; therefore, to help provide them with a sense of security parliament deemed fit to enact the Official Languages Act. I support that act.
Now we have some unilingual, English-speaking Canadians who want the same feeling of security, and we have this resolution. The resolution is not much, but it is a small token in giving that sense of security and therefore I will gladly support it. However, I repeat that this resolution does not go far enough. If legislation was necessary to bolster the sense of security of French-speaking Canadians, then surely legislation is necessary to bolster the sense of security of English-speaking Canadians.
The resolution itself means nothing. It is not binding as a legal precedent. It cannot be pleaded in the courts. It cannot be cited in any court in this land. It has the same effect as Pearson's pledge, which has been referred to in this debate and which Mr. Carson said did not bind him at all; he said he went by the law of the land. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has already told this House that a resolution does not bind the government. Therefore, the government will not be bound by this resolution.
Through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the government says that it wants to remain flexible. If it wants to remain flexible it must already have in mind the idea of changing these principles. I do not think they should be so flexible as to be changed at the whim of the government. There is no guarantee, as the Minister of Finance indicated yesterday, in this resolution for our civil servants. Claude Edwards, the leader of a group of public service employees, says he wants the resolution made into law, but not yet. Has Claude Edwards negotiated a contract, a collective agreement with the government? If he has, that does give those civil servants a sense of security because they can sue on the basis of a contract or collective agreement. But if he has not negotiated and signed such a collective agreement or contract, then members of the public service are being sold short by their leader in this instance: they have no security whatever.
I accept the principles contained in this resolution, but I ask the House to have the courage of its convictions and put those principles into law. If this amendment is defeated, if the members of the NDP let down the workers in the civil service, then their principles, the socialist principles of protecting employees, are once again swept under the
Official Languages
carpet and the English-speaking public servant is left with only hopes of good faith to depend on, with no law, no contract, no collective agreement. With this government, Mr. Speaker, I would never want to depend on its good faith.
If you have a contract or collective agreement, it can always be amended. It could be amended within minutes, with a notarial seal on it and a few signatures. If you have a law, it may take an amendment three or four days at the most to pass through the House of Commons. Surely that would give flexibility enough, if the government wants flexibility, and would provide security if a person wanted to go to court.
The Minister of Finance says it is a guarantee. It is a worthless guarantee. Perhaps we in this House should some time consider legislation dealing with guarantees, with unscrupulous salesmen delivering goods under a worthless guarantee. The only way to guarantee these principles is by contract, collective agreement of legislation. I can only add that if there is a contract or collective agreement stating these principles, then there is no need for this debate. If there is not an agreement, then we as good parliamentarians should make the resolution into law. This resolution is not being made into law. I believe it is only here to cause mischief-the old divide and rule principle. It is politically motivated. God, please don't divide my country over politics. The people of Canada are not causing disunity; it is the politicians in this chamber and the politicians outside this chamber, the ones who are hungering for power or who are trying to cling to power who are trying to divide this country for their own political ends.
Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to take part in the partitioning or dismembering of this country. Canada is too important and should not be pulled apart by politicians crying "unity", "bigotry", or "disunity". All politicians who make Canadian unity part of a partisan political process should be condemned. Even when the politicians are acting irresponsibly, as I believe we are in this debate, I plead with the members of the press to act responsibly. Don't use national unity, Canadian unity, for sensationalized stories. If the politicians are acting like children trying to pull Canada apart, I beg the press to condemn the politicians and to act to keep Canada together.
If the amendment to put the resolution into law in the near future is defeated, nevertheless, as I have already said, I will support the main motion. It really will be the case that if I cannot get a whole loaf, at least I might get a crumb. It will be negligible, perhaps a small deposit. I would not condemn those who choose to vote against the motion if the amendment is defeated, for they may be saying that if you give French-speaking Canadians a sense of security by putting the principle into law, you should also give English-speaking Canadians the same sense of security by putting it into law. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
4468

June 5, 1973
Official Languages


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am taking the other approach, that a promise is better than nothing at all. I am hoping that the day will come when this party forms the government and we can put this resolution into law. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any great facility with the French language.

Mr. Speaker, I am not bilingual, but I can try to express myself in French; I know a few words. When I think about Canada, I think about a country from sea to sea, about a Canada composed of ten provinces and two territories, a Canada composed of many ethnic groups but with two official languages, a Canada where all peoples are happy.
Mr. Speaker, I love Canada, my Canada: Long live Canada!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my colleagues are not clapping any louder.
Mr. Speaker, I was anxious, like so many others, to take part in this debate, and particularly as a Quebecer. I believe this is a very special opportunity to express, as a Quebecer and as a francophone, my opinions on the past which I will not describe because time does not allow me.
Still, I should like to make a few comments on the resolution and on the amendment under study. In 1970, we passed an official languages act that was very promising, and which I supported off-hand; I was very happy to do it. We hoped that, with this 1970 bill, we would eliminate the disappointment of some of the French-speaking people in this country and also, at the same time, ensure the security of the employees in the Civil Service.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the objectives sought or set at the time have not all been reached. Should we blame the government for this delay in the implementation of bilingualism throughout the Civil Service?
I would be tempted instead to blame a few responsible persons in the Civil Service, persons who may not have understood. There were certainly people within the public service who did not want to understand. One thing is certain: the government, that was supported by the great majority in Parliament, is also disappointed for having to give a date for the implementation of. the Official Languages Act within the Civil Service.
I said earlier, as a Quebecer, that I was very honoured to take part in this debate because I think this is a very special opportunity for any member to speak favourably not only on the great principle that bilingualism would be for the country but also on the implementation of this bilingualism.
History forces us to react when such a serious question is being discussed. I will not go so far as to say that the integral implementation of the government's resolution will achieve national unity.
To achieve national unity would require much more than the adoption of a resolution to be implemented as law; this is one aspect, among many others, that should be studied as soon as possible, that Canadians in general be led to believe in this implementation of bilingualism within the public service.
I have listened to several speeches and I quite appreciated the presentation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The principles included in his resolution are suggestions

