1973-06-04

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Having regard to the persistent delays in applications for veterans disability pensions being dealt with by the Pension Commission, and as the entitlement and review board work load has reached emergency proportions, and consideration must be given to a means of speeding up the process, particularly for those veterans who are in their late years, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Madill):
That the matter be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to review those clauses in the legislation, and particularly the benefit of the doubt clause and as well the shortage of administrative personnel, to relieve the excessive waiting period which is causing hardship to many thousands of veterans.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the recent indiscretions committed by the Globe and Mail and Le Soleil in respect of confidential studies of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the House recommend to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to consider prompt release of the complete set of recently prepared studies in his department dealing with policy
review of the Atlantic region, the prairie region and the Pacific region before the daily press gets its hands on these reports,'thus ripping off the taxpayers of Canada by publishing the government's confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CUSTOMS ACT
Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-189, to amend the Customs Act.


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

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-190, to amend the Canada Pension Plan.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Stevens: 1.	Has the Canadian Commercial Corporation paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund the $17,111,554 ($2,651,000 in accounts payable and $14,460,554 in advances from customers) received by

June 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
that Corporation in partial payment for the sale of aircraft to a foreign government on behalf of the Department of National Defence as the Auditor General in his last audit report for the Corporation dated June, 1972 said should have been done by the Corporation and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for what reason was the amount not initially paid into the special accounts in the Consolidated Revenue Fund established by Section 11 of the National Defence Act for proceeds from the sale of material which is not surplus to requirements, and Vote 48, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966, for proceeds from the sale of surplus materials?
2.	Has the $44,818 accrued interest earned on these funds as of March 31, 1972 and subsequent accrued interest been remitted to the Receiver General as revenue of Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The transaction involves the sale of surplus and non-surplus materiel to a foreign government with the proceeds of the sale to be used to purchase further supplies for National Defence. At the direction of the Governor in Council and the Minister of Supply and Services, both facets are being handled by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The financial aspects of the transaction are being administered in accordance with the provisions of relevant legislation and have been approved by Treasury Board on the advice of their legal advisers, the Department of Justice, as follows: 1. (a) Proceeds received from the sale of surplus material are being retained by the Canadian Commercial Corporation as it is authorized to do by the CCC Act, and are being used to purchase materiel for the Department of National Defence; (b) proceeds received from the sale of non-surplus materiel are being administered in accordance with Section 11 of the National Defence Act.
2.	No, they are being retained and administered by the Canadian Commercial Corporation in accordance with Sections 3 and 5 of the CCC Act in furthering the corporation's purposes; in this instance, the purchase of defence materiel.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past three years, how many passengers, travelling on Air Canada planes to foreign countries, have departed from (a) Toronto (b) Montreal?
2.	In the past three years, how many passengers, travelling on Air Canada planes from foreign countries, have arrived in (a) Toronto (b) Montreal?
3.	Has Air Canada any figures showing the number of international passengers arriving in and departing from Toronto and Montreal who are travelling on other airlines?
4.	Does Air Canada consider that the center of further operations in Canada for International Airlines will be increasingly in Toronto and, if so, has Air Canada reconsidered its policy of expanding its overhaul facilities at Dorval and replacing it by a policy of de-centralizing its overhaul facilities in cities such as Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, etc.?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1, 2 and 3.
International Passenger Traffic Arriving and Departing at Montreal and Toronto on Air Canada and AH Other Carriers, 1970 -1972
Passengers at Montreal on all	Passengers at Toronto on all
International Flights of:	International Flights of:
1970	1971	1972	1970	1971	1972Air Canada (1) Arriving	
Departing	
387,752 	
384,253	385,874 395,900	437,072 438,312	635,895 602,053	627,574 596,254	692,027 661,391Other Carriers (2) Arriving	
Departing	
842,976 	
818,072	945,186 925,773	N.A. N. A.	829,679 825,812	884,790 886,089	N.A. N.A.Source (1) Air Canada Reports. (2) Aviation Statistics Centre	Service Bulletins Cat. 51-004, Vol. 4,	No. 21, Asp-	5B-2-3 minus Air ('	anada passengers.	4.	Air Canada considers that Toronto is, and will continue to be, one of the major centers of International air transportation, and its policy on facilities is governed accordingly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Air Canada employees work in space rented by Air Canada in Place Ville Marie in Montreal?
2.	Except for secretarial help, what classifications of employees, aside from senior executives, are housed in Place Ville Marie?
3.	Has Air Canada studied the question of whether it would be more economical to rent or build its own office to provide working space for the majority of its headquarters' employees in less expensive accommodation as Place Ville Marie?


Jean Marchand: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1. Approximately 920 employees of Air Canada are located in rented office space in Place Ville Marie.
[Mr. Stevens.)
2.	Management, professional and clerical personnel engaged in marketing, transportation services, finance, personnel, law, public relations, secretary and supporting organizations.
3.	This possibility is under review. Prior examinations have shown, however, that existing lease arrangements are relatively advantageous.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many complaints has Air Canada received about the food served to passengers, particularly those travelling in the economy class, in the past two years?
2.	How many complaints has Air Canada received that the food service has deteriorated and that it compares unfavourably with the food served to other major carriers in Canada and other countries?
June 4, 1973

3.	Has Air Canada discussed complaints it has received of its present caterer, with a view to obtaining an improvement in the food service?
4.	For how long does the contract to supply food for Air Canada passengers run with the present supplier?
5.	Is Air Canada discussing the supplying of meals with other caterers with a view to improving food service?


Jean Marchand: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1.	1971, 1 complaint per 3,854 passengers; 1972, 1 complaint per 4,347 passengers.
2.	Complaints are not classified according to how many deal with how Air Canada's food service compares with those of other domestic and foreign airlines. As an indication, however, in the past two years the Company has received well over 2,000 commendations on the quality of its food service from satisfied customers.
3.	The food service is constantly monitored and reviewed with the Company's caterers to ensure quality standards are met.
4 and 5. Air Canada deals with 30 contractors for inflight meals across its system. Term of these arrangements varies. Generally, Air Canada reserves the right to terminate for failure to meet quality specifications.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Are unilingual girls who are well-qualified in every respect, except the fact that they are not bilingual, able to become stewardesses for Air Canada (b) is knowledge of more than one language required of stewardesses and, if so, is this fact made known to applicants for positions?
2.	Are most senior positions at Air Canada Headquarters in Montreal reserved for bilingual employees?
3.	How many unilingual (English or French) employees have been appointed to senior positions in Montreal by Air Canada since 1970 (a) from within Air Canada (b) from outside Air Canada?
4.	Which senior positions in Montreal has Air Canada clearly identified as requiring a bilingual occupant and are all employees fully aware of this requirement?


Jean Marchand: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1 (a) and (b), Unilingual English-speaking persons are hired as Flight Attendants. Fluency in both of Canada's official languages, as well as in German, Russian, Czech, Danish, Flemish or other languages improves the candidate's competitive position. This information is made known through brochures and advertising.
2.	No.
3.	Since 1970, eight unilingual people were appointed to senior management positions, of which (a) seven were promoted from within the Company, and (b) one was recruited from outside.
4.	Senior positions are not classified in this way, but many are occupied by bilingual persons.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What were the circumstances which led Air Canada to employ a USA-based firm-McKinsey and Company-to advise in the major reorganization which took place in 1970?
2.	How much did McKinsey and Company receive in consulting fees during its full period of advisory service with Air Canada?
3.	What significant changes have been made in the organization pattern of Air Canada as a result of the Report, adopted in 1970, during the past two years?
4.	Were other management consulting firms involved in these further changes and, if so (a) what were their names (b) what did it cost the Company in each case?
5.	(a) Did McKinsey and Company recommend the establishment of a key Vice-President position (b) was this position eliminated in 1972 and, if so, what was the reason for this decision?


Jean Marchand: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1. Several consultant companies, including Canada-based firms, were asked to submit applications. McKinsey and Company Inc. was selected because it best met the Corporation's requirements.
2.	The Corporation considers this proprietary information.
3.	The essential changes have been to create a strong marketing branch and a regional organization with clear lines of authority over the stations within that region.
4.	Air Canada has used a number of management consultants in the last two years in the ordinary course of business. Their purpose has not been primarily concerned with corporate organization.
5.	(a) McKinsey recommended a complete organization for Air Canada with the notable changes as set out in 3 above; (b) the management structure has evolved in various ways since 1970. In particular there has been insistence on direct reporting by regional vice presidents to the president.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5718


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5718?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. January 5, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.

June 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5678


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5678?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 5, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5829


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5829?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 8, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5329


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5329?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?

3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 2, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5328


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5328?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 2,
1973.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5361


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5361?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 2,
1973.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
June 4, 1973

3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications that funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5315


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5315?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 29, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 14, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5377


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5377?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 2, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
Order Paper Questions
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5247


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5247?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December
28,	1972.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5249


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5249?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December
29,	1972.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5248


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5248?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
4372

June 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 29, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5246


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5246?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 28, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5611


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5611?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 4, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 16, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.

4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5481


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5481?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 3, 1973.
2.	Rejected on January 31, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5477


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5477?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 3, 1973.
2.	Rejected on January 24, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5475


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5475?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
June 4, 1973

3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 3, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5231


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5231?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 28, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the total hog production in 1972 in Canada?
2.	What was the percentage by province?
3.	What was the percentage of the special subsidy paid to producers in each province?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Total hogs produced and marketed, 9,436,179.
Per cent
2.	Province	Number	of Total
British Columbia...
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island Newfoundland	
Total	
57,447	0.6
1,897,609	20.1
1,103,403	11.7
1,237,510	13.1
2,937,620	31.1
1,881,262	19.9
61,652	0.7
108,851 *	1.2
131,737	1.4
19,088	0.2
9.43G.179	100.0
26314-63i
Order Paper Questions
3.
Province
Per cent Breakdown
British Columbia	 0.5
Alberta	 22.9
Saskatchewan	 14.2
Manitoba	 12.0
Ontario	 31.4
Quebec	 15.8
New Brunswick	 0.7
Nova Scotia	 0.8
Prince Edward Island	 1.0
Newfoundland	 0.1
100.0
Note: Deficiency payment was made on the 1971 hog production, was paid on hogs having an index of 100 or over and was limited to a maximum of 200 hogs per producer.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the government make a $26 million dollar loan in December 1972 to Light-Servicos De Electricidade SA, Rio de Janeiro, a private Brazilian Utility company and, if so, what were the terms of the loan and what security was put up by the Company?
2.	Is Light-Servicos De Electricidade SA, Rio de Janeiro, owned in any part by Brascan and, if so, for what percentage?
3.	Was Brascan formerly called Brazilian Traction Light and Power Company and were Messrs. Mitchell Sharp, Robert Winters and Jack Nicholson at one time officers in this company?
4.	Does the government plan to acquire a share in Brascan similar to the negotiations of the British Columbia Government to purchase interest in a Brascan coal venture (Sukunica, in the Peace River vicinity)?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. No.
2.	Information not available.
3.	Information not available.
4.	Information not available.


Mr. Matte: What was the amount of money spent in Quebec by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces in the years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: For the fiscal year 1971-72 it is estimated that the Department of National Defence spent $376,733,266.00 in the Province of Quebec. This estimate is based on a calculation of a distribution of all DND budgetary expenditures. Prior to 1971-72 the Department used a different

June 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
base to estimate the distribution of DND expenditure; therefore any comparison with earlier estimates covering the period 1968-1971 would not be valid.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since 1950, has Canada supplied military equipment or technical assistance to countries of the British Commonwealth and, if so, what countries benefited and in what amounts?
2.	Did Canada receive military equipment or technical aid from countries of the British Commonwealth and, if so, from what countries and in what amounts?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, the following British Commonwealth countries have received military equipment and/or technical assistance since 1950: Barbados, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Singapore, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zambia. Due to the period covering the question, the value of the equipment and assistance cannot be accurately determined from records now available, with the exception of the United Kingdom where the amount was contained in reply to Question 1,875, 9 May 73, page 3563 of Hansard.
2.	No.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many federal permits were given out for import of exotic cattle in (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973?
2.	What criteria are used to determine the number of permits issued for such imports and to whom they shall be given?
3.	For 1972, how many permits were given for import into each province?
4.	How many have been granted so far for import into each province during 1973?
5.	Is the current government policy on such importation under review and, if so, on what date will the new policy or criteria for importation be announced?
6.	Has the government received criticism of the present policy and, if so (a) how many (b) were they from organizations or individuals?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a) 1971, 608 permits for the importation year 1971-72; (b) 1972, 639 permits for the importation year 1972-73; (c) Permits have not, as yet, been issued for the importation year 1973-74.
Note: The importation of exotic cattle is dealt with by "importation year". Within this year, a shipment enters quarantine on Grosse lie in October and shipments enter quarantine on St. Pierre in November and the following May.
2.	Applicants provide written "project proposals" outlining their proposed breeding program utilizing the cattle for which they are making application to import and provide an inventory of their present cattle herd with particular reference to those cattle of European breeding.
[Mr Richardson.]
A departmental officer visits and interviews each applicant to verify the cattle inventory, and provide an assessment as to his capabilities and the likelihood of his achieving a viable breeding program. These project proposals and interview reports are then submitted anonymously to a technical review committee composed for four geneticists, two of whom are from this Department and two of whom are from universities. The committee assesses and rates the project proposals on the likelihood of the project proposal leading to a viable herd development of general improvement to the livestock industry in Canada, and the likelihood of the breeding proposal being achieved. The permits are then allocated to those importers whose proposals receive the higher ratings until such time as the limits of the quarantine stations are reached. The number of cattle awarded to each applicant is dependent upon the priorities recommended by the technical review committee and the rating awarded the proposal.
3.	Province	Permits Issued
N ewf oundland	Nil
Prince Edward Island	1
Nova Scotia	3
New Brunswick	5
Quebec	13
Ontario	51
Manitoba	76
Saskatchewan	135
Alberta	324
British Columbia	31
Total	639
Permits have not, as yet,	been issued for the 1973-74
importation year.
5.	The policy has been reviewed and the decision made and announced to continue the project proposal system for at least this year.
6.	The department has received 26 critical letters, all of which were from or on behalf of individuals who had been unsuccessful in obtaining permits. No criticism has been received from the breed associations.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to the answer to Question No. 751(l)(b)(ii), who is carrying out the research and development program?
2.	How was the decision made to allocate this project to its recipient?
3.	Were there any other bids or tenders called for it and, if so, by whom and in what amounts were they made?
4.	What budgetary items, specifically, does or did the funding for this program come under?
5.	On what date was the decision made to expand the program?
6.	What public announcements other than response to Question No. 751 have noted the existence of these programs?
*


Jean Marchand: 1. There will be no one contractor for the whole project but several
June 4, 1973

individual contracts let. The contractors have not yet been selected.
2.	The contractors will be selected through normal bidding procedures.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	This is listed in the Marine Transportation capital budget as item Rl. Arctic Navigation Studies, Polar Icebreaker.
5.	December, 1972.
6.	There have been no specific public announcements.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain): In regard to the 19 mineral prospecting permits issued for 1973 in the Northwest Territories, what are (a) the names of permittees (b) the location of each permit?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 


Mr. Andre: During the months of January, February and March 1973, respectively, what were the total amounts paid in overtime pay to employees of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The total amounts paid in overtime pay to employees of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in January, February and March 1973 are indicated below: January, $178,766.59; February, $68,929.78; March, $51,008.08.


Mr. Andre: During the months of January, February and March 1973, respectively, what were the total amounts paid in overtime pay to employees of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Herb Breau: During the months of January, February and March 1973, employees received overtime payments as follows: January, $13,707.76; February, $13,125.78; March, $25,148.59.
1973 SEALIFT


Mr. Forrestall: Does the government intend to take steps towards upgrading existing standards for safety and vessel construction of ships employed in the Sealift 1973 specifically, or Arctic cargo haulage generally, with a view to phasing out the use of ships built and designed for use in other seas and (a) if so, of what nature, and on what date may they be expected (b) if not, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: 
Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GM.2542008-1-2, for can openers in the amount of $29,122, awarded to E.D.M. Tool Inc., Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes; (a) E.D.M. Tool Inc., 10830 Racette Street, Montreal, N. 460, Quebec. ETF Tools Limited, Box 128, St. Catharines, Ontario; (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	The can openers were for inclusion in Individual Ration Packs and were shipped to No. 25 Canadian Forces

June 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Supply Depot in Montreal, Quebec. The Department of National Defence.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, QUE2-5666/1, lor rental of a fork lift truck at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier, Courcelette, Quebec, during period February 21, 1973 to May 31, 1973, in the amount of $10,000, awarded to Entreprises Raymond Bedard Ltee, Loretteville, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes; (a) Les Entreprises Raymond Bedard Ltee, 490 rue Racine, Loretteville, Quebec; Nova Inc., 2700 Watt, Ste. Foy, Quebec; (b) Yes. Nova Inc. was rejected as they tendered on a 4,000 lbs. forklift only, in lieu of 16,000 lbs. as required.
3.	No.
4.	Canadian Forces Base, Valcartier, Quebec, Department of National Defence.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GO.2552412, for plastic bags in the amount of $13,805, awarded to Mir-Pak Inc., Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes; (a) Mir-Pak Inc., Montreal, Quebec; Jos. T. Beaudoin Ltee., Thetford Mines, Quebec; Clear View Packaging, Scarborough, Ontario; Canam Manufacturing & Packaging Ltd., Brantford, Ontario; Cello Bags Limited, Toronto, Ontario; Allied Paper Products Limited, Ottawa, Ontario; St. Johns Paper Products Co., St. Jean, Quebec; Bonar & Bemis Limited, Burlington, Ontario; Eastern Canada Packaging Limited, Bramptonville, Quebec; (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	CFB, Toronto, Downsview, Ontario; CFB Moncton, New Brunswick; CFB Edmonton, Lancaster Park, Alberta;

CFSD, Montreal, Quebec-Department of National Defence.
5.	Competitive Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, MY.3632188, for fork lift truck in the amount of $12,827, awarded to Hyster Canada Ltd., Malton, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes; (a) Hyster Canada Ltd., 6325 Northam Drive, Malton (Toronto); National Lift Truck Ltd., 110 Ronald Drive, Montreal West; Allis Chalmers Rumely Ltd., 155 Dawson Road, Guelph; Auto-Lift Ltd/Ltee, 6650 Cote de Liesse, Montreal; (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	Canadian Forces Base, DND Gagetown, New Brunswick.
5.	By Invitations to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GO.2552405, for plastic bags in the amount of $52,678, awarded to Polywrap Products of Canada Ltd., Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Contract GO.2552405 in the amount of $52,678 was awarded to Polywrap Products of Canada Ltd., Montreal, Que. for the supply of burlap jute sand bags.
2.	Yes; (a) Polywrap Products of Canada Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; Thomas Bonar & Co. (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; The Workman Bag Co. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; Industrial Bags, Division of Canada Packers, Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; Burnstein Bag Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	CFB, Toronto, Downsview, Ontario; CFB Moncton, New Brunswick, CFB Edmonton, Lancaster Park, Alberta;
June 4, 1973

CFSD, Montreal, Quebec, Department of National Defence.
5.	Competitive Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GY.2772433, for watches in the amount of $68,306, awarded to P. G. Stanley Ltd., Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes; (a) Ingraham Industries, A div. of McGraw-Edi-son of Canada Ltd., 95 Grand Ave., Toronto 560, Ontario; Marathon Watch Co., Fifth Floor, 286 St. Paul St. W., Montreal 125, Quebec; P. G. Stanley Ltd., Suite 303, 1500 Stanley St., Montreal 110, Quebec; Mondaine Watch Co. (Canada) Ltd., 500 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario; Candino Watch Co. (Canada) Ltd., 310 Victoria Ave., Westmount, Montreal 215, Quebec; Gruen Watch Company of Canada Limited, 315 Bering St., Toronto 18, Ontario; (b) yes.
3.	No.
4.	Canadian Forces Base: Downsview, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; Moncton, New Brunswick; Lancaster Park, Edmonton, Alberta; Department of National Defence.
5.	By competitive Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, LC.E0213-3-0513, for purchase of a used tug in the amount of $95,000, awarded to Domtar Ltd., Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	No; (a) not applicable; (b) not applicable.
3.	Yes, $74,900, covering a firm price competitive contract to Riverton Boat Works Ltd., Riverton, Manitoba, to dismantle the tug at Lake Nipigon, Ontario, transport it to and re-assemble it at Selkirk, Manitoba.
4.	The tug will be used on the Red River and Lake Winnipeg by the Department of Public Works.
Order Paper Questions
5.	Selection was made as a result of an earlier market survey conducted by the Department of Supply and Services which indicated the availability of this tug at a fair and reasonable price. The Department of Public Works requested the Department of Supply and Services to arrange for the purchase of the vessel.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, EDM2-7628/1, for laundry services at Inuvik in the amount of $48,000 awarded to Inuvik Laundry and Dry Cleaning Service, Inuvik, N.W.T.?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	No. A regional Individual Standing Offer was negotiated with the only available source of supply in Inuvik, Inuvik Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services.
3.	No.
4.	Inuvik General Hospital, Department of National Health and Welfare.
5.	By Invitation to Tender.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government still involved with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany with respect to Arctic resource extraction and, if so, what is the nature of the negotiations and what is their present status?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Exploratory discussions have taken place between Canadian officials and German representatives interested in the possibilities of resource development and shipping in the Canadian Arctic. These discussions have been preliminary in nature and no commitments of any kind have been made. It is understood that the Germans may submit a proposal for co-operation with Canada in the research and development of an ice breaking cargo ship. No such proposal has yet been received and no negotiations have taken place.


Mr. Boisvert: What is the difference in profits between CP and CN hotel chains?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: The jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada does not extend

June 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
to regulation of the hotel operations of railways. The information is, therefore, not available.