which will be workable to the extent where officials in the public service will make them workable.
I hope that thanks to this debate we will succeed in sensitizing, first those officials, and also all the hon. members to the importance of total implementation of bilingualism in the public service.
I will not go so far as to suggest that discussing the official languages in parliament could incite all Canadians to speak two languages. To give such a guarantee would be to mislead those who listen to us. But it is absolutely imperative that, within the federal institutions,-and I think that all hon. members will agree with me-every Canadian may be taken care of in one of our official languages, and that from sea to sea. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, and I quote:
For almost a century, many French-speaking Canadians have been thinking: "The government in Ottawa is not our government ... it does not even speak our language". That is the kind of frustration which facilitated separatism.
I think that the Prime Minister was perfectly right in making that statement. Of course, more than an official languages act will be necessary to convince the Quebecers that the best and most beautiful place is still Canada. I will come back to that point anyway, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to congratulate the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who first supported the resolution now before us and then for reasons that I greatly respect suggested that these suggestions should be incorporated into the Official Languages Act. I think that we must consider seriously the possible application of these proposals. Of course, the experience of the last three years leads us to be pessimistic, even though I am sure of the Prime Minister's good faith with regard to his goal, that is to say bilingualism within the public service. I am convinced of the Prime Minister's good faith as I am convinced of that of the Leader of the Official Opposition when he brings forward an amendment and says that he would like to see these proposals incorporated into the Official Languages Act, so that the delay of the last three years does not occur again.
Therefore, after thinking seriously about it, I am ready to support these proposals, though they are not perfect. However, I think that they deserve my consideration and confidence and I believe that the amendment before us deserves enough consideration to encourage me to support it, in order to facilitate the fastest and most complete application of these proposals. Should this amendment not get the support of the majority, I will do like so many others: I will gladly support the proposals submitted to us.
However, when we read some of the speeches again, we find that there are still weaknesses.
I also listened carefully to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) who did not hesitate to support these resolutions and, as did the leader of the official opposition, mentioned the respect that those two party leaders have for French-speaking citizens of this country and the importance they attach to them. I think it is only fair to say that they showed their respect and consideration for that group which lives for the greater part in the
June 5, 1973

province of Quebec, and they proved their respect for that group on several occasions.
As to my honourable friends of the social credit party of Canada, I do not know what their position is and whether they are free to vote for or against the resolution. Judging from what the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) said, I would think it difficult for them to support that resolution. If I were more convinced that their amendment could be implemented, I would probably think more about it, but I have great doubts that the amendment moved by the social credit would be the solution.
I am told by a colleague that I cannot vote three ways. That is not my habit. However, I like to express my views and I may be in the best position to give credit to those who deserve it because I know that it is not always easy to congratulate an opponent and say publicly what is good and what is bad. I am free, Mr. Speaker, to appreciate and consider the fine comments which we have heard in this House.
I would also like to recall the hon. members the statistics which the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) mentioned when he stated that in 1971, among the 66,675 positions to be filled by the public service in federal departments, only 8 per cent required a unilingual Frenchspeaking incumbent, while 80 per cent, that is ten times more, required only English. However, in 1972, contrary to the recommendations of the Dion report, only 12 per cent of senior employees were French-speaking and only half of them were from Quebec.
Therefore, the data given by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe give food for thought. They show how important it is not only to discuss the principles but especially to implement them as soon as possible. We have experienced failure in the past three years, although there has been some progress. This progress has been unsatisfactory, but it is clearly apparent that through legislation we could have greater success and better results.
I agree with some members, but perhaps I do not endorse the entire speech made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He said, for example, that he proposed the establishment of a royal commission. When the royal commission was suggested, he stated that he objected to it, under the circumstances and that the royal commission which cost $10 million has rather served to divide the country. I disagree with the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I have disagreed with him before and I still do because I think that although that inquiry cost $10 million and did not succeed in achieving national unity, it still had some good points: it has shown the Canadian entity with its qualities and defects. Any unbiased and sensible individual would admit that this inquiry opened our eyes to the current situation and we have every reason, by seriously analyzing the report, for correcting the shortcomings and injustice which do exist.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to respond to the desires of most Canadians we should respond unanimously if possible on a matter of principles put before us with a view to improving bilingualism within the public service. Several hon. members have urged their colleagues to show good will and objectivity.
Official Languages
I also heard some hon. members express certain fears on the part of English-speaking people about the proposals on official languages accepted three years ago. I think I can say that for us, French-speaking people, those fears are far behind us because we have known frustration; many French-speaking people have grown discouraged by slow progress and the impossibility of participating in the administration of this country.
Some are concerned and surprised to see that, particularly in the province of Quebec, people have given up on federalism. If you assess the results of the last hundred years, you will understand this discouragement; if I were to limit myself to the results of the last hundred years, I would certainly hesitate to remain in this House. However, efforts have been made for the last ten years. Some injustices have been alleviated and if you assess the results of the last ten years there is reason to be optimistic rather than pessimistic. Does one have to forget a long part of Canadian life?
The right hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned that he introduced in Parliament a measure to provide Canadians with bilingual cheques, with simultaneous translation, that he took steps to have certain French-speaking people apoointed to important posts; I think that, in all equity, we must recognize that on those occasions he did consider francophones. Mr. Speaker, one should not delude oneself and believe that those nominations or the bilingual cheques are adequate reasons to make francophones think that equality exists in this country.
We may very well talk about national unity, but woe unto him who thinks that the Official Languages Act is the only means to realize national unity! I for one prefer talking about national harmony.
Will we have to recognize that there are different regions having different needs? It is recognized in the House. I often hear hon. members talking about notable differences on a national basis. Of course some are reluctant to repeat that there exist two founding people, i am not afraid to say it, Mr. Speaker, because this is how I learned the Canadian history.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned that Confederation is the result of the association of English-and French-speaking people who believed that the destiny of the northern half of this continent could be fulfilled in unity, but not in uniformity, and I quite agree. Without the basic agreements expressed in British North America Act section 133 which ratify the rights pertaining to our country's languages, as well as in sections 91 and 92 stipulating that the provinces have jurisdiction over education and culture, Canada would never have been.
I do not believe it exaggerated to say that there are in Canada two founding nations. Naturally there is also, and I am delighted about it, the contribution of thousands of immigrants from various origin who deserve the respect of all Canadians, for they have contributed to the unification of Canada. But, just the same, how can we forget our origins and the true history of this country? Hence the need and the importance to recognize two official languages in this country.
4470

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
Now I believe that this opportunity is most important, for it allows us to ask hon. members to respect that goal which we must pursue. That is one aspect of the problems we are facing in this country. Its achievement will be possible to the extent that those responsible in the civil service will think like most members, for I am convinced that the majority of members will support the initial resolution.
In any event we must at least-and I dare hope so- support unanimously the proposals that are now before us. It is not a life insurance, of course; I think it is a minimum which is worth considering. We will have to control the implementation of these principles, within the time limits stated, in respect of some positions to be created. It is a way of proving to the anglophones and francophones that Parliament, since we can all discuss this matter, is making a real effort to correct some injustices. The word is not too strong, and several members have said so before me. There have been injustices, and it seems that the majority, in Parliament, want to correct them. I think that we must make an effort to reach this goal; others before me appealed to unity and the influence that unanimity could exercise in Parliament. But we still have to convince the responsible people and to control closely the integral implementation of the principles involved. If, unhappily, we do not get better results than we have had in the last three years, we will have to admit that the Leader of the Official Opposition is quite right in asking as he does in his amendment that these principles be included in the Official Languages Act.
So I dare hope that the speeches made in this House will finally convince us of the importance of this debate. I would like to say before I conclude my remarks that we must not let ourselves be fooled into believing that with the Official Languages Act we have succeeded in satisfying the French-speaking group.
Should anybody think that those proposals were introduced only for those people living in the province of Quebec, it would be a serious mistake. I think that we can achieve that national harmony, that is the understanding of all ethnic groups in this country, through legislation a lot more important than the Official Languages Act. These amendments concern the economy of Canada.
I read today in a Montreal newspaper that Mr. Gerard Filion, a man well known in the province of Quebec, dealt with economic separatism 30 years ago because already at that time Quebec milk producers were adversely affected by the feed grain policy which still creates problems today.
There is this language problem for French-speaking people, but there are also economic problems. I am also thinking about the attitude of Quebec authorities.
Earlier, I heard a colleague from the New Democratic Party talk about the late Maurice Duplessis. Heaven knows if he is known in Quebec! But, Mr. Speaker, attempts were made to blame him for a certain conservatism, or a refusal to approve federal policies at one time. The attitude of Quebec governments for the last 30 years has always been aimed at a decentralized federalism. That has not changed today and the premier is asking that certain powers be handed back.

That is how national harmony will be achieved in this country, namely through the recognition of Quebec's needs.
I admit that in other areas or other provinces in this country people do not think as we do and do not speak our language, but the citizens in those areas have the right to live as much as we have.
Therefore, if we all recognized the distinct differences between the various areas in this country, we would accept them and would come to understand them, while promoting for certain areas, certain jurisdictions that would not be the same in other areas, because needs are different.
Therefore, Quebec's position is clear enough on that point. It is the whole history of the province and its mentality that want that, and I believe nobody has the right to put obstacles in the way of the one who wishes to preserve such basic rights.
However, it is not only a question of language here, but of needs and a question of mentality, that mentality we would like to be recognized throughout this country, as Quebecers. We already recognize different mentalities and accept them.
Now I believe it is with objectives such as those that we shall achieve that national harmony for the good of all Canadians. I hope there will be unanimity at least in this House on the principle of bilingualism, which is a basic principle and an obviously necessary one, so that we may really prove that we are members of parliament of this day and age.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is with full realization of the significance and importance of the subject that I rise to take part in this debate, a debate which has included eloquent speeches by members from all parties. It is obvious that bilingualism is a subject that concerns us all.
Some Canadians see the Official Languages Act, and the nine principles for implementing bilingualism in the public service, as necessary and long overdue steps by the government to formally acknowledge the French fact in Canada. Others see the act as an arbitrary, inequitable and poorly administered program which is neither feasible nor workable. This latter group appears to include the majority of English-speaking Canadians, very few of whom harbour any ingrained biases or prejudices against their French-speaking countrymen as has been suggested. I include myself within this group of Canadians who are unhappy with the government's philosophy of bilingualism as articulated in the Official Languages Act. To us, the act has done little but foster misunderstanding and divisiveness between English- and French-speaking Canadians. This is the tragedy of the Official Languages Act.
Rather than re-evaluating the entire act in the hope of arriving at solutions more satisfactory to all Canadians, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is asking parliament to confirm the basic principles of the government's program for bilingualism in the public service. What this means is simply that the government is asking parliament to tell them to do what they intend to do anyway, that is, carry out the nine-point policy. It is a farce so far as public
June 5, 1973