Mr. McKinnon: Will British troops be using a training area near Sulfield, Alberta, in 1973 and, if so (a) how many acres are involved (b) how many British troops will there be (c) how much rent is being paid by the British?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes; (a), (b) and (c) See reply to question 579 by Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway), as recorded at page 2928 in Hansard, dated June 7, 1972.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Post Office at Lyndhurst, Ontario been moved recently and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is the new location temporary or permanent and where is it?
3.	Is the government giving consideration to the construction of a new Post Office in Lyndhurst, Ontario?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. Yes, on 21 May 1973. Larger premises were required.
2.	The premises were leased for five years and the terms of the lease contain a renewal option. They are located at the corner of Charles and Jonas Streets.
3.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has Mr. Patrick Mahoney received any appointment from the government since October 30, 1972 and, if so (a) on what date was this appointment made (b) what was the nature of the appointment (c) what is the salary being received?
2.	What were the considerations involved in making any appointment and was one of these considerations that Mr. Mahoney was a former Liberal Member of Parliament and a former member of the Cabinet?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Hon. Patrick Mahoney is on a contract for the period 1 February, 1973-31 August, 1973 to provide assistance in preparation for the Conference on Western Economic Opportunities at a monthly fee of $2,500 to $3,000.
2. Consideration involved the overall suitability of the individual's professional, academic and personal qualifications in relation to the job requirement.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total revenue received from the communications media for the Canada-Russia hockey series (a) in Canada (b) in Russia?
2.	What was the total revenue received from all other sources for the Canada-Russia hockey series (a) in Canada (b) in Russia?
3.	What is the itemized distribution of such revenue?
4.	What is the itemized total government expenditure concerning the Canada-Russia series?
Return tabled.



OVERTIME PAY TO MEMBERS OF MINISTERIAL STAFF, 1972

Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of employees on the ministerial staff (including the Office of the Prime Minister) who, in the calendar year 1972, received over-time pay in excess of $1,000?
2.	What were the amounts of over-time pay in each case and what were the salary ranges of each of these employees?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-TENDERING

Mr. McKinnon: 1.	By year, how many contracts have been let to German & Milne (G&M) Montreal during the past ten years?
2.	How many contracts listed in Part 1 were let without tendering procedures?
3.	How many firms are now listed in the Department of Supply and Services' source list as acceptable ship designers and what are their names?
Return tabled.



FISHING ON PACIFIC COAST

Mr. Barnett: 1.	Since September 1, 1968 (a) for how many fishing vessels on the Pacific Coast has a construction subsidy been paid (b) to whom were subsidies paid, for which vessels, and in what amounts?
2.	How many owners of fishing vessels on the Pacific Coast who sold to the "Buy-Back Program" (a) now hold a commercial salmon fishing licence (b) have received a construction subsidy for a new fishing vessel?
3.	How many Indians held commercial salmon fishing licences in (a) 1968 (b) 1972?
Return tabled.



FISHING BAN AS A RESULT OF MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Harding: 1.	What rivers and lakes have been banned for fishing due to mercury pollution and, in each case, for what period of time?
2.	What is the estimated loss in employment and fishing revenue due to the above ban?
3.	In each case, what has been the source of the mercury pollution?

4.	What steps have been taken to clean up the mercury pollution in the areas affected?
Return tabled.



MEMBER OF SOCIAL WORKERS EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many social workers are employed by the government (a) in each department (b) in each province?
2.	How many social workers employed are qualified as follows (a) Diploma in Social Work (b) Bachelor of Social Work (c) Master of Social Work (d) extension courses (e) on-job training (f) other qualifications?
3.	How many social workers are engaged in (a) medical social work (b) psychiatric social work (c) community organization?
4.	How many social workers employed by the government are qualified as (a) case workers (b) group workers (c) community organization workers?
Return tabled.



EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Nielsen: 1.	How many persons are employed (a) by the Government of the North West Territories (b) by the Government of Canada in (i) Yellowknife, North West Territories (ii) the remainder of the North West Territories?
2.	What is the total amount paid in wages and allowances to those in (a) and (b) in (i) and (ii)?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What are the names and professions of each of the 40 members of the Advisory Board attached to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (a) on what date was each appointed (b) what are their terms of office (c) what specific role do they perform (d) are they paid any fees and, if so (i) how much (ii) how are such fees determined (e) what is the mother tongue of each (f) how many are bilingual?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he any explanation as to how, as recently as six weeks ago, he could have predicted a balanced budget for the fiscal year that expired on March
Oral Questions
31 last whereas in fact a surplus of almost half a billion dollars was actually the result? Has the minister any explanation at all as to how he and his officials could be as much as half a billion dollars out six weeks before the end of the fiscal year?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Sir. That discrepancy is well within the range of 1 per cent or 2 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -found in the national accounts. As a matter of fact, this morning Statistics Canada released a revision of the national accounts for the year 1972 moving up the gross national product from 5.5 per cent to 5.8 per cent. But in the accounts to which the hon. gentleman refers a good deal of it has to do with the inability of parliament to deal with some of the legislative items that were forecasted as being part of the accounts. I refer to the enactment of the Canadian National-Air Canada guarantees bill, and personal income tax refunds were much lower in the first quarter because the income tax measures for 1972 were still pending, and many corporations had to maintain-


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


John Napier Turner: -their existing rate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there must be a specific place in the rules of the House and a specific time when the minister can make apologies, but not now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition presents me with a question in debating form, surely I am entitled under the rules to reply to him in debating form.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked the minister if he had any explanation of the discrepancy of half a billion dollars and obviously he has not. In view of the minister and his department being half a billion dollars out in their prediction as recently as six weeks before the end of the fiscal year, and in view of the impossibility of running a country on that basis, I ask the minister whether he has any intention of establishing a more effective forecasting arrangement?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with that in debate, but I should say to the hon. gentleman that he and his colleagues were calling for a deficit twice as large as the deficit I predicted for that fiscal year, and yet the real gross national product in this country for the first quarter increased 2.9 per cent which is an annual rate of 10 to 12 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If the hon. gentleman is talking about a deficit that did not come closer to his
4380

June 4, 1973
Oral Questions
expectations, he and his colleagues have grossly underestimated the expansion of the economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that response is just about as irrelevant as the forecast was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether in fact he and his officials were trying to make an accurate forecast or were simply predicting a balanced budget for the current fiscal year for the purpose of creating an uncertain atmosphere with regard to the budget he was presenting?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the forecast was based on an anticipation of what parliament might be able to accomplish. That has not been the case. There is certain legislation upon which that forecast was based which has not been passed. The economy is reflecting a growth that has boosted sales and import taxes and the increase in employment is even stronger than we forecast, so that revenues were stronger than those we forecast.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if this serious miscalculation of government finances and accounts is in any way related to the 180 degree change in government planning and priorities contained in the cabinet document which the Prime Minister refused to table the other day, and will the minister explain or rationalize this change in direction which, if taken in civilian life, would come perilously close to obtaining by false pretences?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the Prime Minister commenting upon that alleged document to any extent at all.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of reports that several cabinet ministers met last Friday with representatives of 13 business organizations and that it was a real meeting of the minds on the important question of our economic development, would the minister, who was present at that meeting, be good enough to indicate what this meeting of minds consisted of and whether this meeting of minds means that the multimillion dollar grants from the federal treasury, and especially from the minister's department, to private enterprise will continue in the same haphazard fashion and in the same over-generous amounts?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting that took place on Friday was a meeting to hear and consider the views of industry with respect to the question of an industrial

strategy for Canada. The basis of the discussion was a compendium of views of over 200 pages. There was discussion by various industrial associations as to their approach to the industrial strategy question, and discussion by myself and my colleagues as to our approach. The phrase "meeting of minds" I think reflected the view of the businessmen present and our approach to development of an industrial strategy. In other words, their objectives and strategies for the industrial development of Canada are very much on the same wavelength.


MEETING OF CABINET MINISTERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS- INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSION OF FURTHER GRANTS TO BELL CANADA AND TELEPHONE RATES
Max Saltsman: Given that the chief spokesmen for the business community were Messrs. Wolff and Marquez, chief executive officers of Bell Canada subsidiaries, would the minister indicate to the House whether federal grants additional to the $40-odd million granted so far to Bell Telephone and its subsidiaries were discussed at the meeting and could the minister tell the House whether there was any meeting of minds on the matter of Bell Telephone rates? Also, can the minister announce that Bell Canada rates are going to be rolled back?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there was no consideration of questions such as grants or rates, but there was a consideration of long-term objectives for Canada. They were spelled out in a paper which was presented for purposes of discussion, and I think there was a genuine meeting of minds as to what the long-term objectives of "an industrial strategy" for Canada might be and how industry might play its part in meeting those objectives.


Max Saltsman: In view of the non-answers we are getting from the minister, would the minister please be kind enough to make available to the House the text of his speech so we can interpret what he said to that meeting?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to submit a copy of my notes to the hon. member on another occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for St. John's East.


CHANGES IN AUTOMOTIVE POLICY AS PART OF INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY-RESUMPTION OF TRADE TALKS WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: when trade talks on that subject are going to resume between Canada and the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on earlier occasions that, although the automobile industry is a very important industry from the point of view of the whole strategies approach, I am not in a position at this stage to indicate when those talks will resume, but I hope it will be very shortly.

[ Transla tion]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the statements the minister made at Matane over the weekend to the effect that the Lower St. Lawrence region should get more assistance from the central government, can he tell us whether he intends to formulate or to have the government formulate a new investment policy for that area?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to refer to what I said: he will then realize that he is not quoting me exactly.


AIR CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Labour. Does the absence of the Minister of Labour indicate that the government is now involving itself directly in the Air Canada machinists dispute which is crippling the system and which has struck Montreal today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, not
necessarily, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gallagher is acting in his proper capacity. The minister himself is having meetings at this time with his officials on the subject of the strike.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the federal mediator has met today separately with both sides to the dispute, is the Prime Minister able to report on those meetings and tell us whether the situation is any closer to settlement at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at this time we find it preferable not to make any public statement on the state of the negotiations. As the Minister of Transport said late
Oral Questions
last week, it is not helpful to negotiations to make them public at each stage.


STRIKE BY FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary, or at least a parallel question. Is the government in a position to make any statement regarding the dispute between Air Canada and the Canadian Airline Employees Association? I am referring to the difficulties between the company and the finance branch employees.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the question is under advisement in the Department of Labour and officials are working on it now.


ROTATING STRIKES BY MACHINISTS-MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House what, if any, special precautions are being taken by his department to ensure that adequate safety standards are being maintained during these rotating strikes?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, definitely.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was a truly bilingual answer.


STRIKE BY FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the strike. With the Canadian Airline Employees Association on strike and the finance department in Winnipeg closed, how is Air Canada billing and collecting its share of ticket moneys from other airlines? I understand there are deadlines as to when these moneys, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, can be collected.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of Air Canada and inform the hon. member as to how they are proceeding.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary with regard to the question of safety. Is the flight performance quality control recording for Air Canada aircraft being properly reviewed with the Winnipeg office closed?


Jean Marchand: I think so, Mr. Speaker.
4382
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
June 4, 1973

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It concerns an issue I raised on April 12. In view of the Prime Minister's consultation with the four provincial leaders of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, will the Prime Minister arrange ways for western members of parliament who are not Liberals to participate in the planning and holding of this historic western economic opportunities conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question has been referred to the committee arranging the conference. At this stage I cannot answer the hon. member in the affirmative. It seems that each government will have its own group of officials and advisers. There will, of course, be room at the open meetings for observers. I can tell the hon. member we will want to make sure that members of parliament and members of the provincial legislatures will be given priority in the observers' seats.


Douglas Roche: If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, the meetings will be open. Will he clarify whether all the meetings will be open or only some? Also, will there be a way in which western members of parliament can participate in planning the input into the conference as well as the actual conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some of these meetings will be open, some will be in camera. I do not believe the final decision has been reached on what parts of the agenda will be open and what parts will be closed. As far as input is concerned, we as a government have welcomed input from all sources, including members of parliament from other parties. I have also written to boards of trade and other representative groups in the west to ensure that any input they want to make will arrive at my office fairly soon. I would certainly welcome representations and briefs from other parties.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the representation by the National Council of Veterans Associations and four provincial commands directly to the Prime Minister suggesting that veterans disability pensions be adjusted in accordance with public service salaries and not the cost of living as at present, will the Prime Minister advise the House what action the government is taking to comply with this request and whether a decision has been made by cabinet to accept the recommendation of the joint study report on the basic rate of pension?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question has been considered by cabinet. When the Minister of Veterans Affairs returns from Europe where he is presently representing Canada at the D-Day ceremonies he will probably want to contact the representative organizations of the veterans and in due course inform the House when a decision is finalized.


D-DAY CEREMONIES IN FRANCE-REASON NO OPPOSITION PARTY MEMBERS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Veterans Affairs is in France participating in D-Day observances, can the Prime Minister inform the House why no members of opposition parties were invited to participate in these ceremonies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot, Mr. Speaker, but it is certainly the custom of the government to ensure that delegations are composed of members of parliament who can find their way clear to be absent at any particular time. I do not have the precise answer in this case. I see that the acting minister does not have it either, but I will inquire.


HARBOURS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask him whether the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries was stating government policy in his letter to the Globe and Mail rejecting any project for the construction of a tanker port on the St. Lawrence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that letter; I have therefore nothing specific to say against its contents. As for the government policy, no negative decision has been taken about the construction of a tanker port on the St. Lawrence; on the contrary, I think that the discussions are still open.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton rises on a point of order.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon is not here, but I have shared his point of view on numerous occasions. I believe Your Honour has frequently mentioned that you do not believe it is proper for parliamen-
June 4, 1973

tary secretaries to address questions to cabinet ministers. I notice that we are again reverting to that habit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: That point has been raised before and I have commented on it before. If the hon. member would refer to earlier statements I have made he would find I have never indicated that parliamentary secretaries should not ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I address my question to his parliamentary secretary or to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Ontario government has recognized the need for special economic programs to assist northern Ontario, can the hon. gentleman inform the House what action his department has taken in conjunction with the province to formulate a co-ordinated plan of development for northern Ontario?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I was absent-minded for a moment and I would greatly appreciate it if the hon. member would repeat the beginning of his question.


Reginald Cyril Symes: With the situation in northern Ontario it is obvious that not only the parliamentary secretary but also the department is dozing. In view of the fact that the Ontario government has recognized the need for special economic programs to assist northern Ontario, can the parliamentary secretary inform the House what action the department has taken in conjunction with the province to formulate a co-ordinated plan of development for northern Ontario?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has met with the provincial premiers and held extensive conversations on the co-ordination which should exist between the federal department and the various provincial governments; the policy on this is being elaborated. On the other hand, I must recognize that, when he appeared before the committee, the minister dwelt at great length on what ought to be accomplished in northern Ontario. The hon. member should know that, if there have been problems in the past, they resulted mostly from lack of interest on the part of the Ontario government which, for many years, had neglected the northern area.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind a confidential DREE
Oral Questions
report which I released to the House last Thursday, stating that 6,000 jobs may become redundant in northern Ontario within the next two or three years, what immediate steps will the Prime Minister take to see that such an economic upheaval does not occur?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is little I can add to what the parliamentary secretary has just said, except to say that there is to be a meeting with the responsible minister of the Ontario government, Mr. White, I believe, within a week.


NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS BY MINISTER WITH VISITING UNITED STATES SENATORS AND OFFICIALS-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT ON GAS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from the fact that a number of United States senators and officials were in Ottawa over the weekend, apparently making inquiries about the federal government's position with reference to energy. Did the minister hold any discussions with these people?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I understood the minister's shotgun answer, he said "Yes, Sir". Are you now in a position to tell the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -through you, Mr. Speaker-the nature of your discussions with regard to this subject which is so important to the country, particularly to western Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir. We discussed, among other things, the possibility of the Mackenzie Valley route for a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the United States markets. I indicated, as I have told the House on a number of occasions, that the government was prepared to consider a Mackenzie Valley route as an alternative to the Alyeska proposal as one way of protecting the west coast of Canada from the tanker risk.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister go as far as to tell the House and the country whether an agreement was reached between the United States and Canada on the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas and, eventually, petroleum crude?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir. There was no agreement. They were not here to seek agreement; they were here to discuss some of the issues involved in the alternatives for bringing Arctic reserves to the market.

June 4, 1973
Oral Questions


CAPABILITY OF ENERGY BOARD TO JUDGE APPLICATION TO TRANSPORT NATURAL GAS IN OTHER THAN VAPOUR FORM
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has informed us on a number of occasions that the department is studying alternative methods of transporting natural gas from the north, methods alternative to transporting it in the vapour state. Is the National Energy Board, should it be seized with this information officially, capable of rejecting an application to transport it in the vapour state-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion, in the sense that he might be asked to interpret a statute. In these terms the question would be out of order.


Douglas Charles Rowland: May I rephrase it, then?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to do that. But we are running short of time. I suggest that hon. members should limit the number of supplementaries and make them as brief as possible.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I believe the gist of my question was understood. I would therefore ask the minister whether the National Energy Board is capable of making that kind of judgment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: From its membership, plus additional advice which has been and will be obtained, the board has the competence to make that kind of judgment.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In light of the fact that administration costs have increased from $26 million in 1971-72 to $128 million in 1972-73, an increase of some 400 per cent, and in view of the fact that the budget for 1973-74 is set at $144 million, can the minister advise the House whether he has pushed the advisory committee to the UIC with a view to getting its report on related matters dealing with a proposed new act as soon as possible in order that it might be possible to bring in legislation which would save the taxpayers $100 million as stipulated by the minister earlier?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am asking the advisory committee on every possible occasion to report on those matters placed before it. I must say I suspect that the $100 million to which the hon. member has referred is not related to the administrative costs which he mentioned earlier. There is quite a difference.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the rapidly rising cost, can the minister say whether he is keeping in mind the advice he received from his colleagues on the front benches and whether, in fact, the administrative cost has reached its peak, having in mind the policies of the government in relation to employment and so on?


Robert Knight Andras: I would hope the administrative cost has reached its peak. As I explained recently in another place, about half the increase in administrative costs compared with 1972 is due to increases in wages reflecting the general increases which are taking place in the public service. A further $10 million to $12 million is related to expansion and to decentralization of the service, something which I understand has been applauded or looked forward to by all hon. members.


REDUCTION IN FREE TIME ALLOWANCE FOR LOADING-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT BOXCARS AND NO ADDITIONAL CHARGES TO FARMERS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact the Canadian railways intend reducing the free time allowance for loading from 48 hours to 24 hours on July 1, 1973, and in view of the fact that this reduction arises from an apparent shortage of boxcars, would the minister assure the House, first, that an adequate number of cars will be made available to transport grain to export positions so it is available for loading when ships are available and there will be no additional costs or demurrage charges and, second, that there will be no additional charges levied against the farmer at local points resulting from the reduction in loading time?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the obvious purpose of such a change is to assure that cars are used as effectively and efficiently as possible by allowing them to turn round very quickly. The hon. member's concern about movement of grain should be met by the figures indicating that the record movement is continuing. Even in the month of May, notwithstanding that two bridges on the CNR line were out for a while and a slowdown on the CNR, another all-time record month of loadings onto ships was set.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's reply to my question on Friday in which he stated that the government has to keep the budget within a rate of escalation that is considered to be reasonable, and the statement of the Minister of the Envi-

ronment and Fisheries that he is considering employing charter vessels as an immediate step to beef up our protection capability, would the Prime Minister take steps immediately to turn over to the Department of the Environment and Fisheries the destroyer escorts St. Laurent, Fraser and Ottawa presently at Halifax, and the St. Croix on the west coast?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have the matter looked into and will take the question as notice in order to see whether it offers any constructive alternatives.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the discovery yesterday in Costa Rica of the hide-out of Norman Leblanc, who is wanted here in connection with a fraud amounting to $107 million, is it the intention of his department to have discussions or institute proceedings with the government of Costa Rica President Figueres aiming at the extradition of Leblanc and his surrendering to Canada, and more specifically to Quebec?
[English\


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of taking that question as notice.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Did the United States government make representations to the minister concerning Norman Leblanc following the latter's allegations about the Watergate affair?
[ English]


Mitchell William Sharp: Not to me personally, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries in my department.
$ * *



REPORTED DROP IN FLOUR SALES TO GREAT BRITAIN- REPRESENTATIONS TO BRITISH GOVERNMENT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of recent reports that sales of flour to Great Britain, which has been a traditional market for Canada, have dropped to zero in 1973, can the minister say whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or his own department is making any representations to the British government in view of their entry into the Common Market?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a very short time ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had discussions with the British in connection with their entry, and agricultural and grain matters were very high on his list. I will attempt to keep the hon. member informed about current figures on sales.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Do the recent reported statements by Mr. Gifford, chief of the agricultural trade policy division, that Canada is not making any final policy decisions for the coming trade negotiations under GATT until the United States has decided on its approach and stated it, mean that this represents the government's position and policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is not in order.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the hon. gentleman kindly advise the House whether the bilateral air agreement meetings scheduled to take place last week and this week between Canada and the United States were terminated on Friday? If so, at whose instance were they terminated and what were the grounds for such termination?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the negotiations are continuing.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister kindly advise the House how it is that according to reports the negotiations or discussions have been suspended?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain that. All I know is that they have been very difficult and it may be that there has been an adjournment for a few days for the two sides to consider their respective positions. But the negotiations continue.



AIR CANADA


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the fact that airline strikes seem to be becoming an annual event, to the discomfiture of the travelling public of Canada and the upsetting of our entire economy, is consideration being given on the part of the minister and the government to bringing in legislation to the effect that those employed by the airline should be required to return to work with negotiations then to continue?