policy goes. The resolution has no value for it merely reiterates present government policy, and it will have no real effect upon the issue itself since it is not an enactment of legislation but an expression of opinion. It is evident that the Prime Minister's intention for this debate was not to enter into a constructive dialogue on bilingualism. Rather, as he himself said, his intention was to make it difficult for some members to hold ambiguous positions on bilingualism.
My position is unequivocal. While I recognize the obvious right of every French-speaking Canadian to deal with the federal government in French, and while I recognize the undeniable right of every French-speaking Canadian to have equal employment opportunities within the federal civil service, I do not recognize nor approve of the manner in which the government is going about guaranteeing these rights. I disagree with the way the Official Languages Act is being implemented. However, it is not the implementation of the act that is necessarily responsible for its disastrous results; it is the act itself. The Official Languages Act must be rewritten.
Four years have elapsed since the Official Languages Act was passed in parliament with an overwhelming majority. The act, which was thought by most members to be a logical and extremely necessary piece of legislation, has in practice proven to be just the opposite. The past four years have ushered in a new era, one of unprecedented misunderstanding between Canada's two founding peoples. This misunderstanding manifested itself clearly in the last election. There was a blacklash, and this blacklash will not be curbed until legislation is enacted which is both more fair and rational than that which we currently have before us. This does not mean arbitrary and binding regulations and stipulations. What it does mean is flexibility. It means taking account of the French fact in the public service, but only in direct proportion to their statistical numbers in the population, and vice versa for districts in which English-speaking persons are in the minority.
One example of the arbitrariness and rigidity which is characteristic of the Official Languages Act, and which does little to foster national unity, is the 10 per cent minority population rule used in drawing the boundaries for bilingual districts. In these districts bilingual government services are to be statutorily required rather than left to administrative judgments of significant demand and feasibility as otherwise ordered in the Official Languages Act. But how are the lines on the maps to be drawn?
The Canadian population is relatively mobile and, as the 1971 census has shown, French-English proportions change significantly over a decade. Are the boundaries of these districts to be redrawn every ten years? If so, we can be sure that such a move would cause much bitterness and irritation among the persons affected. The concept of bilingual districts must be abandoned. Instead, the government should rely on criteria of significant demand and feasibility to determine where bilingual government services should be provided. Such a move would do away with the ridiculous intention of the government to set up a surfeit of federally-declared bilingual districts, staffed
Official Languages
with persons having to satisfy inflexible bilingual criteria, in provinces where it is neither necessary not proportionately justifiable with regard to population.
It appears, however, that the government has no plans to change the policy and thereby move to allay the fears of those most affected. Such lack of understanding and action epitomizes exactly what is wrong with both the government and the Official Languages Act. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, has suggested that the government take a second look at the idea of bilingual districts. The government's apparent refusal thus far to acknowledge Mr. Spicer's concern regarding bilingual districts is not surprising. The commissioner's frequent outbursts and sardonic humour have done nothing but further compound and intensify animosities between English- and French-speaking Canadians.
Why the Prime Minister has refrained from reprimanding the commissioner for his outlandish statements is anyone's guess. However, I suspect the Prime Minister of being somewhat sympathetic to the commissioner. After all, what the Prime Minister is attempting to achieve in this plastic debate is a distinctly measurable degree of divisiveness in this country on the entire subject of bilingualism. It is the Prime Minister's hope that from such divisiveness will emerge a feeling among many Canadians that he, and he alone, is Canada's last real hope for national unity-a sort of omniscient father called upon to bring together all his children.
It is obvious that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) believes this, having accused several of my Conservative friends of persecuting French Canadians. Statements like these from an avowed federalist are inexcusable and reprehensible and further compound the problem. As long as bias and prejudice are continually rekindled, they will continue to exist; and no legislation, least of all the Official Languages Act, will make things any different. But to rewrite the act would at least be a start at nurturing a new feeling of understanding and equality among Canada's two founding peoples.
In any revision of the act, several important problem areas, all of which have blatently manifested themselves in the public service over the past four years, would have to be examined. As I mentioned earlier, the premise upon which a new act must be established is one of services and opportunity based on numbers. Minority group representation in the federal civil service should be based upon their statistical numbers in the population. Similarly, bilingual districts as such must be scrapped. If there are 50,000 French-speaking Canadians in an English-speaking province, there should only be a proportionate number of French-speaking public servants to deal with them. Current quotas are arbitrary and unfair. For example, there is little logic in a regulation stipulating that 50 per cent of the administrative staff in the Winnipeg Manpower Office must be bilingual by 1978, when the amount of government business they carry on with French-speaking Manitobans hardly makes the rule justifiable.
Other quotas, such as those involving the defence department, which stipulate that 28 per cent of all officers in the Canadian armed forces must be French-speaking, are similarly ridiculous. Quotas such as this smack of

June 5, 1973
Official Languages
tokenism, and the possibility exists of some positions being filled with personnel merely because they are able to speak French.
The Official Languages Act also failed to take cognizance of the fact that learning another language is not always easy. Many public servants find it immensely difficult to master a new language and, as a result may be effectively prevented from moving into higher positions. Even those who are able to learn a new language with relative ease have problems with retention. This situation is exacerbated by the manner in which the public service has structured its French language training programs. Language specialists tell us that a person who studies a new language intensively for six weeks and then goes back to a job for the same period of time where that language is used only sparingly, can easily forget what he learned. Today this is a common occurrence in the Canadian public service, and an unnecessary one. The number of civil servants having to take part in these courses is totally out of proportion to the number that need to, or ever will, actually conduct their business in French.
Then there is the eroding effect that bilingualism has had on morale within the public service, not only in the national capital region where the results of October 30 indicate this widespread disaffection but throughout the country. Low employee morale is hardly conducive to good government. But perhaps the most serious concomitant effect of the entire bilingualism program has been the fantastic expenditure. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by the government in implementing the federal bilingualism development program. The great portion of this money has been unnecessarily spent. The return on the investment has been poor.
One government practice in particular clearly illustrates to what I allude. I refer to the government's insistence that all government documents, books and pamphlets be printed and bound in both English and French. I am not arguing that inasmuch as both are official languages there should not be an English version and a French version of government publications, but why insist on having both versions within the one cover when only half will be used by the reader depending upon whether he speaks English or French? Even the Liberal Winnipeg Free Press pointed out that which is obvious when it said:
Government documents are twice as large as they need be and therefore twice as costly. English-speaking Canadians will not use that half of a publication that is written in French; nor will French-speaking Canadians use the English half. Why, then, does the government print and make the public buy both versions?
Then there is the question of language training. As many speakers have said before me, more money must be spent in promoting French language instruction in our schools, particularly our elementary schools. This is where learning begins, where language training can be most effective and where understanding of different cultures and people initially develops. But while more of our young people could be studying French, they are not. A recent study by the Ontario Department of Education shows that the number of students studying French in the province is declining rather than increasing. This decline is indicative of the dissatisfaction felt by many Canadians with regard to the Official Languages Act. The number of students

learning French is also declining in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
I could go on at some length reciting numerous other reasons why I am unhappy with the Official Languages Act and why I shall vote against this resolution. However, I think that my remarks sufficiently explain my position, one which is similar to that held by a great many Canadians, including the great majority of my constituents. I was thus astounded to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who recently assured the House that bilingualism is highly supported and is received with great enthusiasm by all cultural groups in this country. I question his judgment and am anxious to know the name of the country to which he referred.
The Official Languages Act and the question of its legality is currently before the courts. Its principles are before parliament and will eventually be before the Canadian people in an election. The controversy, hostility and misunderstanding surrounding bilingualism will continue until a more satisfactory approach is sought and found. A fair and equitable solution to the problem can only be arrived at through further dialogue and with the adoption of more flexible legislation. Such a solution must also acknowledge to a much greater extent other cultures and languages. Then, and only then, will Canada be on the road toward achieving our elusive dream-that of national unity.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to congratulate the government on introducing this resolution. It is something they dreamed up following a great deal of consideration. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), being a very cunning man and somewhat repentant, so it appears, felt it was necessary to show the country that the government had had a change of heart. I think that is really the purpose of this resolution, to leave the country with the impression that the Liberal party is adopting a new line of thinking and that the Prime Minister has learned something from the election of October 30.
However, I want also to state that this resolution, in terms of today's news events, is Canada's answer to the United States' Watergate. This is the biggest cover-up we have ever experienced by a government that knows full well that it does not mean one word of what it is saying in this resolution. This resolution is an attempt to deceive the Canadian people.
Just what is a resolution, Mr. Speaker? I have attended a great many conventions in my day, and I am sure each member of this House has attended convention after convention in one capacity or another. What is a resolution? It is simply a recommendation to a higher authority. So what do we have here? We have the government in power, which is one authority introducing in the House of Commons, which is the final authority, a recommendation to itself: it is saying, "We recommend to ourselves that we do this".
If the Prime Minister and his government were sincere they would not try to deceive the people of Canada. But someone in this House of Commons has been able to call their bluff. I am not going to stand here, as a member of
June 5, 1973

this party or of any other party in this House, and have that kind of deceit, that kind of bluff, pulled on me. I do not think the Canadian people expect this sort of thing. If the Prime Minister or his cabinet were sincere today they would have introduced an amendment to the Officials Languages Act. That would have meant something. Certainly I would support that sort of amendment. Had the Prime Minister and the Liberal party done that, they would have called my bluff. Members who were here in the previous parliament will recall that I voted against the Official Languages Act. This act is now part of history. Obviously there is a feeling against it in certain parts of the country, contrary to the kind of hypocrisy that has existed in other parts.
In this chamber we have two standards. You can say things against English-speaking parts of Canada but you dare not say anything about French-speaking Canadians. You can say whatever you like about the other ethnic groups in this country. For example, what is happening in St. Boniface? The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) has been very vocal on many occasions, but what is happening to the radio station there? This radio station has provided Jews, Ukrainians and other ethnic groups with the chance to sing songs in their own language, but it is now being taken over by French-speaking Canadians.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, why should I have to sit here-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am not going to be silent in this House while-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat?