June 4, 1973
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that this is within the power of the House and it has so decided in the past on a few occasions. But to my knowledge it is not in the government's program to deprive any group of workers of their right to strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that was not the answer given on previous occasions when measures were brought into this House. I ask the minister how long this strike is going to be permitted to continue before the government does something more than simply snooze?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can have it both ways. If the House gives the right to strike to a particular group, as soon as that group goes on strike we cannot say: Don't go on strike because it is creating embarrassment.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the government, through the Department of National Revenue, is acting as agent, I would ask the minister on what authority he is acting when he claims payments made under the Ontario property tax credit scheme to senior citizens and uses this money to pay off federal tax arrears?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has serious doubts about a question asked in those terms. It seems to me the hon. member is asking for a legal interpretation. Perhaps I am wrong in this interpretation of the rule. The minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, without attempting a legal interpretation I think I can say as a matter of fact that there is provision in the agreements for administering the tax credit schemes of Ontario and Manitoba for such offsetting. This provision was drawn to the attention of provincial negotiators, who responded to the effect that this was a deliberate decision taken by Ontario. I understand it has been communicated in two brochures sent by the province of Ontario to persons who might be entitled to the property tax credit.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In drafting the agreements with the provinces, was this stipulation laid down by the federal government that they would collect this money provided they could divert it to pay off old debts?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. As I say, this point was specifically drawn to the attention of the Ontario authorities, and they responded that this decision had been deliberately taken by them and that this was the way they wished the matter to be dealt with.



CONSIDERATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF TAX COLLECTION FOR PROVINCES

Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the same minister. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of discontinuing the practice of collecting taxes for the provinces and of allowing them to collect their own taxes so the people of Canada will know where the money goes?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this would be a matter for discussion between the Minister of Finance and the finance ministers of the provinces, but I can tell the hon. member that it is no joy for the Department of National Revenue to spend up to half its time in the days before returns are filed answering questions about provincial taxes.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Have any discussions taken place between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany regarding Canada's extractive industries and, if so, have we arrived at any firm conclusion or agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such discussion, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire and see if there is any such matter under discussion.



INQUIRY RESPECTING PROPOSAL BY WEST GERMANY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SHIP TO CARRY CANADIAN MINERALS THROUGH NORTHERN ICE

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, this question should almost be raised as a point of order because of its importance. May I ask the Minister of Transport and/or the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether or not in fact negotiations are going on with the Germans and whether or not it is a fact that the government of Canada expects that the Federal Republic of Germany will submit, a proposal for the joint development of a polar ice cargo carrying ship for the extraction of mineral resources in our north?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I know of no formal negotiations going on between Canada and the German Federal Republic. The hon. member may be referring to the fact that there is a very important delegation of German businessmen in Ottawa today. They are moving on to Toronto and Montreal. It is a return visit to that by Canadian businessmen to Germany a few years ago headed by my predecessor.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon members of the government to pro-
June 4, 1973

vide members in written answers with accurate information. I can understand that one specific minister or the Prime Minister might not be aware of information that has the significance this question has, but I think the House is entitled to some explanation of why there is a direct conflict between the oral answers of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and a written answer given me today. I shall not take the time of the House to cite the written answer today, but in light of the importance of the matter I think the ministers over there had better supply the House with consistent and accurate information.



TAXATION


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the Prime Minister passed on to the Minister of Finance the request of the Toronto Transportation Commission that the federal sales tax not apply to public transit vehicles and, if so, is the minister prepared to introduce the necessary change in the law?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that we are, of course, reviewing. We have had similar requests from other municipalities. If any action is taken on this matter we will announce it in the House.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister give urgent consideration to this request as the federal contribution to urban transportation and to pollution control to the end that he could introduce a resolution this year when the tax laws are before the House?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that the hon. gentleman brings it to my attention makes it an urgent matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. Having in mind the fact that the cruel trade involving the shipment of Canadian horses by sea for slaughter in Europe, has started again in the face of strong representations against it by all the humane societies in Canada, will the minister look into this situation with a view to stopping this unfortunate situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the department to carry out a lengthy study. I have received some of the reports. I can
Oral Questions
say, so far as we are concerned, that in respect of any shipments of horses they must be preconditioned, their age must be known and it must be known whether or not they are pregnant before they are loaded on a ship. If more than 25 are put on a ship they must be escorted by a veterinarian all the way across the ocean.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister whether he and his department are aware of the fact that many of the horses which die during shipment are rolled overboard and also that the European people by whom they are received ridicule the requirements of his department?


Eugene Whelan: The records show that the health standards are that high because of the restrictions we are placing on them that the number of horses requested for shipment is away down. If there are signs that a horse is likely to die the veterinarian has orders to give an anaesthetic in order to put it out of its misery on board the ship. Every humane aspect is being looked at.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of published reports of a memorandum from the Commissioner of Penitentiaries to the prison directors, can the right hon. gentleman advise if it is now government policy to change some medium security institutions to maximum security institutions, and would the Prime Minister have this document tabled in the House so that we might understand the reasons behind the memorandum?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be pleased to take notice of the question on behalf of the Solicitor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are about reaching the end of the question period. I was hoping we could see two or three questioners. However, if there are supplementar-ies we will just have to call orders of the day.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, once again with regard to the awarding of reciprocal landing rights to a Canadian air carrier in Milan, Italy. In view of the fact the minister has on five separate occasions since last October indicated that the decision would be made very soon, is he in a position yet to advise the House when the decision will be made?

June 4, 1973
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: It will still be soon, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is perhaps supplementary to one asked very early in the question period. In view of the surplus the minister has recently discovered in the Department of Finance, would he discuss with the President of the Treasury Board the possibility of earmarking even one-tenth of those unbudgeted funds for Atlantic harbour and wharf improvements? In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would make a plea in respect of the wharves in the constituency of Restigouche where I understand the member has been having great difficulty-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is a representation.

[ Transla tion]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but in his absence, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Does the minister intend to publish the results from his negotiations with-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but-

the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises an a point of order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order reflects somewhat on the point raised earlier about parliamentary secretaries asking questions, but I would draw your attention to the fact that it is certainly in violation of the rules for questions to be put to other than ministers of the Crown.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask his question. I am not too sure whether the hon. member is right in respect of his point of order. I assume a question ought to be asked of a minister, but if the minister is not here someone might reply on his behalf. The hon. member might ask the question on this basis. He has been very patient for the last 45 minutes waiting for a chance to ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Transla tion]


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I resume my question.
I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary when the minister intends to publish the results from his negotiations with the Quebec provincial government, and whether the present special areas and the possibility of designation of others have been mentioned during those negotiations?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Again I apologize to the hon. member. [English]
The hon. member rises on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will continue rising on a point of order until these set-ups are stopped in the House. Again I insist. I believe rule 39(5) states-get out your book and read it- that there is no allowance in the rules for parliamentary secretaries to be taking questions. If the Prime Minister cannot indicate an acting minister, then let them wait with their questions.


Mr. Speaker:: This point has been raised before and the Chair has indicated that there was a point of contention as to whether parliamentary secretaries should be allowed to ask questions when they answer questions as well. I have indicated before that I felt there appeared to be some measure of contradiction there. There was agreement at the time among hon. members that perhaps this was the kind of difficulty to which the House might apply its collective wisdom. But I think there is an established practice, which may be right or wrong, for parliamentary secretaries to answer questions. Perhaps that practice should be changed; perhaps it is wrong and questions should be answered by the Prime Minister or an acting minister. But certainly hon. members who have been here for some years know that on a number of occasions in the past parliamentary secretaries have replied on behalf of their ministers.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to Standing Order 39(5) on page 36, chapter V. It is specifically spelled out in the rules that questions are to be put to a minister of the Crown, and if the Prime Minister cannot indicate who is the acting minister, then I say it is time that the House stopped these set-up questions passed back and forth between Liberal backbenchers and parliamentary secretaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member finds a degree of sympathy with me. As I said before, according to my interpretation of the rules, they do not prohibit a parliamentary secretary from asking a question or from replying to one. Again, we have had the
June 4, 1973

practice for some years in both instances. I am in sympathy with the point raised by the hon. member. I hope that it will be solved one day. But, as hon. members know, the Standing Orders are interpreted according to the practice of the House and there obviously has been a practice established in this respect. Perhaps for the moment the House might allow the parliamentary secretary to reply briefly on behalf of the minister, and then we will call orders of the day.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-

for his encouragement in helping me to get an appointment some day.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that the minister will be concluding this week his discussions with the various premiers of all Canadian provinces and the various departments in each of those provinces-today he is in the Maritimes-and if any reports are to be released, it will be when the consultations are all concluded between governments.
As to the last part of the question put by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, without divulging the discussions which took place in Quebec City and which I attended, I wish to inform him that there are grounds to hope that those numerous representations, among which those from the community of Sherbrooke, to ensure that the provincial government recognizes the urgent nature of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point. I wish to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this precedent was started at the time the government was following the roster system and members of the House had no opportunity to ask questions even of acting ministers. Now that the Prime Minister has seen fit to do away with the roster system, I think he should at least establish acting ministers in this House when ministers are absent. I am not criticizing the necessity for ministers being away, but I say that the Prime Minister has an obligation to provide for members of the House acting ministers so that this nonsense can stop once and for all, because objections have been made to it since the first day it was started.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we will not get involved again in an interminable point of order and a series of questions of privilege. I would hope we might go on to the business of the day. However, the parliamentary secretary wishes to pursue the matter and I have no alternative but to listen to him.
Oral Questions


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make one comment. It has been the practice of the House to have members on the other side address questions to members on this side who are not ministers, including chairmen of committees and parliamentary secretaries. I see no reason why the rules should be interpreted in such a restrictive fashion as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has suggested.


John George Diefenbaker: Nonsense!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we hear the hon. member's point of order, I might point out that there seems to be a disposition on the part of hon. members, including the parliamentary secretary, to pursue the matter. I will listen to all hon. members who wish to make a contribution.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I think that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is not the only one who has been elected by the Canadian people; I too have been elected by the people and I am entitled to obtain answers.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is not my intention to take away from the hon. member his right to represent his people, but I would suggest to him that he represent his people in the right way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: If by
chance a precedent is established in the House whereby the rules themselves can be violated, then I will turn up some very interesting precedents which involve the use of unparliamentary language in the House. A precedent has already been established on a question which was brought up last week which was ruled out of order owing to the use of unparliamentary language, but a few moments later someone on that side of the House used unparliamentary words. I say that if a precedent is going to be established, let us throw out the rule book and start all over again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If hon. members feel that this point has been resolved, we might now return to the business of the House.

June 4, 1973
Official Languages



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday June 1, 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 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 Lan-
guage 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. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to conclude the remarks I began on Friday. I regret the absence from the House of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) who spoke the other day, because I wanted to refer in part to some of the statements he made in this debate.
If I understood the minister correctly, he indicated some sort of opposition to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) because he seemed to be concerned about the fact that that amendment will make the declaration of these principles too firm. If I may use the exact language which was adopted by the Minister of Communications, he said that the principles would then not be "flexible and subject to change". That is the point. The substantive purpose of these principles is to provide some guarantee of application, a guarantee both to persons who are already in the public service and, just as important, a guarantee to persons who might contemplate joining the public service. That is necessary precisely because there is a widespread apprehension that previously the rules either were not known or were not applied in a satisfactory or fair way.
The minister now asks for flexibility. But it is fair for us to ask: flexibility in what direction? Flexibility for whom? The very reason that we face this substantive issue now is precisely that there was a kind of flexibility which seemed unfair to many people. The amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would guard against that kind of flexibility. It would provide some guarantees. The resolution without it would be mere opinion.
It might be claimed that it is influential opinion. But may I remind you and the House that influential opinion also changes. For a public servant, or for a young constituent of mine who might contemplate becoming a public servant, there would be cold comfort if an election or some other event caused this opinion to change or to be ignored, because there is no doubt at all that in law the opinion expressed in a resolution has no force. That is the clear result of the case of Roman Corporation versus Hudson's Bay which was decided in the Ontario Court of Appeal and upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada this May. It made the point firmly that proceedings in this parliament have no force in law. It is clear from the advice of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission that, in his actions, he was bound only by the language of the act of parliament and not by the language of the so-called Pearson pledge which had no force in law.
It is clear even in the recent statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who explicitly advised the House that his government did not intend to be bound by a mere resolution of the House concerning Viet Nam. The precedents of law, indeed the very practices of ministers of the government this session, affirm
June 4, 1973

the fact that in terms of law the opinion of this parliament is as incidental as a cough in the night. There is no doubt about that. There is no guarantee in this resolution without the amendment, no protection over a period of time, and it has no more force than the statement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in December or the pledge of the late prime minister years before.
The minister asks for flexibility. If that is a serious request, it raises important questions indeed about what other matters the government might excuse from legislation with the argument that flexibility is needed. What matter before this parliament is so fixed and firm that it does not require flexibility? That, Sir, is what the process of amendment is all about. The extra advantage of the amendment is the requirement that any changes, any flexibility, must be accomplished in the light of day, with the knowledge and deliberate consent of the parliament and people involved. And until that consent is achieved, the people concerned have guarantees. I ask you, Sir, what is so special about this matter that the normal practices cannot apply?
The minister suggested that this matter is very difficult to be definite about, involving as it does staff relations and subjective judgments. He went on to suggest-he didn't come right out and say it, but the implication was clear-that the application of language guidelines is so complex that only the people who actually apply them know enough to criticize. There is an argument with possibilities. If we accept that view, then this parliament would be mute. There would be no criticism or scrutiny of anything, and no control.
The government will have to find a better defence than to suggest that matters are so complex that only it can deal with them. Of course they are complex, but either you are going to have guidelines or you are not, and if we have a situation where an administration or an administrator is able to modify a guideline because it is too difficult to enforce, then again we have no guarantees at all.
The minister pointed out that spokesmen for this party had argued, when the Languages Act was first before parliament, for an approach by resolution because that would allow flexibility. That, Sir, is a mere debating point, and matters relating to official bilingualism are too important to be dealt with by debating points. In any event, the government rejected then the approach it proposes now, and the practice was established of proceeding by law, not by resolution, on this question. If the substance of the matter is important enough to be enshrined in law, so are the principles which guide the application of bilingualism in the public service. The government just cannot have it both ways.
But if the minister is serious, and if we grant his request for flexibility, we will again create conditions in which public servants or prospective public servants will fear that regulations will be interpreted against their interests. That is the very fear this resolution purports to redress, yet if we reject this amendment we run the risk of reviving the fear instead of reducing it. In light of all that I have said I assume the minister was not serious in his suggestion on Friday. He was not stating the government's response so much as he was testing the wind. Certainly, if he is interested in allaying fears, achieving bilingualism
Official Languages
and getting on with the business of Canada, he and his colleagues will support the amendment and give force to what they propose.
As the House knows, this matter of bilingualism is not without contention. In my own region of western Canada there are some who, as a matter of what they see as principle, would oppose virtually any measure designed to make bilingualism work. In my view they are the voices of a small minority, and are no more representative of that region than the voices of separatism are representative of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, Sir, they are probably less so. But I say with seriousness that there are other western Canadians, many in number, who have reservations about the application of official bilingualism but who will go along with it as part of the price they pay for the other benefits of their country. With time and with encouragement, many of the sons and daughters of this group will become bilingual, and some of the group themselves will, because that will be part of being Canadian, like learning to pronounce Mahavolich, or learning to live with snow. But if instead of being encouraged to accept bilingualism these people are encouraged to suspect it, there is the danger that they will become stubborn; that is the danger directly aroused by this debate. The problem is not the nine principles. It is not even the DeBane addendum or amendment. The problem is the public tone and the suggested motives for the introduction of the resolution.
When I began my remarks on Friday, I referred to my own regret at the innuendo in the remarks in January of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). That, Sir, was an insult to me and to many other members who deliberately faced down the temptation to embrace prejudice on this question. But more than an insult, these insinuations set poison in the system. A predictable response has come from that small minority which actively opposes bilingualism. But the poison could spread to other and more tolerant parts of the body politic, particularly if the innuendos continue and if the government rejects an amendment which merely gives the binding force of law to what it proposes.
I do not give this warning lightly. As I listened to the Minister of Cummunications (Mr. Pelletier) on Friday with his talk of dinosaurs and his playing with the monarchy, I wondered what effort he has made to understand my part of the country. I have tried to understand his, and so have several of my colleagues here as well as my neighbours at home.

It was not easy for us who came from cities and towns where there were no French Canadians, from areas far from Quebec, and who attended schools where French is not properly taught. That problem still exists.

But we are doing the positive things we can. Sir, we have a right to expect not patience but reciprocity, at least from a minister of the Crown, some fairness, and some

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
sensitivity to matters which might cause us special problems. National unity is not a one-way street.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Sir, we in western Canada are not a region like the others. No region in this country, is, but one of our characteristics is a cultural and linguistic tradition different from that of the longer settled regions of the country. A great many of our citizens are of an origin other than English or French, and to many of them bilingualism appeared as a threat, particularly when the government delayed so long its recognition of multiculturalism. Many more of us, my age and older, were raised in a kind of regional insularity in which we just did not know that Canada, in practice, was a bilingual country. Indeed, I was out of high school before that fact came home to me. So bilingualism was, quite literally, a world we did not know, and the adjustment to the Languages Act was not as natural in Alberta as it might have been in Montreal.
There are still some special fears. One is that western Canada's young men and women of talent might not enjoy an equal chance in Canada's public service simply because they were born where the French language was inadequately taught. Whether it is paranoia or perceptiveness, many western Canadians feel at a disadvantage anyway, in competition for position against the old school, old boy network of central Canada, and that sense is sharpened by the knowledge that some public service positions require a level of bilingualism it is often difficult for prairie candidates to acquire. The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition would provide some guarantees against that fear, but it is symptomatic of a western sensitivity which the program of bilingualism must recognize if it is to succeed. Sir, that sensitivity is not quieted, but aroused, by insinuations of the kind in which too many ministers have indulged.
When I began to speak on Friday, I expressed my surprise at the insistence of the government on bringing this matter back and expressed by regretful conclusion that their motive in so doing must have been to seek some means to divide my party, even if, in the attempt, they divided the country, too. That might not be their motive. Perhaps, in fact, they seek only to extend guarantees to the public service. If that is so, they will support the amendment because only the amendment contains guarantees. If their interest instead is division, they will oppose the amendment. But even if they do that, there is no way they will reduce or muddy the clear commitment of this party to a united and bilingual Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That commitment is not only clear upon the record. It has been proven in the heat of campaigns and in the face of provocation.
In closing today I want to repeat that I, and most of my colleagues, came here with the expectation that the issue of language was essentially settled in Canada, and that we could turn to the urgent concerns of this year and of years to come. We came here to deal with the issues of the

seventies and beyond, and not to strike old poses or fight old wars. That is clearly the desire of the millions of Canadians who grew into adulthood in the fifties and the sixties. It is clearly my mandate from my constituents. We are a new parliament in a new decade with enough contemporary challenges that we need not look back. The best proof the government can offer that it shares this spirit too, that it is more interested in the future than the past, is to support this amendment, which accords with and confirms all the high ideals the Prime Minister spoke of, and then let parliament get on with the other urgent work of 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us on both sides of the House have listened to an extremely good speech given by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want to say at the
outset, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the purpose of the motion before the House to reopen an old question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I suppose, as long as we have the type of country we have, and the complexities we have, these issues will continually have to be revised and revalued. The purpose of the motion before Your Honour is not to give the House an opportunity to express a new view or a further view on the Official Languages Act.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister said that was the purpose.


John Napier Turner: That was dealt with in a debate four or five years ago. The purpose is to express a view upon the application of that act, in practice, to the public service of this country. I want to take issue with the interjection of the right hon. gentleman. The purpose is to review the basis on which the Official Languages Act is to apply to the public service of this country. The object is to give the House of Commons an occasion to pronounce itself upon institutional bilingualism as it is meant to work in practice. The principles set forth by my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) outline the blueprint which the government and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission of Canada intend to apply in co-operation with the staff associations. It has also as its purpose the endorsement of those principles by this House and, by reason of this resolution, to take them beyond the dictates of ministerial discretion. I will deal with the argument of the hon. member who preceded me in a few moments but if I may, I should like to deal first with a few general points.
First of all, what do we mean when we talk about bilingualism in the public service? Many of us have said this before but I believe it will bear repeating because the thrust of the policy has been misunderstood in many parts of the country. We are not talking about individual bilingualism, Mr. Speaker; we are not talking about the ability of any Canadian to speak both languages; we are not
June 4, 1973

talking about any type of compulsion to force Canadians to speak the other official language, to speak other than the language that is his mother tongue or his choice. We are talking about what we have called earlier institutional bilingualism. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, called it functional bilingualism or the availability of a federal government service to Canadians in either of the two official languages of this country, French or English. In a reciprocal fashion it is the right of every Canadian to work in the public service in either French or English. In other words, it is an institutional fabric by which we hope that the national unity of this country can be cemented-namely the right of any Canadian from any part of Canada to deal with his or her federal government or agencies of the federal government in the language of his or her choice and to allow any Canadian to be involved and to work in the public service in either French or English. As my colleague put it, in a very detailed speech to this House on Friday, it thereby preserves the right of any Canadian to remain unilingual if he wants in his dealings with the Public Service of Canada and unilingual in his service to his country.
What is the purpose of the bilingualism policy? I think every member of the House is highly cognizant of it. Certainly, I was impressed by the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and their appraisal of the situation. National unity is consecrated by the ability of all Canadians to deal with the federal government or work for the federal government in either French or English. National unity in the sense of cultivating a feeling of consecrating the reality, particularly, and let us admit it, among French speaking Canadians, that they have an equal opportunity in this country and that they can be made to feel at home in this country and to feel at home at work or at play in the national capital. It is only in this way that I believe this parliament can undercut one of the arguments of the separatists, namely that only within his own nation state can the French speaking Canadian find his true home, fulfil his true personality, find his complete acceptance.
I believe that if this resolution, which has the support of the House, is applied by the Public Service Commission and by the Treasury Board in co-operation with the staff associations with understanding and humanity and recognition of the human careers that are involved, then the temptation of French speaking Canadians to opt for their own state will not be nearly as attractive. If French speaking Canadians are made to feel at home in reality, in appearance and in psychology within the bosom of a country we call Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think in terms of fundamental human rights one could say, too, that the use of language is essential to the exercise of a full personality.
[ Transla tion]
Mr. Speaker, as regards language as psychological extension of character, I am entitled to describe my own experience in the province of Quebec. I belong to the Bar of the province of Quebec, one of the most bilingual
Official Languages
institutions of the country, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) knows, and every lawyer and every witness had the right to speak in the language of his choice.
During my first years of practice, of course I had to plead before judges and to cross-examine witnesses in French all day long. It was physically and mentally tiresome for me, especially when inquiries lasted for two, three or four days. I was absolutely exhausted-


Claude Wagner: Worn out.