Stanley James Korchinski: I have to be honest with myself, and certain things must be said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that with a minute to go it is difficult to entertain a question of privilege and I know that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) would like to continue his speech, but I have to hear the question of privilege of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will allow him to continue. He can shoot his mouth off, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface adds nothing to the dignity of this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to special order made at this day's sitting, the debate on the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stan-
Official Languages
field) is deemed to have been terminated. Accordingly, the question is as follows. Mr. Trudeau, seconded by Mr. Drury, moves:
That this House,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following principles for achieving the foregoing:
(1)	that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will be first identified, and then designates, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;
(3)	that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
(4)	that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their position even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal public service, will be entitled to apply for any job that has been identified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willingness to become bilingual;
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the public service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
(9)	that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the public service to bilingual positions;
do further approve the Government of Canada, and, in particular, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned principles; and
(ii)	do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the public service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French language units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhanced the bilingual character of the nationa1 capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the public service by

June 5, 1973
Adjournmen t Deba te
members of both the Anglophone and the Francophone communities,
In amendment thereto, Mr. Stanfield, seconded by Mr. Baker, moved:
That the motion be amended by adding to paragraph (i) thereof, next after the words, "taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned principles", the following:
"and the Government of Canada, as a priority measure, introducing legislation to incorporate the aforementioned principles in the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act and other appropriate statutes;".


Mr. Reid:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There can be no interruption when the Chair is putting a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made this day, the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred until the order of the day to resume this debate is entered upon tomorrow afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on May 29, as recorded at page 4209 of Hansard, I had occasion to ask the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), in charge of fisheries, a question with reference to the detrimental effect grey seals are having on certain fishing operations off the eastern shore of Nova Scotia. There is a real problem in this particular part of Atlantic Canada which is symbolic of the situation in other parts of Canada.
The whole inshore fishing industry is not getting the advantage it deserves, and it is under severe pressure. Anyone who has attended the proceedings of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, or has read the minutes of that committee knows that in

many respects the fishermen of eastern Canada are being short-changed. They are being short-changed in dredging, wharf repair and construction, breakwater maintenance, and so on. These aggravated problems are made worse in this particular area of my constituency and, incidentally, the constituency of the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen), by the activity of the grey seals.
The warden of the municipality of the district of St. Mary's, Howard Turner, who has been active in the fishing industry for many years, told me a few days ago that at one time he and others used to keep these animals in check and received bounty money for their trouble. At that time the fishermen were protected and the grey seals were kept in check. Now the situation is unfortunately reversed. The attitude of the government toward these fishermen in general is deplorable. The Department of Fisheries must be restored to its rightful place under a minister, and not lumped together with another department with other responsibilities.
The annual report of the Fisheries Prices Support Board, a government publication, indicates a decline in Canadian fisheries production. The annual Statistical Review of the Canadian fisheries for 1972, published by Environment Canada, illustrates Canada's position in world fisheries as being pretty mediocre: we are behind Russia, we are behind Japan, we are behind Norway and the United States. In terms of volume and value of catch we are behind these four countries. I suggest this is because our fishermen are not getting the backing or the protection and consideration they deserve.
About a year ago, because of a certain amount of agitation from the fishing industry the Minister of the Environment and the government House leader came to the town of Larry's River along with assorted officials. We had a very successful meeting there in terms of the number in attendance. At that time many promises were made about dredging, better wharves, better guidance systems and harbours. I do not have time to list the number of promises made but I certainly do not need much time to enumerate the promises that were kept. The fishermen in my constituency realize they are not being fairly treated. I know that the minister and many of his departmental officials hardly know the difference between a hake and a haddock, a cod fin and a capelin.
Let me refer again to the question of the grey seal. Unless something is done to relieve the situation, the fishermen will, in defence of their livelihood, be forced into disposing of these animals in contravention of the law. This is something no one wants to see happen, but unless consideration is given to some of the problems inherent in the inshore fisheries of Nova Scotia it is likely to happen.
This may not be strictly relevant to the question I directed to the Minister of Fisheries, but perhaps he would use his influence with the minister in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to change the regulations so that fishermen can get better protection, in terms of unemployment insurance benefits, than they now get because of gross discrimination in terms of UIC benefits.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) made a
June 5, 1973