John Napier Turner: Yes, worn out, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, thanks to my experience I can understand how difficult it is for a French Canadian to live in English in North America, in Canada, where he must do the same thing as I, speak my language and make efforts in a language which is not his mother tongue.
I suggest that a country cannot survive unless every citizen is able to express himself in the official language of his choice, otherwise he cannot feel well and at home in his own country. And this is even more important when considering the atmosphere of the national capital.
This is a psychological matter; this is a matter of basic rights, of human rights. The problem of languages is a psychological matter; therefore, it is a key issue because most important and basic matters in the life of nations are those associated to unity, which is a matter of subjectivity.
Therefore, how does one feel in a given country? This is why I think that the problem of languages becomes a subjective matter, and if so, it is even more important for the unity of our country.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who leads the New Democratic Party, criticizing the government for the delay in bringing forth these particular principles. I can say to them and to the House that no one has been more anxious than the government, and certainly, the members sitting on the Liberal side of the House, to have these principles clarified. A good many of us have lived with the problem, and with the problems of our constituents. I can only say in answer to those hon. members and to you, Your Honour, that the application of a policy of bilingualism is an incredibly difficult and delicate procedure. Why? Because human careers are involved, that is why. As I said before, we had no prior experience upon which to call. Our particular situation in Canada is distinctly different from that of other countries with a bilingual nature, because of the makeup of our own country. There were no charts, no guidelines, and no well trodden paths for us to follow, as I said before. No one, Sir, should underestimate the difficulty of moving forward with speed and determination, and yet with a sense of equity and justice with respect to the human problems involved.
Let me say a word about the analysis of the nine principles and the supplementary resolution. These were developed in consultation with the staff associations. I want to take the opportunity to say to the House how much the government has appreciated and how much I, personally,

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
have appreciated the good will, understanding and cooperation of the executive and members of the staff associations and, particularly, those who sit on the National Joint Council.
Looking through the principles, one can see clarification and protection in a number of distinct areas. There is a new procedure of prior identification and designation of bilingual positions. This gives members of the public service advance notice on which to exercise various career options. There is guaranteed protection for acquired rights of unilingual public servants having ten years of service at the date of Mr. Pearson's original statement in the House. There is a new flexibility in the definition of bilingualism, as it may be required for particular positions. The ability to qualify for a position that may be designated as bilingual is now enshrined in advance of acquiring the second language. In other words, the public servant does not necessarily have to have a capacity in both languages at the time he stands and qualifies for a bilingual position. Once having achieved that position, he is given the opportunity to establish that bilingual qualification. As a result, and this is another point, there is now a wider availability of language training, and it becomes incumbent now on the government to ensure that anyone seeking admission to the public service or seeking promotion within the public service has available to him as of right, no matter what his standing in the hierarchy of the system may be, the necessary language training. Finally, there are wider avenues of appeal respecting the implementation of this policy.
I want to deal briefly, if I may, with the amendment put before the House by the Leader of the Opposition. I appreciated the reasoned calm of his argument and the fact that he put it forward for the consideration of the House but said, however, that it was not a condition precedent to his support of the main resolution. I believe that spirit was appreciated on my side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Despite the arguments put forward effectively today by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), the government has decided that it must reject the amendment put to the House by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are saying.


John Napier Turner: The reasons, and I will state them as calmly as I can to the House, are that the principles set forth in the resolution and their administrative application have been developed as the result of extensive consultations between the government and the staff associations.


Mr. Grafftey:: Speak from your heart.


John Napier Turner: The government has undertaken to continue such negotiations through the medium of the National Joint Council. It is our submission, Mr. Speaker, and I believe also the view of the staff associations, that it would be unwise to put into law at this time administrative arrangements that have been agreed to through these consultations and which might be

subject, after further consultation, to amplification by both parties at a later date.


An hon. Member:: You can always change the law.


John Napier Turner: Therefore, it is most important at this stage, both for the people of Canada as employer and for the staff associations representing the employees, that there be sufficient flexibility in the policy that I feel, would be a distinct advantage at this stage of the process.
Let me say this to the House about the implementation of the principles. The implementation of the principles can take effect without legislative action. Section 39 of the Public Service Employment Act provides:
In any case where the Commission decides that it is not practicable nor in the best interests of the public service to apply this Act or any provision thereof to any position or person or class of positions or persons, the Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council exclude such position or person or class of positions or persons in whole or in part from the operation of this Act; and the Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, re-apply any of the provisions of this Act to any position or person so excluded.
Thus, I submit parliament has already anticipated a possible need for excluding from certain portions of the Public Service Employment Act certain positions or persons. Legislation is, therefore, unnecessary, as the existing laws provide for the implementation of the principle, either by means of the Public Service Employment Act, the Financial Administration Act or the Official Languages Act.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Commission has been reluctant to seek such exclusions under Section 39, but with the approval of this resolution the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the Commission will interpret this approval as parliament's direction that Section 39 of the Public Service Employment Act be invoked. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission has already advised the staff side of the National Joint Council to this effect and the Public Service Commission will be requesting the Governor in Council to pass regulations under Section 39 to give effect to the principles.
A permanent committee of the National Joint Council, representing the people of Canada and parliament as employer and the staff associations as employees, has been established to keep under constant review matters related to the principles and measures contained in the resolution. It is safe to say that the staff side, recognizing the dynamic nature of this issue, has not pressed for inclusion of the principles in legislation. They believe and we believe that legislation at this time would be inappropriate as the consultation process is working effectively and is responsive to the dynamic nature of the complex issues involved.
The purpose of putting the resolution before the House was not only to re-affirm the government's intention and commitment to the contents of the principles and measures contained in the resolution, but also to seek similar affirmation and commitment from all parties of the House so that the House would support what has already been jointly agreed to between the employer and the staff
June 4, 1973

associations. Through the vehicle of the National Joint Commission, it will remain under continual scrutiny.
I have had a personal commitment for some time to the principles of bilingualism in this country. I had the responsibility for negotiating the Official Languages Act with the attorneys general of the provinces, particularly the provinces in western Canada and Quebec. I had some responsibility for negotiating its passage through parliament. I spoke during the Speech from the Throne debate on January 9, and have tried to give voice to my feelings on this crucial subject on every occasion when I found it legitimate to do so.
I believe that the resolution enshrines a series of principles in the application of the Official Languages Act that are fundamental to national unity. I believe the English speaking majority in this country must try to understand the hopes and feelings of the minority in terms of the future of this country. The French speaking minority must try, on their part, to understand the intense tolerance of the English speaking majority and the considerable progress that has been made in order to equalize opportunities within the Public Service of Canada.
I do not for a moment underestimate the human difficulties encountered in trying to make this policy work. It must work and it must work fairly. It must work because the future of this country is at stake. It must work fairly because we are dealing with men and women who are dedicating their lives to the public service of their country. In terms of the constituency and region I represent, nowhere is it more important that these principles be made to work. As I have said to my constituents on several occasions, without national unity, without a country, the city of Ottawa does not make any sense at all. We in the capital have a special burden, and yet a unique challenge to make it happen and make it work.
Re-affirmation in this House of Commons of these specific principles to convert the theory of the Official Languages Act into practice and working rules will, in my submission, go far toward re-assuring both those who fear bilingualism in the public service is going ahead too fast and those who are concerned that it is not going ahead fast enough. No one has ever claimed that the implementation of this policy would be easy nor that it would not arouse apprehension. The purpose of this resolution is to attempt to relieve that apprehension. Nor has it been claimed that it would not add to the cost of government. It is one of the prices we pay for being Canadian. I believe it is a price well worth paying against the limitless prospects of a united country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I intend to place before the House and the country my views in respect of this matter clearly and unequivocally. Throughout the years I have been in public life I have devoted myself to the unity of our country.
And long before many of those sitting in this House were born, in 1922, when it was unpopular to do so, I took an appeal on behalf of the French school trustees in the province of Saskatchewan. One always remembers the cases he has won. That case is reported. Through the years
Official Languages
I have devoted myself to assuring in this country an exemplification of the meaning of national unity.
I shall be referring a little later to the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Before doing that, I want to deal with a speech I delivered in this House on February 4, 1963. A portion of it was quoted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the other day. In that speech I quoted the words uttered by Sir John A. Macdonald in this House in 1890. I quote:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that, by any mode whatever, there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other. I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.
I quoted that with approval. That was the attitude of the government I had the honour to lead in this country. That was the attitude throughout. At that time I said, and I quote:
Today we proudly call courselves Canadian citizens enjoying every attribute of freedom and sovereignty.
Confederation was achieved by a partnership of English speaking and French speaking men who believed that the destiny of the north half of this continent might be achieved in unity but not in uniformity. But for the fundamental agreements expressed in section 133 of the British North America Act, with its assurance of the rights of language in this country, and section 91 and 92 assuring to the provinces their jurisdiction over education and culture, there never would have been a Canada .. .
Canada, under confederation, has prospered and grown. There have, however, arisen from time to time-periodically it takes place-questions as to whether Canada, as she approaches the close of the first century of confederation, has achieved the full measure of the vision of the fathers of confederation. It is with this thought in mind that the government has decided to propose the calling of a federal-provincial conference, and invitations to such a conference will be dispatched to the governments of the ten provinces at once.
The scope of the conference will be of the fullest breadth. It will be asked to study ways and means of repatriating the constitution, the problem of adequate representation in the public service. Crown corporations and other government agencies; the recommendations in the Therrien report; the choice of a national flag and other symbols of our national sovereignty. In brief, the conference will be asked to examine biculturalism and bilingualism in a comprehensive manner.
I then went on to say it had been suggested a royal commission could do that. I opposed a royal commission. In light of events, I leave it to the country to conclude who was right. The royal commission cost $10 million. The result of that royal commission has been divisions in this country unequalled in all the years since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I then went on to say:
In correcting any injustices that might be found we shall destroy prejudice and misunderstanding. We are ready to take action to deal firmly and positively with any danger which confronts the basis of the Canadian confederation.
This is a task to which all Canadians can give their willing allegiance...
To the original French and English strains in the Canadian population there have now been added many Canadians of other origins. They have come of their own choice to this country and have become members of the Canadian family, bringing with them their traditions and rich heritages of culture. By their contributions they have enriched, deepened and diversified the cultures of this nation.

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
By their contributions they have enriched, deepened and diversified the cultures of this nation.
And I saw a Canada-and this has been my life's work- which would bring an end to the division of this nation on the basis of origins, while maintaining the basic principle of confederation, an end to hyphenated Canadianism where each of us would take up the racial origin of our respective made forebears, with the rights of French Canada maintained inviolate as they were provided for in the British North America Act. Such a Canada I said was destined to play an ever greater and beneficent role in the world as an example of cultures and peoples residing together in unity.
Sir, I have been in a minority before. I was in a minority at the convention of the National Conservative Party. I had no idea of standing for the leadership. None. But I warned the Conservative party then that the idea of deux nations-two nations-was, as a policy, the negation of everything for which Macdonald and each succeeding prime minister from the Conservative party had stood. They said I was wrong. I need not go into detail concerning what happened. This party could not survive on the basis of a policy like that. Yet it was passed by the sub-committee of the party and by the committee on policy. I dared to speak. Having spoken, the next morning I had to allow my name to be put in nomination because of the fact that nominations had to be in by ten a.m. Otherwise, people would have said: He voices his opinions but he dare not stand.
French Canada? Well, I have always had a wonderful welcome there. In my own province, those of French origin voted for me. They voted for me when it was most unpopular for anyone to do so. They did it because I stood for their rights; I stood for their constitutional rights when it was unpopular to do so. Members opposite say: We are going to get support in Quebec, if we propose this. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec people are no different from others in every part of Canada in this respect: they are not deluded by soft-spoken, soporific phraseology.
When I was leader of this party we secured support in Quebec. Let me point this out, because it is sometimes forgotten. In 1940, with an outstanding leader in French-Canadian life, Dr. Mannion, we elected not one in Quebec though we did elect one independent. Then, John Bracken became leader of this party. He had, in Manitoba, supported Canadians of French origin over the school question of 1896, and they stood with him. In 1945, we elected one member. Then Mr. Drew came in. He had strong claims in French Canada, and he elected two. And in 1953, we in this party elected four. They tell me I know nothing about the feeling of French Canada. That may be so, but at the worst of times, when I was leader, we in this party elected more than three leaders had done in four successive election campaigns. And when I go to Montreal, when I go to Quebec, the welcome I receive today is as heartfelt as anyone could wish.
I am sorry I have never been able to learn the French language so as to make a speech in French. I have read Racine, Moliere and Corneille. And I read French today with almost the same facility as I read English. But I do

not have an ear for sound. I am not like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -who has a capacity of intonation which I lack. But I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who was my member for years, only made two speeches in French in his entire life. Once he said "Oui", and the second time he said "Oui, oui."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: But he swept the Province of Quebec.
What did we do during my time as leader? The first thing I said we should do was to make the House of Commons bilingual. And we brought in simultaneous translation. Next, I got in touch with the administrative departments of government and pointed out that French Canada was not receiving its fair share of the upper echelon appointments. In the Department of External Affairs it was preposterous the degree to which these people did not get any kind of reasonable support when it came to appointments. It was upon my recommendation, and no one else's, that for the first time in history, the first time since Vaudreuil, one of French origin became the Governor General of Canada. The Queen accepted that recommendation. And it was in my time that bilingual cheques and the like were brought in.
This was a matter which was deeply in the hearts and minds of Canadians of French origin. So don't tell me I know nothing about the requirements of French Canada. You cannot fool the people in the Province of Quebec by taking up the position: the government brings something in and we are for it, and therefore we will get support. Nobody ever got support by tying themselves to the tail of a comet-and I think the description "comet" just fits the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He flashed, and he is gradually disappearing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Why was this motion brought up? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is a man of whom I have always spoken in the warmest terms. I don't think he has always reciprocated. I seem to remember a campaign in which caricatures of me-and I caricature well-were exhibited. But I do not mind attacks in politics as long as they are not against integrity. I listened to him today with the same interest as I always do. He did not tell the House why it is that at a time when critical national issues confront us, parliament is being asked by the Prime Minister to masticate material already digested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Is this resolution before the House to bring about Canadian unity?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 4, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: I heard a tiny squeak of "yes" from one corner. The resolution was designed to becloud national issues today, issues with which the government has been aimlessly dealing. The Minister of Finance said: "We moved with speed and determination"; they were his very words today. Even the finest of slow motion cameras would be unable to take a picture of this government moving with speed and determination.
What has the Prime Minister brought before this House? It is his contribution to Canadian unity. The Prime Minister has brought forward to the House a prettied up, curry-combed version of a policy in order to give himself a new image. This is to be a tranquilizer. I shall mention the election results in a moment because they were not tranquilizers to the government of the right hon. gentleman.
At every hand in this country there is division and disunity, the responsibility for which rests with the present government and nowhere else. The Prime Minister said he was bringing this resolution before the House so we could stand up and be counted. I shall stand, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be counted. For I will not become the hand-maiden of a government which in the last several years, as a result of the mental gymnastics of the Prime Minister, has divided this country to an extent that I only hope years to come will efface.
The minister who has just spoken referred to being able to communicate in both languages. In the city of Victoria I am told that the Department of National Health and Welfare is listed in the telephone book in French, and there are three numbers for those who want to communicate with the department in French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is progress.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members applaud, but let me give them the rest of this. If you call the numbers they will answer you in English, and not one of them knows the French language.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That little item came to me this morning. I miss some of these observations that are made, and I am sure I miss a great deal.
Imagine the speciousness of the arguments that are advanced by the minister. The reason that he will not accept the amendment is that he believes in "flexible rigidity". I have heard the minister make explanations before, but never on other occasions have I heard him approach the school men of the Middle Ages. Just imagine the argument, Mr. Speaker. The minister maintained that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, even though not incorporated in an act, can be carried out by order of Council. What sham and hypocrisy is this?
The Leader of the Opposition was slapped in the face by the former secretary of state, who since the election has been demoted to Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier). The hon. gentleman brushed the amendment aside facetiously, but I never expected the Minister of Finance to give his support. The facetious and sneering answers to the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition
Official Languages
which were given by the Minister of Communications reveals that this resolution is nothing but eyewash. It will not be legally binding whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If perchance the Liberal party should win the next election, what would happen to the promises made in an unenforceable declaration by parliament? The government do not have to follow such a declaration; they can do as they please. Preambles and that sort of thing have no efficacy in a court of law. Why does the government endeavour to deceive the Canadian people into believing that something is going to be done? Do you know, Mr. Speaker, why the government is doing this? It is doing it to ensure that there will be votes in the province of Quebec. And in other parts of Canada the government will be able to say: "We are just devoting ourselves to national unity".
I did not like the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that those who disagree with this resolution are in the category of separatists.


John Napier Turner: That is not what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: It may not have been his words but that was his inference.


John Napier Turner: That is your inference, sir.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister does not hold that view. All I have to say is that this is a sham and a delusion. Hon. members opposite are going to ask the Tory party to line up and say "Me too". "Me too" was never the slogan on a standard that would make for a fighting opposition when the government is wrong in what it is doing.
What manner of thing is this? This resolution is designed to wash away the tears the government shed over the many defeats that they had in the last election. I look around me and ask hon. members, if they believe the Minister of ... What is Marchand now?


Some hon. Members:: No one knows.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in this game of political musical chairs it is difficult to identify the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). But what did he say a few days after the election? He said that the trouble was that those who voted for the Conservatives were fanatics. He also had in the chorus with him the former solicitor general, the present Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), and the former secretary of state, now demoted. That was the song that they sang. If what they said is correct, then all of the new members representing the Conservative party today owe thousands and thousands of votes to those who were designated by these ministers as "fanatics."
What happened in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker? I shall come to that in a moment, but I have never known anything to equal the transfiguration that has taken place in the Prime Minister since October 30. What a transformation it has been. In the twinkling of an eye he has pretended to be transformed and transfigured, and he now asks the

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
Canadian people to forget and forgive. Where was this policy regarding civil servants during those dark days? The minister, himself, I think had a considerably reduced majority. After all, there was no possibility of defeating him. That is what the augurs said about these other members, the two in Ottawa. Did they get any votes from the civil servants because of the damnable treatment that was handed them? Look at the record; look at the majorities here in the city of Ottawa; look at the majority in the neighbouring seat, Lanark. What happened? Men and women, whatever their Liberal past might have been, were determined that the Trudeau government must go.
What did the Prime Minister say at one time in 1972 while enunciating his basic principle? He said that you don't determine your timing, it is events that determine it for you. Was it the election result, where constituency after constituency across Canada was lost, which suddenly brought about that tremendous influence that produced the resolution in question? Sir, ever since the election the Prime Minister has exemplified Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. He could not understand what happened-"after all I am right". That was the attitude. Then this little coterie, or triumvirate, started in to recite that the reason for this resolution is the fact that the people did not understand. It was the harshness under the Language Act and the way it was administered that lost these seats.
Sir, this is brought before the House as a political dodge, a deliberate hoax. What are we to stand up and be counted on? Perhaps the Minister of Finance will tell me when in Canadian history, or in British parliamentary history either, a government ever asked the House of Commons to pass a resolution which is so totally ineffective concerning a statute that is a law of the country. There is not another example. After all, Machiavelli has become a must study in the circles of the upper echelons of the civil service.
Sir, the Prime Minister is asking us to give him absolution for the sins he has committed against the civil servants of this country. He is asking for that. The change has been tremendous. How do we account for it? Well, one time he explained-and I will use his exact words-"I always do the reverse of what others do". Some of you gentlemen who sit in opposition here were designated in 1968 as bums. Parliament was trampled on by that system of having ministers here one at a time, like cuckoos appearing in a cuckoo-clock. But suddenly reform came to him after the election. This reform was all across the board. Am I overstating it when I remember what Mr. Francis said after his majority of 7,300 votes in 1968 turned into a minority of 3,700? Who did he blame?


An hon. Member:: The cuckoo.