statement which implied that the fishermen are being ignored. If he had read one of the recent reports of the Science Council of Canada he would have noted, for example, that the money which the federal government is spending on research and development in fisheries is the highest by all odds, for any industry in this country.
Ten per cent of the equivalent of the total value of output of the industry at the processing plant is spent by the taxpayers of Canada on research and development in the industry. If we take the total budget of the fishery service, it is equivalent approximately to 20 per cent of the value of the output of the industry.
There is no industry in Canada that gets this kind of support from the taxpayers of this nation, and that money is spent substantially on the east coast. It is roughly three times that spent on the west coast. It is spent in proportion to the value of the output of the industry.
I mentioned the figure of 10 per cent which is spent on research and development in proportion to the gross value of the industry. In agriculture, forestry and other industries the figure is more like 1 per cent. So in terms of R and D support the fishery is being treated ten times as well as forestry or agriculture. The fishery has not done badly in spite of what the hon. member said. Canada is behind Japan, Norway, Russia and the United States today. It has been behind them for many many years, those countries, being long-distance fishing nations, fishing all over the world. Some of them with very large populations and concerned about protein shortages have always taken many more fish than Canadians with a relatively small population. We are more efficient but we take fewer fish.
The grey seal population on the east coast has been growing. It is now in the order of 30,000. We do have a controlled culling operation which is carried out annually under the direction of our scientists. However, the population has increased and the problem is increasing. They are taking large numbers of mackerel, cod, herring, and so on. Because the number of fish off our shores has been decreasing due to excessive fishing pressure, we have to take seals because their population is rising and the ecological balance has been upset. I can assure the hon. member and the fishermen in his area that we have the grey seal problem very much in mind and we are doing something about it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-ABORIGINAL RIGHTS-VALIDITY OF ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox -Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion for the question which I addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last May 8 on the matter of aboriginal rights arose from two separate but related events. One was the statement made to the committee on Indian affairs by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) on April 12, 1973, as recorded at page 1329 of the proceedings of the committee which reads:
The proclamation of 1763 I recognize as a valid document-It establishes on obligation for the Crown to negotiate with the natives before taking land from the Indians.
Adjournment Debate
The second event was a little later, when this House was in recess and the Prime Minister made certain public statements on television, and perhaps otherwise, among other things suggesting that the NDP was trying to rewrite history and accusing us of lack of concern for what some of the provincial governments of Canada are doing in this area. This was sufficient cause for me to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he was speaking before the committee was stating government policy or not. While there were certain procedural difficulties to the question as I posed it, that essentially was the question I asked and on which I would like information. The Prime Minister in his reply said it was "a very difficult legal question which I am not able to settle in any final way by any answer or, indeed, by a statement of policy."
When the Prime Minister of this country, in this day and age, was so vague about it, I felt the answer was far from being satisfactory and that I should pursue the matter further on an occasion such as this. The nub of the question that arises in my mind is why the Prime Minister continues to deal with this matter as an abstract legal question rather than as a basic human question involving basic human rights. That is the point of view from which I would like to see the question treated. Incidentally, I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that if we can get a real statement of policy, in depth from that point of view, from the government of Canada then so far as I am concerned I am quite prepared to play my part with any provincial government in this country, regardless of its political stripe, in having that government recognize its appropriate responsibility in the consideration of this matter. But until there is forthcoming from the Government of Canada a clear-cut statement of its policy, it ill behooves the Prime Minister or anyone else to criticize the position being taken in this context by provincial administrations.
There are a couple of points I would like to mention in the few minutes available to me. One arises out of the further statement by the minister on April 12 when, in reference to the B.C. land question, he said:
In the B.C. land question the judges did not agree, they split. Three judges said that the proclamation of 1763 did not apply to B.C. because B.C. was terra incognita in 1763.
My response to that is again to say, let us get it out of the legal context. The fact is, and the records indicate it, that whether or not this legally applied, certainly the first Governor and the Colonial Secretary in London at that time acted as if it did apply. The documentary evidence on that point is quite clear, if one looks afield one can pick up that kind of factual recognition almost anywhere.
I have in my hand a copy of a book just published, "Barkley Sound-A History of the Pacific Rim National Park Area," by R. Bruce Scott in which he tells something of the life and adventures of William Eddy Banfield, described as a government agent, trader, explorer, writer, ship's pilot and the first white settler in Barkley Sound. Mr. Banfield in his rather voluminous reports to the Colonial Secretary at Government House, Victoria, a man named W. A. G. Young, had many interesting things to say. Among them is one of his reports dated Ohiat, Barclay Sound, 23rd February, 1860, in which he wrote:
4476

June 5, 1973
Adjournment Debate
I mentioned to His Excellency when at Victoria that I had made a purchase of my place at Ohiat from the Chief. I was almost compelled to do so on my first coming among them; they were particularly anxious that I should purchase the ground on which I lived... saying that the Americans at Cape Flattery had all bought their ground from the Indians. I pleaded poverty, which was very evident to them, my stores being very limited ... But to save myself the daily annoyance of the creatures I at length bought it for two blankets and two shirts. In order to impress on them formality, I drew out a title deed and explained it to them, giving them a duplicate. I had no civilized witness, none being in the neighbourhood.
Then Mr. Banfield goes on to explain how he later moved to another spot and bought another place. Inflation had set in, for his second property cost "six blankets, some beans, molasses, etc." Again he drew out a title deed. The evidence is clear for anyone who want to see that de facto recognition was given at one time by governmental authorities, and that all we really need to do is interpret the context of the present documents on human rights in relation to the situation as it was recognized then.
Mr. Speaker, when I talk about documents I have in my hand some of the international covenants on human rights, among them the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the preamble to the covenant of the assembly the text reads as follows;
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.
And part I, article I reads-


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


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) because it is good that once in a while he is caught in the position of defending the government.
Of course we recognize Indian rights in this country, and of course we do that in British Columbia; and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that. When the decision of the Supreme Court was handed down a few months ago in the case of the Nishga people's council, the court was divided and the Indians came to me and asked me to go and see the British Columbia government, which happens to be of the same political stripe as the hon. member's party. I went, and said to the British Columbia government that the Indians from the Nass River were asking British Columbia to turn over to them the land that belongs to them according to the decision of the Supreme Court.
I expected the NDP government in British Columbia to agree and say it was part of the policy of their government and party to recognize those rights. Oh, they were surprised that I said that to them and asked that they recognize in general terms the Indian rights. That means that the B.C. government has to return to the federal government, for the benefit of Indians of the Nass River, those lands that immemoriably belong to the Indians there. I