John George Diefenbaker: Spontaneity is the essense of truthfulness. He blamed the government. What about the member for Grenville-Carleton, Mr. Gordon Blair? He had won by 2,468 votes and went down by 10,800 votes. Who did he blame? Well, he blamed him even before the election. Then, if you really want the gospel get in touch with Mr. Murray McBride. What he said about the people of his constituency ensured that he ought to have another place other than the pulpit or parliament. Now, he is in the Post

Office Department. That may account for some of the slowness in the mail. He got himself a position after condemning the government and also castigating his constituents. Virtue has its own reward. Even the present Minister of Finance began to express his doubts in July, 1970 about the language bill. He, Mr. Francis and Mr. Blair suddenly came to the conclusion that there was something that ought to be improved in the bilingualism program. One or other of them stated that it hurt many civil servants, but the Prime Minister stood firm and the election took place.
What a change; what a transfiguration! The monarchy damned, not only by him but by two or three other ministers-ridiculed. The Solicitor General introduced a motion in this House whereby the oath of allegiance to the Crown would be done away with for those who took Canadian citizenship. That was only a few months ago. Sir, watch them when Her Majesty comes. The Prime Minister will virtually be able to strut sitting down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What about the flag? We had two flags, according to Pickersgill. He also has a big pension now. When a motion was moved in the House that the Union Jack, as the second flag for the Commonwealth, should be placed alongside the Speaker's Throne who prevented it? The no's came from ministers of the Crown opposite.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We are now asked to trust this government.
As to the Commonwealth, I can just see the Prime Minister in the month of August when the various members of the Commonwealth gather here. He will embrace the institution. In Singapore two years ago, when he was condemning Britain for her attitude in shipping arms under an agreement to South Africa, he said that Canada may find itself in the position of having to withdraw from the Commonwealth, as if he had any right to do such a thing. On wheat meat does Caesar feed? You would think that he could take the country out of the Commonwealth. But wait until August. "Already I have seen signs that the Commonwealth is a fairly good institution" he said. His words in New Delhi in January of 1971 were:
If enough nations withdraw from the Commonwealth over the South African arms issue a chain reaction will start that might force others to quit,-including Canada.
He comes to parliament with this innocuous piece of legislation. I guess you can describe it as nothing else but a piece of legislation. He says he trusts parliament. What happened when the Conservative members in 1968 joined in a Hallelujah chorus about the change of rules? We fought him on rule 16, and he withdrew it at the last moment, and then the day after he said that the Tories walked into a trap, and ever since then this parliament has been innocuous. "We are the masters of this chamber"-[DOT] you remember the words?
June 4, 1973

What about this legislation? The opposition tried to improve it. We had certain objections, one of which regarded its constitutionality. Other amendments were moved, but I will not detail them. They can be found in Hansard of July, 1969. But here is the one that shows the utter hypocrisy now before parliament. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), and that amendment was:
That Bill C-120 . . . the following subclause 5:
(5)	Notwithstanding anything in this Act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this Act, provided that the applicant has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other official language.
Is that not what it says? The Minister of Finance, then minister of justice, brushed it aside. "It is worthless", he said. The Liberal members lined up and said "you are so right".


John Napier Turner: The right hon. gentleman should read the argument.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not get that.


An hon. Member:: You did not miss much.


John Napier Turner: I think the right hon. gentleman should read the argument.


John George Diefenbaker: I read it and I found it to be the most indigestible collection of nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We said that the constitutionality should be tested. The then minister of justice said "it is constitutional. I tell you it is, and the Prime Minister says it is". I said that we should allow the Supreme Court of Canada the opportunity to test it, and the then minister of justice said, "we are not afraid of that". Anybody can object. Then, Mr. Justice Thorson raised an objection and the Department of Justice appointed lawyers who fought inch by inch against Mr. Justice Thorson having the opportunity to even start the action. The matter will come before the Supreme Court of Canada within the next few days.
What about the constitutionality? Nothing has been decided yet. There is a case coming here, but it will not be decided before the fall.
The best argument advanced was by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). He spoke in July of 1969. He went into detail and then said:
When a jurist of the stature of J. T. Thorson places before the Canadian people his concern about the constitutionality of the bill, I would think the government would be quick to make a reference to the Supreme Court-
Then, later that day, he went on to say:
It is the lack of reference to the Supreme Court that has created my greatest problem regarding this bill. Had the government taken steps to make such a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada ... or had it indicated there was agreement by all the provinces to amend the BNA Act, requiring action to obtain passage of an act by the parliament of the United Kingdom, I might have been willing to support the bill.
His position today cannot be changed-
Official Languages


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might be allowed at this moment to interrupt the right hon. gentleman to bring to the attention of the House that his time has expired. But of course he may continue with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The House has always been considerate, except on one occasion when the present Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) was the only person in the House to say "no". If he were here, I would read him some interesting things.
That was one of our arguments. The other was that the Commissioner of Languages has powers that were too great. Lo and behold, some of the Liberal members have since concluded that his powers were too great. He was given greater powers than any person in Canadian history. I heard him yesterday on "Cross Country Checkup". If you really want to check up on what he said yesterday you will have an opportunity of doing that on a later occasion, as I am now speaking on the amendment. He is the one who spoke about the Westmount Rhodesians. That was a classic phrase. He went to the United States to make that statement before a learned society. When he was questioned, he said "I was joking". Joking! Yesterday he was not joking when he was asked questions. He said to one person "garbage" when that person took some issue with the act. He used some other language too that indicated he is completely comtemptuous of the rights that he has and he has come to the position where he believes that anything he does is humorous, regardless of the wrong that has been done to the public service of our country.
We said that the despotic powers of the commissioner should be reduced. We said that there should be protection of the rights of English speaking civil servants who have been in the civil service for years, who could not meet the provisions of the Languages Act and therefore would be denied advancement. I said that bill created an injustice to the people of other racial origins and made them second class citizens. And it did. They were in a lower category, Now, along comes the government and suddenly the Prime Minister has seen the light again, and about $10 million is going to be made available. Some 5 per cent of what is going to be spent on biculturalism and bilingualism is going to be doled out from the rich man's table to all the six million people of racial origins other than English and French.
Sir, I can never get over the observation that the Prime Minister made when somebody asked, "What is going to happen if any civil servant refuses to learn French?" And he replied, "Unwilling? That would be fine. We would keep him running elevators where there are no French Canadians." There is the attitude, Mr. Speaker. And Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to say by its vote that we do appreciate the way in which this act has been administered, the way in which discrimination has been practised under it. Sir, I shall not participate in giving to the government the appreciation of one who has tried through the years to bring about an end to discrimination within this nation, and in saying to the Prime Minister and to the

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
government, "We know that you have become transfigured, and that all now is well. You are forgiven."
I opposed the bill. I oppose this resolution on the ground that it will give explicit approval and an expression of confidence to the Prime Minister for doing that which he has not done. Never before has a government ever asked to receive a vote of confidence for what it hasn't done because it has decided since an election to change its mind. I ask hon. members behind me, are you going to be made dupes? I can look at one of you, act one and another who were elected just because of the Languages Act, at least according to the Minister of Transport, and according to two or three other ministers.
This resolution shows a contempt for parliament, for parliament is only consulted when given an opportunity to afford a mechanism for political expediency to the Prime Minister. And he hopes for support of the public. It is not a very subtle plan. The ruse is far too transparent. I, for one, have not that confidence in this government that I will give it support for what it has not done. I shall not support such political trickery.
The purpose is to accomplish the unique feat of conveying to French Canada the idea that absolute bilingualism will prevail. That will be the interpretation. When the Conservative party supports this, French Canada may simply say, "Why should we support that party? Just because it agreed with the action taken by the government?"
On the one hand, government ministers are trying to fool French Canadians, and on the other hand they are pretending to the rest of Canada that they have changed their attitude. I have tried, Sir, with the appreciation that I have for this House, to remove the verbal veneer with which the Prime Minister has endeavoured to clothe this act of expediency. When this Opposition votes for the resolution, every last one of you, according to the Minister of Transport, according to the Minister of Communications, and according to the Postmaster General, will have voted for the Act. None of you will be able to go to your constituencies and meet that. That will be the Liberal argument in every part of this country.
The Conservative party tried to improve the Official Languages Act. They were spurned. I am not going to ask hon. members to read the Official Languages Act but I venture an opinion, even without benefit of a Gallup Poll, that it has not been read by very many. It has never been my custom-and at my age I live from day to day-to tailor my principles to political expediency. I do not intent to cower before false gods. This is a transparent trick.
Sir, I spent a lifetime trying to bring about equality for all Canadians of all racial origins. Now, this will be swept aside. Because I was of mixed origin I felt for others who were too. My people had been in Canada since the early 1800's, but because of my name I was not a Canadian. I was not accepted as a Canadian. I put an end to that. I said we were Canadians all.
And what have we got today? We have Anglophones, Francophones, multiculturalphones, all kinds. Everything I have striven for I see now being swept aside, and an end to that Canadianism which, above everything else, has been my devotion throughout a long life. It could be the

last time I will speak on this subject when this debate is over, but my last words will be: God help Canada from the disunity in which it now finds itself.
We shall never build the nation which our potential resources make possible by dividing ourselves into Anglophones, Francophones, multiculturalphones, or whatever kind of phoneys you choose. I say: Canadians, first, last, and always!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I say God help Canada were the attitude of the right hon. gentleman to prevail in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have been a great admirer of the right hon. gentleman. I think this is an open secret in the House of Commons. I still am. I think that the right hon. gentleman has earned his place in the history books of this country by his contribution to parliament, by his production of the Bill of Rights, by his undeniable concern for the rights of individuals. Parliament would be a poorer place without the right hon. gentleman. His ability as a debater is second to none and his ability to talk around the subject at hand is second to none. Very rarely this afternoon did the right hon. gentleman speak about the issue at hand. His concept of equality is something that is hard for me to follow. Equality for Canadians, obviously in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman, means a unilingual English-speaking Canadian, a Canada in which Ottawa and the public service is out of bounds to millions of Canadians who happen to live in one particular section of the country called the province of Quebec.
The hon. gentleman has done many things to advance the cause of French speaking Canadians. He did, indeed, name the first French speaking Governor General in Canadian history, following the first English speaking Canadian Governor General in Canadian history which I think was obviously a very logical thing to do. But when we get down to an issue as sensitive as language, when we get down to the question of unity, I try very hard to follow the logic of the right hon. gentleman. For many years I have attempted to be in the House on each and every occasion when he debates because I have learned a great deal from his style and his ability to make speeches without reading a text, something which should be enforced in this House. Nevertheless, I was puzzled and found it difficult to understand how his concept of Canadianism could possibly be acceptable to the people who are resident of the province of Quebec, who are Canadian, whose mother tongue happens to be French and who are told "There is room for you in Ottawa but under the following condition-that you learn to speak English because that is the language of the majority in this country."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman, subtlely and astutely, dragged in the two nations concept, the associate state concept, the third force, people of other cultures and things that had nothing at all to do with the issue at hand,

which is the application of the Official Languages Act in an appropriate manner. There are many people who feel that this act has not been applied with enough vigour and who feel that the progress has been slow. I do not share that opinion. I came here in 1962 when members of the Creditiste Party speaking against were the statement of the President of the Canadian National Railways to the effect that the French speaking Canadians were not capable of being directors of a Canadian corporation called the CNR.
I lived in Quebec when we went through the evaluation of the 60's and the two nations concept as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) knows. I used to stand in this House in 1962, 1963 and 1964 and fight against those very principles and I used to be told "You are stupid-as a politician you won't get re-elected in your constituency which is 80 per cent French by denying the two nations concept". I used to say "Be damned on re-election" and fight it and I accused the provincial government of the day of fostering separatism under different titles and under different slogans. So, I bow not even to the right hon. gentleman when it comes to my concern for this country, to my appreciation of the French speaking Canadians of Canada. If I were a French speaking Canadian, I would have been a separatist when I was young and I would have been a separatist in 1962 when I came here. At that time I was appalled to find that the only gesture of friendship in the House of Commons was that of simultaneous translation. Beyond that I can remember the days when Hansard was not even printed in the French language, when the reports of committee hearings in French were tabled weeks later and when we spent day after day apologizing for the lack of linguistic capabilities in the House of Commons.
Last Wednesday and Thursday, with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert), I met a group of young French speaking Canadians from my riding out on the lawn and they asked all sorts of questions about Ottawa and about parliament. One said to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, "How is it that when I come to Ottawa to visit parliament I am greeted in French?" I can remember the day when it was not so, when we could not find enough bilingual people at the front door to take the tours from Quebec around the House of Commons. That was not too many years ago.
Mr. Speaker, what are we asking French speaking Canadians to do? What is the Prime Minister suggesting? Nothing more than that Canadians whose mother tongue happens to be French should be able to participate in the public service of the country, to realize that there is room for them in the public service of this country, to realize that there is opportunity for them to be promoted, to make them realize that their language is welcome and enriching rather than a hindrance when they come to this place. We are asking them, I hope, one of these days to stop comparing the affluence of Ottawa with the drudgery and slum conditions of Hull across the river which is what they were expected to do when they came here 20 years ago. They were expected to live across the river, work all day in the English language in Ottawa and then go back home across the river where they could at least be exposed to their own culture. This is not good enough, Mr. Speaker,
Official Languages
for the French Canadian federalists of the province of Quebec who want to participate in everyday life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I say that I take off my hat to, that I am proud of and that I support the leader of the official opposition in his encouraging, dynamic and courageous stand on this particular issue. The other day he said that he bore scars for being progressive on this subject. I think the Progressive Conservative party is lucky to have as-their leader a man who is prepared to take that stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert said something that is very true. He said Quebec people are not different; of course, they are not. The French Canadian that I have known for 52 years is no different from the English speaking friend down the street. In time of need, I have been able to turn to my neighbour who happens to be French. Our children play together on the same hockey and baseball teams; we want essentially the same things for ourselves and our children, a country that provides jobs, a degree of prosperity and a degree of security. The French speaking Canadian demands equality of opportunity. How can you get equality of opportunity in the federal public service if there is no room for the French language? That has been the problem for too long. One would think from the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert that what we are suggesting in the resolution or what was suggested in the Official Languages Act-


An hon. Member:: He voted against it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, I do not want to get into a rereading of the 1968 speeches. I can still remember some of the speeches on the flag debate that were sickening. The hon. gentleman dragged in the flag, dragged in the Union Jack.
I am afraid the hon. gentleman has got an Achilles heel in that he has never been able to understand the French people of the province of Quebec. We came forward with a flag that bore no symbol of the French speaking Canadians, no symbol of the English speaking Canadians, but a simple maple leaf that was as acceptable to those who traced their ancestry to Ireland, to Poland, to the Ukraine, to Italy or any other country. His children or grandchildren have made this such a wonderful country in which to live.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we, and I mean not only the Liberal Party but all federalists in the House of Commons and in Quebec, are to beat back the separatist movement and continue beating it back, and if we are to win our fight for the minds and hearts of the youngsters in the province of Quebec, we must prevent them from turning inward and show them that there are opportunities in Ottawa if they should wish to participate in the development and formation of this country by serving in the public service. Such service is impossible if the penalty they must pay is being denied promotion because their mother tongue is French rather than English.

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
I travelled across this country in 1964 and 1965, and visited Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. I can say, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) said, that I rarely ran into anybody bigoted or biased in those places. I visited every constituency, I think, in Saskatchewan, including Prince Albert, and in pretty well every riding, people would come up to me and say, "I originated in Quebec" or tell me that the parents or grandparents had come from that province and that they had been able to hang on to their language and culture to varying degrees. Are these people not entitled to be served, at least by their own government, in their own language, regardless of where they live in Canada, if they need to be so served? How else will you persuade French speaking Canadians to leave Quebec and move to Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, or British Columbia?
It is not too many years ago that one of my closest friends, a French speaking Canadian, turned down a tremendous promotion outside Quebec only three months after leaving the province, because he could not find schooling for his children or cultural outlets, and could not even deal with the federal government in his own language. That is not what we want or what the Canadian people want. Those who happen to be bigoted or biased in their approach, and I am talking about Members of Parliament, and display bias or bigotry in order to be elected, are wrong. What is right eventually becomes politically right. A new generation is growing up, and this type of bigoted approach is fast disappearing.


Mr. Hueglin:: Not in Quebec, with Ouellet calling us royalist fanatics.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: At the same time, we must apply the Official Languages Act in a gentlemanlike manner, in a sensitive manner, and not in brusque way, because people, quite logically, fear change. English speaking Quebecers fear change. They are afraid of the working language in their own province being French and of the possibility that new Canadians will be forced to speak another language rather than the one of their own choice. So, the province of Quebec has a stake in this, too, and must make certain that its policies are fair and not discriminatory.
As so many others have said before me, this is the greatest country in the world. We all agree. Even though we are suffering from troubles and are suffering from so-called disunity, there is less trouble of that kind now than there was even ten years ago. Former prime minister Lester Pearson spoke very little French but had the vision to unite this country, to set up the B & B Commission, to take steps needed for the new Canadian flag, and to do the things that were needed with respect to the public service. Our present Prime Minister is carrying on that tradition. The Leader of the Opposition and other members have supported him, because that is only right and fair and is the price we must pay for the continuation of this country. It is a very small price, I might add.
Any country with two official languages and enjoying a multicultural society is rich. Such a country is a contrast to other countries which have eliminated all but one language and assimilated all cultures into one. It is paradoxical, perhaps, that Canadians of Italian, Ukrainian, Russian or Polish descent are better able to cling to their own languages and cultures by reason of the fact that we have

been able to resist being assimilated culturally by the United States. That resistance has been possible because of the existence of several million people in Quebec who do not necessarily share a common language with our neighbour. So, we are all richer because in this country we speak two languages and follow many, many cultures.
In 1973, as we look around the world and see the miseries of other countries, it is gratifying to know that the only thing dividing us is the medium of communication. Why, young people in Europe learn three, four or five languages under their educational curriculum. I hope from now on that this debate will centre on the Official Languages Act, that we do not accuse each other of fostering disharmony and that the Prime Minister will not be accused of being a divisive force, as he was just accused. There is no political gain in this type of approach, nor can anybody gain much by being bigoted or biased in approaching the whole question of language. If any gain results from such an approach, it will be very, very temporary. .
Let me say in conclusion that I could have lived with the amendment of the hon. gentleman of the opposition, although, perhaps, it would have introduced some degree of inflexibility. Perhaps the suggestion contained in the motion should remain vested in regulations which can be adjusted periodically.
Let me say a word about the constitutionality of this whole approach, and whether there are or ought to be two official languages in Canada. Mr. Justice Thorson has made his views on this subject known. I have discussed this subject with the learned judge and read his reasons for his stand, his books and his articles. Frankly, whether this act is constitutional is relatively unimportant. The facts of the case do not stand on the constitution; they stand on reality, on the fact that in Quebec there are millions of Canadians whose mother tongue happens to be French, who want to remain federalist and who want to see this country remain together. In several provincial elections they have rejected the separatist parties. If they are given a significant opportunity, they will become one of the real forces for unity in this country because they are realistic. If we deny them the right to work in their own language, to be promoted in the federal public service or to see the national capital, as it should exist on both sides of the river, as a reflection of our dual nationality and multicultural society, we will play a self-defeating and self-annihilating role. I support the Official Languages Act and commend it to all members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the debate resumes, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) will be recognized by the Chair.
June 4, 1973



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 tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Harbours-Atlantic area-Request for improved facilities for fishermen; the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney)-Energy-Possible establishment of refinery at Gros Cacouna-Federal government participation with Quebec in discussions with Saudi Arabia; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Harbours-Ladner, B.C.-Request for dredging to assist fishermen.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the progress we are making in the debate, I wonder if there might be agreement in the House to forgo private members' hour and proceed with the debate. Your Honour could recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie immediately, if there is agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary asks if the House agrees to postpone private members' hour and return to the debate that was interrupted a few minutes ago. Is it the wish of the House to agree to his suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As that appears to be agreeable, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That this House,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
Official Languages
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 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, and of the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 4318).
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express myself fluently in French, but I regret that my French is not good enough for me to do so. I rely on the goodwill and the wisdom of my French-speaking colleagues in asking them to understand why I must continue my comments in English.
I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). I would like to say that I agree with the points he made and express my disappointment with the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who accused the government of political trickery in this resolution.
4404

Official Languages
The right hon. member for Prince Albert said the resolution was designed to fool French Canadians into thinking the resolution was significant and a trick to convince English speaking Canadians that the government had really changed its attitude. I am disappointed that the debate is being continued on that level because there is a problem in Canada in the public service and with the Official Languages Act. I hope this resolution, to some small degree, will be a positive step forward towards correcting the shortcomings of the policy. If the Liberal government had followed the suggestions of my party when the Official Languages Act was first introduced and had consulted with the public service, perhaps we would not have a need for this resolution at this time. I hope this resolution will alleviate some of the problems.
I represent a constituency which is 6 per cent French speaking in the sense the people can trace their origin to French ancestry. This is compared with 40 per cent in the whole of Canada. In this debate, we must not lose sight of the realities of Canadian history and the reality of the situation as it now exists in this country. To those who want a unilingual Canada or to keep Quebec French only, I say they are sadly mistaken about the realities of our times.
If we look at Canadian history, we see there were two founding races. Throughout our history, since the time of the conquest in 1760, the English rulers tried on numerous occasions to assimilate the French Canadians, to make them into English speaking British subjects. They have failed. They failed in 1763 with the proclamation of that date. They failed with the Act of Union in 1840. One thing is clear from the reading of Canadian history. There is within the French Canadians a distinct desire to preserve their culture and identity. We call it "le fait frangais". I think this is a lesson all of us must heed.
I speak of the reality of today. Today, there are six million French speaking Canadians, the majority of whom do not speak any English. I refuse to get into the argument of majority-minority. The fact is that French Canadians are the majority in the province of Quebec and, therefore, have rights. Because they belong to this confederation, to this country, they have rights outside that province, just as English Canadians should have rights within that province.
When we debate this resolution, we must make a distinction between bilingualism and biculturalism and the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act, to which this resolution has reference, is but one facet of implementing bilingualism in this country. The Official Languages Act is concerned with linguistic equality in the public service. Bilingualism is a term of much broader scope. The objective of bilingualism is to allow Canadians of either language background to feel at home in the country so that they may truly say "I am a Canadian", not just in the province of Quebec or in English speaking Canada. In order to make them feel at home throughout Canada, we have to do more than is outlined in the Official Languages Act. If this is to be truly a country where people of either language group can feel at home, we have to look to not only government offices throughout

Canada being able to serve people in both languages, but government run transportation facilities as well.
We talk about bilingualism in the hope of achieving much in this country, yet when we look at the situation in our schools, we see there is a backward trend, a decline in the teaching of the French language in English-Canadian schools. In 1971, 55 per cent of the students in English Canada studied French. Today, in 1973, it has declined to 47 per cent and seems to be going down. When I look at those figures, I worry about what the future has in store for Canada and the opportunities for our young people to become familiar with both languages.
I am also concerned about present day attitudes toward the issue of bilingualism, particularly the Official languages Act and the way the government has tried to implement it. In January, I sent a questionnaire to my constituents. I included a question on bilingualism. The question read "In your opinion, is the federal government's policy on bilingualism (a) essential to foster Canadian unity, (b) doing more harm than good." Of those who answered whether they thought bilingualism as being carried out by the government is essential to foster Canadian unity, 30 per cent said yes and 32 per cent said no, almost tied. On the question of whether they thought the present government's policy of bilingualism was doing more harm than good, 55 per cent said yes and 10 per cent said no. The figures do not add up to 100 per cent because many who replied only answered one part of the question.
There definitely seems to be a concern among English speaking Canadians about just what this policy is doing. Based on the replies I received and comments I have heard, there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about bilingualism and the Official Languages Act. The responsibility for this misunderstanding must be placed at the door of the government for its failure to convince and explain to English Canadians the necessity of this approach.
Today, we have a backlash among English speaking Canadians and a skepticism among French speaking Canadians as to the worth of the whole measure. I wonder why the implementation of the Official Languages Act is responsible for this unfavourable attitude among many English speaking Canadians. The Official Languages Act is concerned with institutional bilingualism. Its application is limited to those places where it is needed. Each federal department must have enough employees and written materials to provide service to the public in both official languages.
We hear many reasons from English speaking Canadians as to why they object to this act. I think many of them are unfounded. Many people argue that this policy is costly to the taxpayer. The figure of $54 million is bandied about. I do not know whether that figure is accurate. Stories are told by English speaking public servants about not being promoted because they are not bilingual. This goes from neighbour to neighbour and stereotyping begins. What may have been one incident is generalized beyond all proportions. What are the facts? We hear about the cost to the taxpayers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I pose the question: What price Canadian unity? We have many examples of misspending by this government and we have had such examples for years. I don't propose to try to
June 4, 1973

categorize them all, but I merely mention the case of the Bonaventure. To be niggardly and to argue that it costs government money to provide services in both official languages is not only myopic, it is deceiving and it is not worthy for people to argue in this context.
What about the idea that civil servants are being discriminated against because they speak only one language? We in English Canada often get the impression that it is English speaking Canadians who are being discriminated against. Well, I read through the official report of the Commissioner of Official Languages and there are some very interesting statistics in that report of which I hope the public will be made aware. When one looks at the language used by the complainants under the Official Languages Act for the year 1972, one finds that 15 per cent of the complainants are English speaking and 85 per cent are French speaking Canadians. If one looks at the number of admissible complaints under the Act, the vast majority of them are from French speaking Canadians and their complaints have been found to be justified.
In 1971, there were 59,000 civil service jobs filled. Of those 59,000 jobs, 80 per cent required English only. Those requiring French only numbered 8 per cent, and 9 per cent required the use of both languages. In other words, it is ten times harder for French Canadians to get jobs in the civil service. So I say to English speaking Canadians who, through maybe personal experience, although I suspect mostly through hearsay evidence, say that the Official Languages Act is discriminatory, that they should read the statistics and they will then know that it is French Canadians who really have the problem trying to find equality in the civil service. I ask them to try to understand the frustration undergone by the French speaking Canadians who face these circumstances.
At the same time, I must once again-and how often this seems to be the request of English speaking Canadians of French speaking Canadians-ask French speaking Canadians to try to understand and be patient with English speaking civil servants. God knows there have been hundreds of years of injustice done to French speaking Canadians and it cannot be righted overnight. But I sincerely believe that English-speaking Canadians are now beginning to realize that something must be done. If we can only get the facts across to them, then I think they will understand, because the English-speaking civil servants I have talked to are not the bigoted stereotyped civil servants we hear on the media or whom we hear in conversations. I have talked to civil servants in Sault Ste. Marie who do not object to the principle of the Official Languages Act. What they object to is the way it was implemented. I was really impressed by the positive tone they had, the positive outlook they displayed. They saw the need for bilingualism in the civil service and they were willing to take the extra steps to accommodate the policy. But they objected to some bureaucrat saying: This is the way its got to be done. Or someone not explaining fully to them. As a result they were disturbed. They were not angry; they were not bigoted; they were just disturbed and they wanted to see the situation corrected. I find there is a lot of good faith and it is up to the government to do
Official Languages
something about explaining and implementing the policy of bilingualism in the civil service.
Therefore, I welcome these nine points of the resolution as my party welcomes them. I think they will go part way at least towards correcting some of the wrongs which have existed in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. I support the principles. But I do not support the Conservative amendment nor does my party. The Conservative party in its amendment to the resolution argues that the nine principles outlined should be made into several different statutes. As I say we do support the principles. But to try to believe they can be put into statutes will only complicate the problem and result in a backward step. The problem is that in trying to implement a policy one has to take into account particular local circumstances and situations as they develop. But this must be an on-going process. You cannot legislate fixed rules and say that they apply in Sault Ste. Marie and in every other community in exactly the same way. So these principles, if they are not made into statutes, will enable us to have some flexibility.
That there is need for flexibility was recognized by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) himself when he said, and I quote: "These guidelines have to be and should be flexible and they have to be subject to change". We believe in that principle, Mr. Speaker, and not only our party but the men who have to work under these principles believe this. The Public Service Alliance of Canada has stated clearly that it supports the idea of the resolution not being made into a statute, as does, too, the Professional Institute of Canada. Because the employees' groups do not support the Conservative amendment and because, as I have explained, it would mean rigidity instead of flexibility, our party will not support the Conservative motion.
The road to bilingualism in the country as a whole is a difficult one. But it is worth it. The road to bilingualism in the civil service is equally difficult but equally worth taking. It will take time, it will take tolerance and it will take understanding. But despite our quarrels and our frustrations, I believe Canadians are basically a tolerant people. Because of bilingualism we are a richer country. Indeed, the leader of our party pointed out the other day that if we did not have an official policy of bilingualism in this country we would not have a policy of multicultural-ism either. Together, both linguistic groups can build Canada for greater things. Together we can promote unity but still maintain our diversity.
Last January, Mr. Speaker, when I made my maiden speech, I devoted part of it to the issue of bilingualism. At that time I quoted the late Governor General Georges P. Vanier. I would like to do so again, because I think his words have much meaning for us in Canada when we talk about bilingualism and biculturalism. He gave this address on New Year's Eve, 1967, shortly before his death. He said:
The measure of our unity has been the measure of our success in the past. . .
If we imagine that we can now go our separate ways within our country, if we think that selfish interests can now take precedence over the national good, if we exaggerate our differences or revel in contention, if we do any of these things we will promote our own destruction.
26314-65J

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
Canada owes it to the world to remain united because no lesson is more badly needed than the one our unity can provide-the lesson that diversity need not be a cause for conflict, but, on the contrary may lead to richer and nobler living.
He went on:
Let us open the windows and doors of the provinces. Let us look over the walls and see what is on the other side. Let us know one another, and that will lead to understanding.
I pray God that we may all go forward hand in hand. We can't run the risk of this great country falling into pieces.
All I can say to that is: Amen.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, most of the problems with which we deal in this House of Commons are political in the truest and best sense of the word. Honest differences underline most of our debates here in this chamber. This idea is, perhaps, central to the fundamental workings of our parliament. Sometimes I become slightly suspicious when members of parliament, individually or collectively, cry out for a bipartisan approach to this or that issue being discussed on the floor of this chamber.
Having said that, I am as sure of one thing as never before: if we as parliamentarians let this debate on bilingualism fall into the partisan political arena, the damage to Canada, and to this parliament as an institution, will be incalculable. In my view, this is no exaggeration. Call it a cliche, call it a motherhood statement, but I approach this debate today in a spirit of seriousness that I have approached no other debate in this House previously.

I am sure of one thing, Mr. Speaker. When-


Mr. Langlois:: You should have spoken before the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


William Heward Grafftey: I beg your pardon.


Paul Langlois: You should have spoken before the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


An hon. Member:: You should have spoken before Dief.


William Heward Grafftey: Perhaps I should. But let me say to the hon. member that I do not think it is helpful when the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) calls us dinosaurs, or when Mr. Pickersgill says that all the bigots are on this side of the House. I hope the hon. member will contain himself and attempt to ascertain what I am trying to do in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure of one thing: it rests with each hon. member to see to it that politics is excluded from the debate on bilingualism.

With questions relating to national unity in the truest sense-bilingualism, multiculturalism and language rights-in spite of what I said at the opening of my remarks, special considerations surely exist which should invoke a bipartisan approach on the part of each and every

member of this House. I think most of us realize that this is the first time in the history of the western world that a country has attempted to, let us say, superimpose the parliamentary system on a young federal union which at the same time is multicultural and has certain language rights, as we in Canada have today. Surely, this demands the highest kind of leadership and statesmanship by each and every member of this House. If I sound as though I am preaching a little, I make no apologies. The question of language rights in a young federal union such as Canada should never become the subject matter of partisan political debate, and in this regard I underline again and again the leadership role expected of us in this regard by every Canadian.
If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I deal with general propositions in this House today it is because I deeply feel and believe that they are propositions that must be discussed before we give this resolution, or a bill or amended bill, our approval and clause by clause consideration. All four parties in this House must approach this subject as national parties. To do otherwise would be to abandon the trust that, in my view, the Canadian people have placed in our hands.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as this debate goes on with other hon. members in the House, I think-and this is not an overstatement-of Canada but also of my constituency of Brome-Missisquoi whose population is 70 per cent Frenchspeaking and 30 per cent English-speaking.
In my own riding, as well as in several other ridings, national unity exists in the true sense of the word. I will remember to my dying day that when I started my political life 15 years ago in Ottawa-I must admit it-I spoke broken French; it was even worse than now. I will remember to my dying day the warm and courteous welcome I received from my constituents, my French-speaking fellow citizens. Like the previous speakers, I have pleasant memories of my first years in Ottawa.
For example, a French-speaking constituent from Farn-ham in my riding wanted to tender with the Department of National Defence. Immediately after I received his request on the phone and then his letter, the papers from the Public Service in Ottawa arrived at my office written entirely in English. My constituent had to submit his tender within three or four days, and the officials here in Ottawa told me: Mr. Grafftey, you have to wait three or four weeks for a French translation. Mr. Speaker, I found that quite ridiculous 15 years ago, and I hope I finally settled the matter not through an act of Parliament or a regulation, but with a simple phone call.
Let us look now at the other side of the picture, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I am aware of what is going on today, and I do not want, as I said earlier, to make a political issue out of this question, but I remember something that happened a few weeks ago with regard to the government of the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, as I said a while ago-the population is 30 per cent Englishspeaking in Brome-Missisquoi-too often I write in English to my fellow citizens and to the provincial government and too often I receive letters written entirely in French. That is the opposite of what was happening 15 years ago in Ottawa.

There is one thing I want to make quite clear, Mr. Speaker: As a Canadian, not as a Tory in the Progressive Conservative party, I am going to fight to the last to secure the same language rights for my French-speaking fellow-countrymen throughout Canada, as I have always done for English-speaking Quebecers. One must respect the same language rights and grant the same protection to Anglophones and Francophones.
Let us put our cards on the table right now, Mr. Speaker. In my constituency of Brome-Missisquoi we have bigots on both sides of the picture. But, Sir, I am sure of one thing: I have no mandate from anybody in my riding to give them the time of day in this House of Commons. I, along with every other member of this House, have no mandate either-and I repeat this time and time again-to allow the issue of bilingualism to become a partisan political issue. The mandate I do have in this debate and in this House of Commons is to reach out across the floor of this House, and to my left in this chamber, to unite Canada- not as a Progressive Conservative, but as a Canadian first.
Only when we work as Canadians first to settle this question, in the spirit of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) who spoke so well last Friday in this chamber, only in that spirit-especially those of us of the contemporary generation; and I do not say that in respect of any difference in chronological age but, rather, in respect of those especially who perhaps view national unity in a contemporary, outgoing way-and only by adopting this attitude and acting as Canadians first and settling this issue once and for all, can we get on with the real and true task of nation-building.
However, I must say that in my view the present parliament has a very special obligation toward the people of Canada in relation to language rights. Let us put our cards on the table now and briefly and objectively state what they are. I fully realize I am only one of two members in my party from the province of Quebec. At the same time, Sir, within my party there is great strength and representation from western Canada where the creative and positive forces of multiculturalism are so often and so well expressed. Partisan debate in the past on the subject of language rights has given far too many Canadians the feeling of having been left out and ignored in what should be a non-partisan, family debate. There is no use mincing words: this approach that has been followed in the past must stop, and stop immediately.
At this point I should like to speak very frankly-I am not exchanging accusations across the floor of this House-with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) about an important consideration which in my view touches both directly and indirectly on any discussion of language rights.

-language rights in general or language rights in the Public Service of Canada, Mr. Speaker.
Since he came to Ottawa, the hon. Minister of Transport pointed out on many occasions that the Progressive Conservative party is not a national party. I regret Mr. Speaker that my party has only two members from Quebec in
Official Languages
the House of Commons, but I am sure the hon. Minister of Transport also regrets to see only one Liberal member in Alberta.

The fact is that both the Minister of Transport and myself are members of great national parties. To say otherwise is to play partisan politics with the very fabric of national unity. I well remember the time between 1958 and 1962 when the Liberal opposition of the day was not much more than a corporals' guard in this House of Commons, with more than half their members coming from the province of Quebec. Was it ever suggested in the press, or was it ever suggested from this side of the House of Commons that it had ceased to be a national party? The answer definitely is no, it was never suggested.
If the Minister of Transport persists in the theory that only his party is the party of national unity, or the indispensable force for Canadian unity, the result would be catastrophic: it would mean that the only political parties which Quebec citizens, or Canadians living in the province of Quebec would have would be the Liberal party or the Parti Quebecois. We all know what that would mean eventually.

Anyway, I remain ever convinced of the common sense of the Canadian population in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces.

While I have never agreed with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) interpretation of the constitution, especially as it affects federal-provincial relations, I have never attacked his federalist credentials either within or outside this chamber, nor have I ever suggested since my entry into political life that his party has ceased or will cease to be a national party. I ask members opposite, including the Minister of Transport, to re-examine their theories concerning what is and what is not a national party at the present time.
Sir, in relation to the question of bilingualism I repeat that this Parliament has an awesome responsibility. Primarily, we must not confuse language rights with cultural rights and cultural identity. I was particularly impressed by some of the remarks of the Prime Minister when he opened the debate on this resolution. He said that whatever the historical facts vis-a-vis language rights were in 1867, 100 years ago, 100 years later we are faced with other political and social considerations.
What are these? I have already alluded to them. The first thing that comes to my mind is that the vast majority of members from my province find themselves sitting on the government side of the House, while the vast majority of members representing the dynamic, creative forces of multiculturalism sit with my party on this side of the House and, I should say, with the NDP, the hon. members to my left. Need I say any more? Surely, these facts alone call for the highest kind of statesmanship to be practised by all parties and all hon. members in this domain. The Canadian people expect nothing less from us. They have given us a mandate to play our part in uniting Canada.

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
It must be admitted, Mr. Speaker, that I have some difficulty to follow the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).

I repeat that it is with some trepidation, and at the risk of sounding somewhat presumptuous, that I wish to address a few words especially to the Prime Minister. Considering the fact that he feels this resolution standing in his name to be so important, and he had so much to say about it-I have never said this before, but at least I think I know some of the awesome responsibilities that a prime minister must shoulder-and in view of the importance which most hon. members attach to this debate, it is regrettable that he has not seen fit to be present in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: However, I wish to address a few words especially to him as prime minister of my country, my prime minister, and to the prime minister of another day, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The Prime Minister came to office not only with a national mandate but with a special knowledge of the political forces at play in his native province in the late 1960s. He came to make Ottawa a meaningful capital and to make federal Canada a viable option for millions of Canadians living in the province of Quebec. It constituted a large part of his mandate. Who, in all honesty, could question the sincerity of this mission? The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, the first prime minister of Canada with other than French or British origin as he said today, gave with pride particular expression to the forces of multiculturalism so often-as we have heard and as we are going to hear in the House-to be found within the context of western Canada.
I do not think I will be giving away any caucus secrets when I say that in 1962 and 1963, both inside and outside our caucus the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who was then prime minister, had articulated his desire for an all-party conference which would be non-partisan in nature and which would involve legislators from all parties at all levels of government, and Canadians other than legislators from many walks of life. Such a great conference was to update many constitutional considerations, such as language rights and the rest, as we approached our centennial. I, frankly, think that the fact it was never held is to be regretted. I do not know what kind of progress we would have made, but the fact it was never held is to be regretted.

But unfortunately, since 1962-and I do not want to throw all the blame on one party or another, because both sides are perhaps responsible and as far as I am concerned maybe I would accept the blame-the matter of language rights has too often been mixed up with politics.


As I said at the outset that if we continue to do this only Canada and only this institution of Parliament will suffer because we will not be getting on with the real and fundamental issues of nation-building.
Past misunderstandings and wounds must be buried and forgotten. Members on both sides of the House have awesome responsibilities in this regard. If there is currently misunderstanding between the positive Canadianism to be found in the French fact and the positive pride in Canadianism to be found in the creative forces of multiculturalism, I plead with the two right hon. gentlemen in the House to show imagination and leadership, as I know they can, to lessen the suspicion and misunderstanding. I plead with the present prime minister and the past prime minister. Everyone knows what I am talking about here. It could be argued that both of them lost working majorities because of misunderstanding in this regard. I do not believe that, but there is perhaps misunderstanding, bitterness and suspicion in this respect. I plead, as I have never pleaded with the House before, for those two right hon. gentlemen to show what I know is their capacity for leadership and imagination and to water down the suspicion and misunderstanding that exists.
People like ourselves who have seen national unity work, where the English and the French work side by side, such as in my little village, might find it very difficult to emphasize with this misunderstanding and suspicion. But it does exist somewhere, and surely national leadership by both the present and the past prime minister is something that younger, contemporary-thinking members of this House may ask for if we are to have a decent Canada in which to live.
There is a common denominator of pride in Canada to be found in the French fact and in the multicultural mosaic. Every time I travel west I sense this pride in Canada in the west, as in all other parts of Canada. Both sides of the House owe it to Canada and to Canadians to join forces to strengthen this common bond of feeling.
I plead as I have never pleaded before that this House accept the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Why the resolution was put forward in the first place, not as an amendment to the Official Languages Act but in this form, escapes me. I say this without any partisan intentions whatsoever. It seems to me that if what I hear in the House is correct, by voting for the amendment we will allay those fears, perhaps unjustified, that this resolution was purely a political ploy.
Members on the government side have stated that we should have enough flexibility to permit change as the situation evolves. What kind of change? What kind of flexibility? Change by administrative decree and ordinance that has already created confusion and misunderstanding? Change in the intention of this resolution without reference to parliament? That is just what we shall have if the resolution before the House is not amended so that its provisions become an amendment to the Official Languages Act.
I say to members of all parties, as a first act in climbing onto bipartisan ground: For the good of Canada, accept this amendment. We are not trying to shove it down
June 4, 1973

anyone's throat. It might not be the be all and end all, but surely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) knows what I mean when I say, and will continue to say: For the good of Canada, accept this amendment. There is no trickery involved.
My leader is in the House, and I say that if there was one reason he came into national politics it was to play his part in uniting this country. Do hon. members think he put the amendment forward as political trickery? No. You can read between the lines when I say: In the name of Canada, accept this amendment and take this issue out of the political arena once and for all. It would be the first act we could all do together as we climbed onto bipartisan ground, without accusing each other and pointing to where the bigots are. Who knows where they are? Let us not give them the time of day in this place, Mr. Speaker.
If future changes are needed, let parliament, in good faith, do the amending. No resolution, be it ever so pious, will serve us well. Matters of this import cannot be left to administrative whim: surely we have learned that lesson. For some years now the Official Languages Act has been administered without real reference to parliament. The results, no matter what we feel they should be, are far from satisfactory. They are there for all to see. Surely government members have come to distrust a purely administrative approach to directing language matters.
Parliament must be consulted when basic changes are involved. Is there any doubt about that, when this is something that goes to the very fabric of our national unity? I have seen too many agencies of government, including Radio Canada, fly in the teeth of resolutions which had all-party support. Sir, this resolution must become an amendment to the Official Languages Act. I ask members of the party opposite to get hold of the Prime Minister tonight, have him join hands with my leader, and in a spirit of bipartisanship accept this amendment once and for all.

But we would have several things to add particularly if my proposals have been considered seriously. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily in the House of Commons- even with a piece of legislation or an amendment-that are settled matters concerning linguistic rights within the Public Service of Canada or even outside, without a true sense of understanding and goodwill and, I am sure that most members are such minded. But, Mr. Speaker, provinces must also play their part as far as the teaching of a second language is concerned.

I suppose we all know that we can do what we want by fooling around with acts, by amending acts, by looking at clauses and subclauses. But we will only succeed if there is a positive spirit of good will as we approach this subject. I am glad somebody is extremely sincere and progressive in his attitude to this problem; I refer to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). We have had many private conversations. I know he shares my view that the provinces can fulfil a much stronger role in teaching a second language, and if they do our job of uniting the country will be made somewhat easier. I feel that many of the programs he has
Official Languages
initiated will help in this regard. I can do nothing but encourage him and give him support from this side of the House. We should implore the provinces to do this, not only the province of Quebec but our other provinces. [Translation]
-to improve what is being done, Mr. Speaker, to that effect.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me simply state that we do not know our strength if we do not know our history. Confederation was an act of faith. Liberals and Conservatives joined hands to bring Canada and Canadians together. There was no indispensable man; there was no indispensable party. The Fathers of Confederation acted as Canadians first. Confederation was an act of national unity; there was no room for partisan debate.
Today, over 100 years later, a few things have changed. We now have four parties represented in a minority situation in the House of Commons. Millions of people have since come to Canada from many lands other than the United Kingdom and France, a fact which the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert articulated so well today. Yet, Sir, one thing has not changed; that is the necessity for each Member of Parliament to adopt the spirit of the Fathers of Confederation as we discuss the question of language rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being agreed that it is six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, we members are often accused of talking in the House to our constituents. Today I am addressing myself to every Canadian of English mother tongue. I am using the other official language to speak to you to emphasize the instant translation facilities available to us here in Ottawa and that these remarks will appear in Hansard, printed in both official languages. Easy communication is maintained though the majority of the English mother tongue members of this House have little or no fluency in their country's other language.
This last statement is not a criticism. We must accept as a well illustrated truth, that persons that have passed the half way point in their lives are not likely to have either the ability or the desire to become fluent in another language.