was flabbergasted to realize that they were not keen to do that. When it was time to deliver the goods, they were not there. They said, "Write us a letter about it." I wrote two months ago asking them to live up to the decision of the Supreme Court and deliver the land to the Nass River Indians. I am still waiting for an answer. So I hope the hon. member who is so devoted to the cause of Indians will go to his friends in British Columbia and tell them to live up to the program of his own party.
When the land was cut off from the Indians after 1912 during the time of the McBride commission a lot of land was taken away from the Indians and used by the province as Crown land. So I am going to the B.C. government once in a while asking them to return those lands that were taken away by the provincial authorities, for the benefit of the provincial government, from the Indians.
I am still waiting for British Columbia to live up to the commitment they made to the Indians during the last provincial election campaign, because this is a clear case where the rights of the Indians have not been lived up to by the provincial government and perhaps by the then federal government. So if the hon. member wants to cry in this House he should spend one day more, perhaps one week, on Vancouver Island and drive south to Victoria and speak to the provincial government.
I said in committee, and I repeat it here, that after the decision of the Supreme Court it is very clear that the royal proclamation by King George III in 1763 imposes an obligation to settle the Indian claims in a certain fashion. That is exactly why we have already started negotiations with the Yukon Indians, to settle their claims. That is why I am starting to establish acceptable mechanisms in order to find ways to solve the problems of those Indians in British Columbia who have not signed treaties.
I hope the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will employ some energy and use his facility with language to explain this to his friends in British Columbia who do not seem to be ready to deliver what they have promised to the electorate of British Columbia.


AIRPORTS-PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE
Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether, in light of the fact that he had promised residents of the Toronto region that he would cancel the Pickering airport development if more than 51 per cent of the people in metro Toronto were opposed to it, he would treat a recent public opinion poll in the Toronto Star as indicative of the feelings of the people of the region, or would he prefer to treat the opinion of the NDP on this issue in view of their switch in position in committee, as indicative of public opinion. The Prime Minister refused to answer. The words I am about to refer to were uttered in the borough of Scarborough, but they would apply to the whole of metropolitan Toronto. They were spoken on March 25, 1972, and are as follows-that if the majority of people living in this area, even if only 51 per cent, did not want this airport, the government would not proceed with it.
June 5, 1973

There have always been a great many people in the Toronto region who have questioned the need for a second airport. It was a major issue, in the election campaign in the Toronto region, of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who went on record as early as September 30, 1972, as saying that the case for a second Toronto airport had not been made. Fourteen of the 22 successful candidates in the metro Toronto region who ran in the October 30 election were on record during the election campaign as saying that there was no proven need for a second airport. Yet still the government pushed ahead, convinced that the public was still behind them on this.
Then some of the municipal councils got into the act, namely, Toronto city council representing 700,000 people, the regional municipality of York representing 166,000 people, and the township of Pickering representing 30,000 people. The councils of all these municipalities expressed opposition to the airport proceeding as planned. Yet the government still persisted. Then the Swackhammer report was completed early in January of this year, indicating that there were weighty technical arguments against the airport proceeding. As well, there was further evidence of widespread public opposition. Yet the government charged blindly ahead and on January 30 confirmed the expropriation notices on some 18,000 acres of land even though there has not been an independent inquiry to allow full public participation on the question of the need and site of the location.
That was over four months ago, Mr. Speaker. We are still waiting for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to announce the terms of reference and membership of the independent inquiry, notwithstanding that he originally promised that it would be reporting within one year of his January 30 announcement. We are anxiously awaiting that announcement and I hope it will be made very shortly.
As for public opinion, there was further evidence brought to the attention of the government on April 28 of this year when the Toronto Star published the result of a poll carried out by Canadian Facts Company Ltd. during the first ten days of April. This poll was conducted on a number of national and local issues and included a sample of 407 eligible voters across metro Toronto. The poll concluded with this question: Are you in favour of the proposed new airport scheduled to be built in Pickering township, or are you against it?
The result in metropolitan Toronto was as follows: 56 per cent of the people were against the airport, only 26 per cent said they were in favour, and 18 per cent said they were not sure. In the city of Toronto, which contains the riding of St. Paul's which I represent, the result was as follows: 62 per cent were against the airport, 19 per cent were in favour of it, and 19 per cent were not sure. Mr. Adjournment Debate
Speaker, over three to one were against it in the city, and if you take the entire metropolitan region, over two to one were against the airport.
Is it not about time to say to the Prime Minister: How about it? Will you honour your word to the people of the metropolitan Toronto region? Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport continue to ignore the facts which I have stated, or will the government continue to push blindly ahead, bolstered by the votes in committee of NDP members who in a moment of utter hypocrisy voted on estimates to give the government the money to push ahead with this unnecessary project? The whole project at Pickering runs counter to the environmental, economic and human needs of the urban region of metropolitan Toronto. When will this government begin to listen to the people?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) I wish to say that the minister has clearly outlined his views at the committee level.
Projections indicate that by the end of the century, Toronto will have in excess of six million people. Toronto is the hub of our domestic air transportation system. Air travel is no longer for the wealthy few. Air cargo will be a vital part of our future economic activities. Many times more facilities than those we have now will be required. In 1968 we abandoned the idea of expanding Malton airport due to the threat of noise and due to the surrounding development. Malton's traffic will be further expanded, but not its size. Even considering the quieter aircraft we will have in the future, Malton would have too many flights, considerable noise problems and too high a volume of aircraft unless the airport is enlarged. A new airport is required.
The Ontario government has a plan for regional development known as the Toronto centred region and we have been able to achieve a consensus of view with the Ontario government in selecting a new site consistent with their planning. Pickering meets aviation criteria, is convenient and can be developed to meet future demand. Those persons owning on land expropriated will be paid not only the market value but also related payments for relocation and disturbance. Also, a great deal of expropriated land can be made available for agricultural use within the airport zone.
Hearings under the Expropriation Act have been held. Everyone has been given time to be heard; yet no one need be disturbed nor will construction begin until a board of examination, working with the three levels of government concerned, determines the type and timing of facilities required.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Z6314-70i

Wednesday, June 6, 1973