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
Very few persons are fortunate enough to live in bilingual households. Outside the province of Quebec there is only a negligable amount of business that is not conducted in the English language. In nine provinces, the opportunity rarely exists where a person can be immersed in a French-speaking environment.
We must also realize in our assessment of our current situation that the standard of second language instruction across the country leaves much to be desired. Far less attention has been paid to language instruction than other subjects. In many countries of Europe, a second language rates equally with other school subjects and a pass mark is a prerequisite for graduation.
In Canada, whether we be of English or French mother tongue, we have tended to build a resistance to school instruction in the second language that has lowered teaching standards and encouraged antipathy in our young people. In a communication vaccum, people tend to become emotional and sometimes afraid. American visitors enjoy Quebec because of its French language and distinctive atmosphere. The same attitude is found in English speaking vacationers in Quebec. This enjoyment is enhanced by the realization that they will not be lost or embarrassed because they speak one language. The unilingual English person demands the right to the protection afforded by the use of his or her own language. Why, then, is there English resistance to the establishment of minimal rights for unilingual French-speaking persons? Why is this motion necessary when we already have the Official Languages Act?
As it states in the initial paragraphs of the motion, it is necessary to recognize and approve the principles for the achievement of the objectives of the Official Languages Act.
Separatism is not unique to the province of Quebec. Here in this capital city, groups actively work for a unilingual English-speaking Canada. Many English-speaking persons refuse to accept the way of life of several millions of their fellow Canadians. This English separatism is just as deadly as the French variety, just as short sighted, just as bigoted and just as detrimental to the future prosperity and well being of every citizen of this country.
What then are we asking? Not that all English speak French, not that all the French speak English. But only that anyone communicating with their federal government be at ease and easily understood in the official language of their choice. That a unilingual French person have an opportunity to work for his government in his own language. That is all.
I am not going to repeat lengthy statistics. The inbalance is abundently self evident: 3.6 per cent of the appointments to the public service in 1971 were unilingual French. 81.7 per cent were unilingual English.
The last paragraph in the motion before us deals with the National Capital region and the desire to enhance its bilingual character. We have a long way to go. Here, at the Parliament of Canada it should hardly be necessary to stress that visitors should be able to address all officials in either of our official languages.
(Mr. Herbert.]
That this condition does not exist one hundred and six years after the birth of our nation is no credit to this House.
Language was a factor in the last election and no discussion of degree will alter that fact. It is an unfortunate truism that many persons will say one thing and do another. This is a particular weakness amongst politicians.
I am appealing to you as men and women who fight for Indian rights, for Eskimo rights, for the right to worship God in your own way and as men and women who respect the rights of others in a free society. I am not worried about the vote on this motion. I am concerned about our individual actions today and tomorrow.
To members who stress the merits of the official languages act, but suggest that we are moving too fast, I would ask to change sides just long enough to face the reality of the situation as it exists today.
Those of you that actively support Indian rights have cultivated an appreciation of the different way of life of the Indian.
Our two official languages also represent two different ways of life. A recognition of that fact will put an end to fence sitting.
If you have to wrestle with your conscience, before you recognize the right to equality of service and opportunity of our French language citizens, then I suggest that voter consideration is overriding human consideration.
I am extremely fortunate in being able to enjoy each day our very special Canadian way of life. Let us all actively work to improve it.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have heard a great deal of important rhetoric which I could not hope to emulate in speaking of the involvement of this question of language in the whole concept of national unity in our country. I say at the outset that I would not quarrel with anyone who says that the issue is an important one from the point of view of the future of our country and the relationship between our two great races which just over 100 years ago started as a partnership to develop a nation through agreement, understanding and compromise. I want to put my position with respect to this resolution in a somewhat different light from the positions which have been expressed thus far in this debate.
Although the debate seems to have centered on national unity, I want to remind all my colleagues in this House of certain facts. I ask the government not to forget that there is a very important human element involved in this debate. Thousands of public servants, the majority of whom live in the national capital area, have their eyes on the actions of this government and their ears on the debate taking place in parliament. So I rise to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, conscious that I have the honour to represent in parliament a large number of public servants and their families who at one time or another have been bumped and buffeted and have found themselves in the eye of what I said on a previous occasion was a
June 4, 1973

"bilingual hurricane". It is to this aspect of the matter that I wish to address myself.
I have found that for public servants the issue is not the Official Languages Act as such. The act was debated and its principles were examined by another parliament. The result of the examination was that all parties in the House at that time endorsed the principles of the Official Languages Act. For those public servants to whom I have referred the big question is not the act; the question is, what is the real and true intention of the government in advancing this resolution at this time?
I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who represents my neighbouring riding, Ottawa-Carleton, and who represents, as I do, a large number of public servants. He said this afternoon that the purpose of the resolution is not to reopen an old debate. One could be forgiven if one doubted that, in view of the utterances made in this House. I say that we should close the debate. The minister said that the purpose of the resolution is to review the principles under which the act is to be applied and under which implementation of the program is to take place in the public service.
Mr. Speaker, I think this question goes far beyond a mere matter of review. I think it comes down to this: we must enshrine within the law of this country certain principles which are designed to protect the interests of public servants, particularly unilingual public servants, in every part of Canada. The minister said the purpose of this resolution is to undercut the arguments of separatism. I say that we should go further and this House should make a pronouncement that will pull the rug from under the separatist element in this country.
When I have spoken to public servants about this matter, they have reminded me that this is the same government that has refused consistently to bring forth long overdue amendments to the Public Service Employment Act with respect to broadening the bargaining rights of public servants. This is the same government, Mr. Speaker, that has paid lip service to the principle of full escalation of public service pensions, a principle which we support, but has used what I call shabby legal arguments to avoid bringing the question before this House. This government has not taken in these areas any steps which are really meaningful to public servants.
Is it any wonder that public servants view with skepticism the resolution before the House? I hasten to add they are not skeptical about the words they read; their skepticism is centred around the real intention of this government. They are asking me and others how there can be any assurance that the important nine points now enunciated, and so long overdue, will have an effect on the day to day operations of the Public Service of Canada and will continue to have such an effect in the offices of individual public servants.
The fact is, as has been stated before, that this government has dangerously neglected to give the Canadian public a candid and comprehensive explanation of the Official Languages Act and their bilingual policy. They have failed to explain to Canadians, particularly public servants, in down to earth, practical terms the real mean-
Official Languages
ing of the statute and that which flows from it. There is no doubt that whatever steps they have failed to take, must be taken now so that misunderstandings can be corrected, so that misinterpretations that exist in the national capital can be eliminated, and so that all Canadians, not just public servants, will understand the true effect and meaning of the statute and the government's policy.
I met thousands of public servants in the fall of 1972. I say to this House, it is to their everlasting credit that the public servants of Canada generally supported the principles of the Official Languages Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That was their position. They recognized that the purpose of the act was to give equal status in the public service and in the Government of Canada to the two official languages. The act states that the two languages-
-shall 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.
Parliament enacted that statute. The government that brought it forward was vested with the duty to ensure that every public servant, and those contemplating entry into the public service, should possess and enjoy equality of status. It is, therefore, the duty of all members of this House, particularly those on the government side, to ensure that in the process of implementating the bilingual program in the public service, equality is assured for all public servants.
The problem is very serious. If we can solve the problems of the public servants employed during this period of transition, a period when we are trying to remake 105 years of history within a relatively short time, we will have gone a long way toward fostering and promoting the spirit of the legislation and the principles set forth in the Official Languages Act.
I have said before, and I say again, that the policy of bilingualism means that within the limits of practicability Canadians should have the right to federal government service in either official language. We should continue to search for equality. There ought to be a commitment to equality. We must not forget that entering the public service and advancing within it must be based on equality of opportunity for all Canadians. Every Member of Parliament has a duty to ensure that the public service is a place where Canadians can work together. All members, not just those who represent public service ridings, must ensure that the public service is a place where justice is not only done to every public servant but where it is seen to be done.
We must never forget that bilingualism involves the right to be unilingual, and that that right applies to both English- and French-speaking Canadians. There was on this government a very heavy burden with regard to the public service of Canada. It is a matter of history and record that this government failed with respect to that burden.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
4412

June 4, 1973
Official Languages


Walter David Baker: As a result of the way in which this policy was implemented, doubts, fears and apprehensions arose. Public servants came to the conclusion that the guarantees of a prime minister now dead were not being observed or honoured by those in the bureaucracy charged with the responsibility. During the past few years some unfortunate pages have been written into Canadian history. The circumstances to which I refer make it doubly important and of even greater urgency that what is done in the future will begin to wipe away what has been held to be injustice in the past.
As a result of the election in which one of the issues was certainly implementation of its policy, the government's record was so bad, so haphazard and felt to be so unfair and suspect that my Liberal opponent in Grenville-Carle-ton denounced the government's and his party's stand on the issue. It was after the election campaign during which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "If you don't like the public service you can get out," that new guidelines were produced. The timing was important. Is it any wonder that among public servants there is great suspicion as to the true intentions of the government and its good faith, and concern as to the motives which prompted it to bring forth principles which my party and its leader have been calling for since 1969? I hope I will be forgiven if I say that I do not trust this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I listened carefully to the speech of the Prime Minister, as well as to the speech of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). Like many public servants, I fear guidelines; they have the habit of wavering from place to place to suit the convenience of the moment. Even in the short time that I have been here I have seen a great number of guidelines waver. I share the feeling of suspicion and distrust of the government with respect to principles that are couched in a mere resolution.
I view this resolution as a statement of first principles. Having said that, I ask this government for once to go the second mile with the public servants and put the nine principles contained in the amendment into the statutes which affect the employment of public servants, so that all persons, whether they are in the public service, employed on boards, commissions or Crown corporations, will for the first time be given some real assurance in this regard.
Let the individual public servant know that at long last there is a new day in this whole unfortunate business. Give him the comfort of access to an independent tribunal. Give more than lip service to his cause. Every member of this House who has a real concern for public servants will support the amendment advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). This amendment goes no further than to give certain legal right to unilingual public servants in every part of Canada, and extends those rights to persons who are contemplating entering the public service. If the government does not accept the amendment as a matter of principle, I will doubt its sincerity with respect to this issue-so will the public servant.
It is unfortunate, but true, that if this resolution is passed in its present form it will have no force in law and

the well-intentioned statement of a former prime minister now deceased will not be butteressed by anything which offers protection to public servants. I ask the government to breath some life into this resolution and make it a real guarantee, as it ought to be. I ask the government to take the position that never again shall public servants hear a prime minister say how things ought to be, and then hear a bureaucrat say the prime minister's words do not bind him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Moreover, it is no argument to say that this amendment is right and proper and then to avoid it by suggesting that to embody protection in the law would cause inflexibility. That is an argument of sophistry. Lack of flexibility is one the surest guarantees of rights. Then again, this resolution is not the end of consideration of this matter by parliament. I see no reason why as the years go by our ongoing consideration should not result in amendments to a statute rather than to a mere resolution. The Public Service Staff Association has agreed to the principle of the amendment, I read in a statement by the Public Service Alliance tonight. They are concerned about flexibility, of course. But parliament is not an inflexible body; it is a place where these matters can always be weighed and judged. There is now too much legislation in Canada by way of order in council regulation beyond the scrutiny of parliament and the people.
The argument advanced against the amendment by my neighbour the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton who represents a public service constituency, can only be described-I say this with regret

as the shabbiest legalism I have yet heard in the House of Commons. I ask the government to reconsider its position and accept the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition proposed and which I seconded. I ask it to begin again a process which has thus far brought misunderstanding and mistrust, and I hope that the second kick at the cat, with respect to implementation, will be better than the first.
I join my leader in all the suggestions he made to improve the lot of public servants. I intend to vote for the resolution, but I would much prefer to be joined in an overwhelming vote for the amendment. I will support the resolution because it states principles for which I fought during an election, but I want it clearly understood that those principles designed for the protection of unilingual public servants deserve to be part of the law of Canada. And they would be, Mr. Speaker, if our party formed the government.
I realize that two ministers of the Crown have taken a position against the amendment we have put forward, and that in the minds of some hon. members this may be a hurdle over which they feel they cannot vault. I urge government supporters to confront this hurdle and jump it, so that from this day forward we may not have to go through what we have gone through in the last few years with respect to bilingualism in the public service. I do not want to go out on the campaign trail again and encounter that sort of atmosphere. I would much prefer to meet happy public servants than discontented ones. I ask the government to set the record straight so that every public
June 4, 1973

servant or prospective public servant, no matter from what part of the country he comes, can look upon the public service as a place for advancement, a service in which he feels trust, knowing that in his employment he is protected by the law.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, invited to give my opinion on the resolution concerning the application of bilingualism within the civil service, I will certainly take this opportunity to express my views and, perhaps also, allay the anxieties of some hon. members who consider that the subject is raised much too often in the House.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this resolution concerns a highly political subject which virtually affects the future of the whole Canadian people, and the members of all parties are certainly not wasting the time of the House when they publicly proclaim their opinion on one of the official languages in Canada.
We have adopted the Official Languages Act which was supported by most hon. members, by all party leaders and, of course, by all liberal members. In fact, not to admit it would be lying to one's self.
Moreover, over the past years, several interpretations have been made of the Official Languages Act and particularly of the respective roles that the French and English languages should play within the public service. Let us not deny it: Some fears have been expressed by many citizens and maybe also certain views were circulated through the public service which had nothing to do with reality.
Of course, the principles of the resolution may seem elementary but in view of the past confusion I think it is important to repeat these principles and to allow the most important political body of this country, namely the House of Commons, to state its position on those principles so that those responsible for the public administration may implement them with the knowledge that they have the Commons' confidence. Finally, basic principles will be implemented within the public service towards the essential objective which is to communicate in the language of one's choice at all federal levels.
I think I can make this statement without anyone being able to charge this government with politicking on bilingualism and, on the other hand, without charging the other hon. members and mainly the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) to try and play politics with this debate, which is basic if we are to understand that in the public service there exists a system by which opportunities and chances are equal for all Canadians. And I am rather convinced that the application of this resolution can better serve the causes of French- than English-speaking people because in the past, a certain group of French Canadians have rather been disinterested towards the federal public service, for reasons that can very easily be understood. There is also something that could be called not discrimination but a tendency to place people on a side line, because it is easier to understand each other when you are using the same language; it is also normal to deal
Official Languages
with an assistant, a helper speaking your own language, because that very important vehicle is essential to communicate with human beings.
Generally speaking, I think that this confirmation of principles by the House of Commons is timely; Mr. Speaker, if the resolution accepted by the House had no result other than to clear up the confusion in the mind of a number of civil servants and if the population could understand that we are trying to provide all Canadians with basic services they are entitled to when we are talking about the language of communication, either French or English, we would have reached an important point and at the same time, we would have insured better understanding between all Canadians be they from Vancouver, Quebec or the Maritimes.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am right when I say, without claiming that Canada is the country which is doing most for the French language, that we must realize that we are the most privileged persons in the world with the best means of communication to be able to use equally English or French which are both world wide communication languages. We must take better advantage of that asset in the federal public service where some gaps still remain to be filled. It is important and imperative for the government and for the House of Commons, because it it the higher political body in the country, to provide guidelines for those who will have the responsibility to apply them in order to ensure services in both official languages.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that our country is one of the most privileged countries because it has the opportunity to enjoy both English and French, which are two universal languages. Furthermore, with our means of communication, radio and television for instance, we are perhaps the country which contributes the most for the progress of both languages and particularly French, because I think that French-speaking Canadians, those who have a French Canadian origin in Canada, have a right to wonder.
All hon. members who speak French are members of an international association of parliamentarians. In 1971 we had the pleasure and good fortune of welcoming the representatives of 28 states. They were parliamentarians of French-speaking countries. I think, Mr. Speaker, that these natural relations between states, through the vehicle of thought which is language, are a considerable enrichment.
I think there is no need to recall that at the United Nations as well French is one of the official languages of communication.
But in a country like ours, Mr. Speaker, where a third of the population speaks French and where important steps have been taken by youth to learn one of the official languages a considerable improvement took place these last few years. I think it is important that hon. members make a decision on this question and state openly that some positions must be recognized as essentially bilingual to ensure the citizen the possibility of communicating in the language of his choice when dealing with the government.
One can say of course, once again, that it is elementary; previous years have shown that we had to come back to the subject, talk about it again and that the House of
4414

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
Commons has to make a decision on the matter. If most hon. members can accept this essential point, we will have taken a giant step forward or we will have accomplished significant progress towards national unity, towards well understood Canadian unity and we will have ensured the basic elements of a healthier understanding between Canadians, whatever their province.
I have received open letters and I know quite well that it is the same for several other members. Frankly, I cannot understand how Canadians can now speak of a possible unilingual country, of having one single language and one culture. These people, however, make an effort to write in excellent English. Yet, I believe that these people are not dishonest, but they really lack information. And perhaps their leaders have failed to fulfill the duty incumbent upon them, that is to describe really the nature of our country, how it was constituted, and finally, that there were at least six million French-speaking people in Canada and that bilingualism was not too important in some parts of our country.
I know that in my riding, 99.9 per cent of the people speak French; speaking bilingualism has some importance because it opens the doors of the public service to Frenchspeaking people, which was very difficult in the past since there was some reluctance to do it. To be able to understand and speak to one another, I think that this is one of the most important aspects of the resolution now before us, which recognizes that public servants should be able, under the provisions of the Official Languages Act, to fulfill their duties within the government in the official language of their choice.
I come back to the theme of the resolution which, in a country which was established in 1867, must be considered by people like me as entirely elementary. But, in my opinion, it had to be said in order to secure a better understanding and give public servants who will be responsible for the implementation of these principles the authority to ensure, once and for all, that the individual who will write a letter in French will be able to get an answer in French and that he who will write in English will get an answer in English.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I will say a few words concerning those who maintain that those administrative criteria should be incorporated in the Official Languages Act. Administrative criteria, or principles, which are somehow the guidelines in the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the public service, could very well be called regulations.
But regulations are not part of the legislation, and to answer the hon. member who proceded me, I will simply state that he does not have to get impatient, that if the House agrees to that motion, as I have a feeling it will, the government, which has always moved forward in the implementation of a genuine policy on bilingualism, both within the public service and in connection with the official languages and all the federal institutions, is still really the one which can offer the greatest possible pledge that the rights of individuals will be respected. It will however be necessary to make sure that the language of the citizen can be used as a basis and can likewise be used

in the public service, and that the official positions will be duly filled.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition suggests or recommends that that resolution be made an integral part of the Official Languages Act, I for one do not question his sincerity.
However, at the political level-it may be a very clever suggestion or proposal-I would like to suggest to him that he will have to secure the support of the majority or the totality of the members of his party. The Leader of the Official Opposition is one of the leaders-and I say this with a very open mind, Mr. Speaker-who for the first time as leader of the Progressive Conservative party really sets himself on basic issues at the level of a head of a national party.
However, Mr. Speaker, that is a lot. I know that the House gave him an ovation when he rose to officially support the Official Languages Act against the will of a group of members of his party. He showed real courage.
I lr. Speaker, to those members who are concerned about the fact that this issue comes back very often before the House, I merely say that when voluntarily and with good faith those criteria will be allowed to be applied and become the policy followed within the public service, that is a question which will disappear at the national level and at the same time we will have set the cornerstone to really ensure a well-understood national unity among all Canadians for they will be able to talk to and understand each other.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to emphasize very strongly that I have never quarrelled with the provisions and the spirit of the Official Languages Act. In my view, the problems which have arisen in this country in connection with bilingualism are the direct result of the methods this government has used in the course of implementing that act.
It is my opinion that the government has followed a path filled with unnecessary and unfair actions which scarcely do anything but bring a sea of trouble following behind them. I find no reason to believe this situation would necessarily undergo any change for the better by the passage of the resolution now before this House. Indeed, I believe this government has performed a great disservice to the cause of Canadian unity by pursuing policies of confrontation rather than policies of co-operation in respect of its method of instituting bilingualism in Canada.
I do not hesitate to say there are those who have been, and still are, dividing this country by using the issue of bilingualism for political purposes. Indeed, they have been using the whole subject of national unity for political purposes. The people doing that most certainly are not sitting on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Since the passage of the Official Languages Act I believe it has become quite clear that the government has hoped to characterize probably all Canadians
June 4, 1973

into two basic groups in so far as attitude toward bilingualism is concerned. The first category is composed of all those who agree with every single thing this government has done in connection with the implementation of the bilingual program. It is almost as if we are expected to believe these are the only people who stand for national unity and that these are the people who are good Canadians because they are prepared to accept without question the supposed rightness of the government's bilingual policies.
In the second category I believe the government has sought to place all persons who would in any way whatsoever criticize or find any fault in respect of the methods of instituting bilingualism. These, therefore, are the people who are against national unity and are the bad Canadians because they are the people who have committed the supposedly shocking crime of being unwilling to accept without question the divine rightness of the government's method of instituting bilingualism in this country.
I submit, however, there is a third category of people in this country which this government has conveniently overlooked. I suggest it is the largest category of Canadians by far. It is composed of thousands and thousands of people across the land who have never quarrelled with the principles of bilingualism but who have been shocked and utterly appalled at the methods used by this government to institute its bilingual program. This third group is made up of Canadians who love their country too much to allow it to be torn apart by a government that has been, and is, playing politics with bilingualism and national unity, a government that gives unctuous lip service to national unity while at the same time indulging in actions and following methods that, in short, will do more to disunite this country than even avowed separatists could hope to accomplish. And, with regret, I suggest that the motives behind the presentation of this resolution do not improve the situation at all; but I will come to that aspect of the matter a little later in my remarks.
This resolution is not legislation. It is not an amendment to the Official Languages Act. It is merely a resolution of this House which, if passed, might well not last beyond the life of this parliament. In short, it means no more than the "Pearson pledge". It is an exercise in futility. Why should we pass a resolution which would have no validity in law?
If this government was really sincere, if it was doing anything more than playing politics with this most important and most serious subject, if this government really wanted such guarantees and assurances to public servants to mean something of real substance, then it would have proposed without hesitation that the contents of this resolution be written into the Official Languages Act in the form of an amendment. But this it did not do. It remained for the leader of this party to move such an amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: We witnessed the refusal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to move an amendment when he replied to a question raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) a few days or a week or two ago. I suggest that the answer given by the Prime Minister at
Official Languages
that time revealed this government resolution in all its naked reality. It is a cheap political ploy, an insincere political gimmick, an attempt to play with the unity of Canada for political purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I find such actions by this government contemptible, to say the least. But no one should find this government's actions surprising. When we look back to the throne speech debate in the early days of this session, and when we recall some of the remarks made at that time by the Prime Minister, we can only conclude that we were being given a preview of the kind of thinking that lies behind the drafting of this resolution. Indeed, at that time in the Prime Minister's ill-tempered remarks we were being provided with a setting of the stage for what was to come and for what is now before us for consideration. This resolution, in reality, is worthless because it will have no legal validity, because its life expectancy would be very limited if passed. We should well be asking ourselves why this House is being put through this whole exercise.
The preamble of this resolution is more or less a reaffirmation of the principles of the Official Languages Act. Is it necessary to reaffirm by resolution an act that is already the law of this land? What kind of nonsense is this? If the sun is shining on Parliament Hill, should this House be called together for purposes of passing a resolution that the sun is really shining? Is it necessary that parliament should consider pious, periodic reaffirmations of all legislation that passes? Why do we not have resolutions reaffirming the importance of old age security? Surely, we should rush right away into immediate consideration of a resolution reaffirming our belief in the value and importance of family allowances.
What else does this resolution contain other than pious reaffirmations? Supposedly, it sets forth certain guarantees for public servants. But we should ask ourselves; What does it really do? What does it really mean? For example, paragraph 3 of the resolution says that the knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions. How on earth could this be otherwise? Would we fill a position requiring English and French with a person speaking Arabic and Afghan? The truth, I suggest, is very sad. It is a very sad truth indeed. This resolution is not at all what the government would have us believe it to be. It is, in reality, yet another example of how this government will play with the subject of bilingualism for political purposes.
Judging by the tone of his remarks on this subject in recent months, I believe it is obvious that the Prime Minister and the government wanted only one thing, namely, to introduce a motion on bilingualism that would divide the House, and therefore at the same time a motion that they hoped would enable them to sit back and say in effect, "Look at us; we are for national unity and the others are not. We alone can save this country." The unfortunate reality of it all is that the kind of twisted thinking that lies behind this resolution could ultimately destroy this country.
The government would have Canadians swallow the utter myth that only it is capable of maintaining national

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
unity. By this resolution, in my opinion, the government expected turmoil to be stirred up in this country, and then when the pot is nicely boiling the scenario calls for the Prime Minister and his associates to come riding in on their white horses, posing as the ones who will be the saviours of Canada as a nation from those who are painted as the advocates of disunity simply because we object to gross government errors in implementing bilingualism.
Some may say that the easiest way to put an end to such cheap melodrama on the part of this government would be to quietly vote for this resolution, to make no objections, to deny St. George his dragon, to leave this sick government tilting at its windmills. Perhaps that approach has some merit, but to follow it would make it necessary to vote for a farce-and this resolution is a farce, this government knows it is a farce, and it is essential that it be shown to Canadians for exactly what it is.
Mr. Speaker, if this government was really sincere we would not be faced with this resolution. We would have been faced, instead, at the outset with amendments to the Official Languages Act making specific guarantees to public servants the law of this land. Only, as I said previously and as I say again, the amendment proposed by the leader of this party would accomplish that fact.
But the government has shown by its past actions that it is not sincere on many things, particularly on the methods of implementing bilingualism. There has been ample time since the passing of the Official Languages Act to clearly illustrate this fact. If this government has failed to approach the subject of bilingualism according to the spirit of the Official Languages Act, according to the spirit and intention of the "Pearson pledge", is there any reason to believe now that this resolution will make things any different? I suggest there is no reason whatsoever.
Over the past few years the people of my riding have had the opportunity of witnessing at first hand the methods used by this government to implement bilingualism in Canada. We have very clearly seen the hypocrisy, the insincerity and the duplicity of the course followed by this government. The people in my constituency of Leeds saw the incredibly nonsensical and stupid actions of this government in attempting to create instant bilingualism at Canada Customs offices, with no regard for common sense, with no regard for unilingual public servants of long-standing or for the merit principle; in short, with complete disrespect for the so-called "Pearson pledge" in regard to the implementation of bilingualism. But that is a fantastic story in itself, filled with unfairness, filled with hypocrisy and, I regret to say, filled with downright dishonesty-a case well documented and completely provable in all its aspects and a case which I am prepared to stand upon firmly before any persons who wish to judge it impartially, anywhere and at any time.
At the height of the nonsense in my area I was president of the constituency Liberal association. At that time I received a letter which I believe describes the actions of the government very well indeed in regard to its methods of implementing bilingualism. The letter is dated March 2, 1970. I would like to read into the record this particular paragraph which it contains:

I am sure there are many cases of essentially good legislation being ruined by ham-handed implementation. This appears to be a good example.
That letter was written by Senator Richard J. Stanbury, president of the Liberal Party of Canada. Truer words were never written. I agree with Senator Stanbury's sentiments completely. But subsequently the ringmaster of the circus opposite cracked his whip and the trained seals all sprang into line.
Mr. Speaker, I hear questions from the opposite side of the chamber asking, "Who is your writer?" I am proud to say I write my own speeches, something which I do not think many members on that side do. The methods used by the government up until now to institute its bilingual program have been in many cases ill-conceived, thoughtless and unfair. In addition, the program has suffered greatly from the antics of that bumbling bureaucrat, John Carson, and from the ridiculous and foolish utterances of the Commissioner of Official Languages who flits hither and yon to his little soirees and tete-a-tetes mouthing such nonsense as "Westmount Rhodesians."
We must seriously ask ourselves these questions: If the government has failed in the past to implement fairly the Official Languages Act, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that things will be different in the future? And even if the substance of section 1 of the resolution is incorporated by amendment into the Official Languages Act, as the leader of this party has suggested, is there any reason to believe that the government will honour such provisions with sincerity-something it has utterly failed to show in the past toward implementation of the act itself? I am forced to conclude that anything the government does here and now is mere hollow window-dressing brought on by the near defeat of last October 30, and not in any way the result of a change of heart. Anything the government does now must be regarded as suspect against the background of its past actions.
Speaking in this House last Friday, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) said that he was amused at the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and he tried to justify his amusement by going back to quotations from Hansard of 1969. But a lot has happened since 1969. Perhaps the most important lesson we have learned since 1969 is the fact that the record of the government in implementing bilingualism is such that the most definite and specific legal safeguards are required-required in order to be certain that bilingualism will be fairly and properly instituted in Canada for all concerned, required if for no other reason than the bumbling record of the government since 1969 in implementing bilingualism. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to expressing amusement I say to the Minister of Communications that there is nothing at all amusing about the government's record.
I do not believe it is exaggeration or inaccuracy to say that the government does not want an amendment to the Official Languages Act for a very good reason from its own point of view. That reason is not, as the Minister of Communications would have us believe, so that the government will be free to follow flexible guidelines to meet changing conditions. It is far more likely that the govern-
June 4, 1973

ment does not want an amendment because an amendment has legal permanency, whereas a resolution as proposed by the government, to put it charitably, can be easily modified or, to put it a little less charitably, easily ignored or disposed of. Many persons have discovered that their inevitable fate, when they disagree with the government on the methods of implementing bilingualism, is to be faced with an attempt to label them as bigots. This has been my own personal experience and I will not be surprised if it is my experience again after my remarks tonight.
But, Mr. Speaker, of French ancestry on both sides of my family, with a wife who comes from Holland, and as one who has always been an outspoken opponent of all forms of racism and bigotry, I totally reject such labels. I am proud that I can trace my ancestry back to Rene Cosset who came from the area of La Rochelle in France around 1700. I am equally proud of the fact, despite the childish and ridiculous interjections of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), that the French-speaking Cossettes of Quebec and the English-speaking Cossitts of Canada and the United States share a common ancestry that dates back several centuries to France.
If the government continues it past methods of implementing bilingualism-and those of us who have experienced these methods have no justification to expect it will do anything else-then I suggest that when the history of our age is written it will be said that this government destroyed national unity while it posed as its champion. It will be said that the sensible approach of co-operation between the English-and French-speaking peoples of this nation was forsaken for the senseless approach of confrontation. It will be said that this nation of Canada was torn apart by the policies of a government that played nothing but politics with bilingualism and national unity.
As a former member of the Liberal party-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yes, we all make mistakes. That was one of mine, but I can assure the hon. member opposite that it has been a pleasure and a joy to see the light and to be where there is no dictatorship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: As a former member of the Liberal party and as a Canadian I cherish the memory of association with the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and as a former member of the Liberal party and as a Canadian I am proud of the record of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But I find little in the record of this government to which any Canadian can point with pride. While it remains for history to pass the final verdict on what course was the right course-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, the trained seals are chuckling as usual. While it remains for history to pass the final verdict on what course was the right one for this House to take at the present time, I am prepared to vote against this resolution with the certain feeling that I am following the course that is right for Canada.
Official Languages
[ Translation]


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member may ask a question if the hon. member who has the floor wants to accept it.

The hon. member is seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question. Does the hon. member give consent?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would be quite glad to listen to the question. I am sorry I did not hear it. Could it be repeated?


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the House that the mover of the motion, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the seconder, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury)-I notice he has just come into the chamber, but they have been absent during this very important debate. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister has not had anyone in the House on his behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that this cannot be a point of order. This is the kind of argument that he can make in his speech.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) is this. I have listened quite attentively to the whole content of his speech, and I wonder whether he would enlighten me as to whether he is in agreement with the principles announced in the resolution or the principles contained in an amendment to the act and, if so, would he please explain his position?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the hon. member's question. He said he listened attentively to my remarks, but after listening to his question I am not sure how attentive he really was. I do believe that in my remarks I tried to draw attention to the points that have caused the leader of this party to propose such an amendment, and I said this is something that the government should have done. I think I made very clear the answer to his question. I am sorry that he was not as attentive as he thought he was.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Jean-Jacques Blais: The question was very simple-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I do not think we can accept supplementaries for the purpose of obtaining further explanation at the end of a speech.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite rose and said he wished to ask a supplementary question. I assure him that although we on this side of the House are not over there yet, I do not think

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
he will have long to wait and then he can ask questions of this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it is great that the applause comes before my address rather than after.


An hon. Member:: You won't get it then.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I listened, as did my colleague the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). One gets the impression that he spent too much of his youth at cowboy movies because in his mind everybody falls into the category of either a good guy or a bad guy. We find the hon. member for Leeds imputing motives to this party. I thought he learned when he was a Liberal that we do not do that kind of thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: One is tempted to think that if the hon. member had held more meetings of the Liberal party in his association, rather than one every two years when he was president, he might have taken some leadership or have done something to make some changes that he thought should be made.


An hon. Member:: He made a change all right.


An hon. Member:: He is all yours; you can keep him.


An hon. Member:: You sure can.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this resolution and I am particularly delighted that it stands in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I am delighted because it highlights the importance of the language issue in maintaining Canadian unity. This is not the panacea for unity, nor has anyone suggested that this concept be true. Regional disparities, a feeling of remoteness from Ottawa and a myriad of other problems large and small all play their part and place their strain on Canada remaining one country.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we must realize that the language issue is an important one. This motion was necessary to highlight the importance of language and to say once again, as we did with the Official Languages Act, that this is not only the position of the government but it is the position of parliament. We are saying to the Canadian public that this is the way the Official Languages Act will be implemented; these are the principles that will be followed in so far as the civil service of Canada is concerned. This is the fulfilment of a promise made to civil servants by the late prime minister, Lester Pearson, and this is a writing down in motion form of the manner in which this parliament sees the principles being applied. The procedure followed in adopting these principles has been correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) is rising for

the purpose of asking a question. This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Schumacher:: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the attitude of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) on this issue. I was wondering whether this indicates a change since 1969, when he did not take the opportunity of voting on the Official Languages Act when it was before the House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there are many ways of getting your point across. I propose to do it in my riding. I did it with newspaper articles; I did not go door-to-door knocking the Official Languages Act and misinterpreting its real meaning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the procedure followed in adopting these principles has been correct. Consultation has taken place with the people most intimately involved. I am certain we were all pleased to note the acceptance by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Edwards of these principles. They do not satisfy everyone. It is typical of any proposition advanced in this delicate area of negotiation that it goes too far for some and not far enough or fast enough for others. This is, after all, an accommodation, and an accommodation that is acceptable to the people most vitally concerned-the civil servants of Canada. There is no abandonment of principle. Surely, any Canadian can accept that his fellow Canadian has a right to deal with his government in his own language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There is no suggestion that everyone in Canada must be bilingual as, unhappily, some have misinterpreted the meaning of the Official Languages Act. I believe it was the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) who last night indicated that a lot of Englishspeaking Canadians are of the opinion that most Quebeckers are bilingual because English-speaking Canadians have visited the metropolitan area of Montreal.
I can understand the frustration and the anger of the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). He is well armed with statistics, and his statistics are honest. How do we change them, and how do we bring them more in line with the reality of Canada? The member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), when responding to the motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) concerning the status of women, indicated that his party might be prepared to accept the quota system in the interests of getting more women into senior levels of the civil service. I have not heard, however, whether this party would back the quota system in the interests of placing more people whose native tongue is French in the civil service.
The quota system is not fair, and I think it would be difficult to apply the quota system whether it is in the interests of placing more women in the civil service or more unilingual French-speaking Canadians. It is unfair to those already in place who have warranted promotion and who might be bypassed. It is not fair if the standards have to be lowered in the interest of implementing a quota

system. So we know the pitfalls of the quota system and we know that they are not fair.
We also know it is not fair that the proportion of French-speaking civil servants is so low. I can sympathize with the hon. member for Champlain. Can we do it by some words in debate, or applying a quota system? I do not know, but it is something we have to consider. Although I cannot accept all his views or arguments, I know that they stem from a deep-seated feeling shared by many of my French-speaking colleagues in the Liberal caucus.
When I am talking on this subject in my riding or other English-speaking parts of this country, I ask my audience to imagine for the moment that Queen Victoria, rather than naming Ottawa as the capital of Canada had selected, let us say Lac St. Jean where I understand the majority of people speak French, and beautiful French. Imagine if, with Lac St. Jean as the capital, on visiting your capital you heard only French spoken. Would you feel at home? Would you be frustrated if you were endeavouring to deal with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, finance, or external affairs only to find that there were very few people who could accommodate you in your own language? And how much greater would be the frustration if you were a unilingual, English-speaking Canadian!
That, then, is the dilemma and the problem faced by the French-speaking Canadian who comes to Ottawa and does not feel at home here. We have an obligation to make him feel at home in his country's capital. And where, as in my riding, there are pockets of French-speaking Canadians, I am pleased to see the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) making provision for grants so that the language and culture of the French-speaking Canadian can be preserved. I was pleased to note that over the past two years grants have been made to the Club Joliet in my riding. It was one of the highlights of my short political career to date that when addressing the club I was able to speak to them totally in French.
Some think it would be appropriate if I were to speak French in the present debate. If I were to do so, I would in my view miss the point of this particular debate. We are not saying to Canadians that they must speak two official languages; we are saying, "You can speak in your own tongue and express yourself in your own language." This is something I feel very strongly about. In any event, I feel it would be appropriate if I were to continue speaking in English rather than to demonstrate my halting French. In this exercise we are saying over and over again that every Canadian need not be bilingual. We are saying, however, that we are entitled to express our views in our own language.
I have had the privilege and I have enjoyed the opportunity of studying the French language since my election in 1968. It may be necessary for the Prime Minister and the government to use another phrase to describe my use of the French language-not functional, but possibly minifunctional. But what a challenge, Mr. Speaker, and how exciting it is to try a phrase and to realize that you have been understood; and how gratifying to realize that you can understand someone who is speaking French.
Official Languages
It is easier for me to learn French, thanks to the enthusiasm of my daughter Katie. I am proud she is making and has been making a determined effort to become, not functionally bilingual but bilingual. When my spirits sagged and I felt frustration or incapable of mastering the French language, my 14-year old daughter charged, shamed, encouraged and challenged me. I will continue to study, to practise, to listen and to speak French as my recognition of the French fact and acceptance of bilingualism in Canada. To those who are contemplating the study of French I would say, "Do it. There are many more rewards than there are frustrations, trials and tribulations."
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked in his remarks yesterday, "Why this resolution", and said it was not binding on the government. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that this resolution is put forward not only to show where the government stands but because the people of Canada must know where this parliament stands. It was encouraging to note that the Leader of the Opposition, speaking for his party, adopted and accepted the principles outlined. He would place them in legislation. I do not agree with that, because I think codifying these principles would make it extremely difficult to change them when changes should be made. I think there has to be some flexibility if there is to be fairness in the implementing of these principles. We are telling Canada and Canada's civil servants what will be the guiding principles in implementing the Official Languages Act in so far as they are concerned.
I compliment the Leader of the Opposition for the stand he has taken. I cannot argue too strongly against putting these principles into legislation. I think that might be too inflexible. He said he has received scars as a result of taking the stand he has taken. I say to him, they are honourable scars.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was one of those who originally supported the Official Languages Act, mainly because of the conciliatory action and direction of the late prime minister, Lester B. Pearson. At that time we were assured that this concept would not be implemented in such a way as to cause serious concern either to the civil service or to the people of Canada in general. Most of us who so voted believe, I think, that the proposals put forward in this resolution are the basis on which the Official Languages Act was passed. Therefore, I think few who voted originally for the Offical Languages Act would change their minds today.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made a speech today that interested me, more because of what he said and interpreted than any facts he enunciated. He indicated that the proposals in this resolution were always in the mind of the government, and that the flexibility that all members on the government side are talking about as being necessary is at present a fact, because changes will continually be involved in this matter. He forgot to tell everyone that these nine points were brought before parliament in the form of a resolution because of the result of the election of last October.
It must interest people like Mr. Francis, Mr. Blair and certain other former Members of Parliament, particularly those from the Ottawa valley, to find this resolution

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
before us today, because as sure as I am standing here they were defeated for being unable to convince the government that it was necessary to provide the safeguards we are discussing in this resolution. It is interesting to note that several days after the election the government announced, through the medium of a statement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), that civil servants were to be dealt with as this resolution proposes. It was to be directed in that direction.
For what happened in the past I fault not only the government but the civil service associations, and I include in that the professional associations. I fault, as well, the civil service and its agencies. Why? Because, Mr. Speaker, they were not able to solve some of the very simple problems which had arisen, and were not able to arrive at criteria that were acceptable either to the civil service authorities or to civil servants. I was therefore more impressed with the politics of this resolution than with the fact that parliament is being asked to endorse it. We are being asked to stand up and be counted again on a subject which we debated when the official languages bill was before the House.
As we are discussing this matter I think it behooves all members of the House to ascertain for themselves whether the flexibility that Liberal members are talking about is advantageous. I am of the opinion it is not advantageous. I am of the opinion that the principle put forward by Mr. Pearson and endorsed by most members of the House provided the civil service with a bill of rights which was to work in three ways. It protected those who were purely French-speaking in French communities; it protected those who were purely English-speaking in English communities, and it protected long-time civil servants who were in the never-never land in the middle, known as Ottawa.
The situation has not yet been resolved, for several good reasons. I come from an area where people are divided into several language groups. It includes French, English and many other nationalities. Approximately 30 to 35 per cent are French-speaking; the remainder are English-speaking. That district is to be designated under the act. Although the location of these bilingual districts has not been decided officially, in many instances such districts have been established. I use the example of Timmins. We had in Timmins for a number of years an acting postmaster. He was of Italian extraction, representing a large body of the population in Timmins. He also understood some English, having gone to school at his own expense. The Sisters in the community taught him some French. Therefore, he had some knowledge of three languages.
Because this is a bilingual district, although it has not yet been so designated, he was asked to appear before a board some two years after he had taken over as the acting postmaster in Timmins. When he appeared before the board the first question he was asked was whether he was bilingual. He said that he spoke English and had studied some French, although he was not fluent. I might say that although English has been his language for the past 35 or 40 years, he is not entirely fluent in that language either. He was told by the board, "If you are not bilingual, don't waste our time and we won't waste yours. Unless you are

bilingual there is no point carrying on this interview." It is this kind of situation that neither the civil service not the Civil Service Association have been able to correct. This has created many anomalies in the province of Quebec. On an opposition day the Creditiste party raised this matter on behalf of people they represent who are also faced with inequality of opportunity. The real desire of Canadians is a language bill of rights for those employed in the Public Service of Canada.
I do not support the amendment moved by the Conservative party, for a very simple reason. If it were accepted we would be here all summer amending every act because of the language problem. We would have to amend acts respecting the armed forces, the public service, Crown corporations and many others. I am not particularly interested in that exercise.
Earlier today I spoke to the President of the Treasury Board. There is no one more familiar with the operation of the public service than he. If he remains President of the Treasury Board I believe this resolution can be implemented as is. In my opinion it is good to have some flexibility so that the legislation can be changed from time to time. This is also true of the Bill of Rights. The right to privacy should be included in the Canadian Bill of Rights. It should provide the right to use either official language as well as religion or lack of religion.
We should be able to make changes to something we believe to be fundamental. The development of bilingual or unilingual units throughout the country is very fundamental to every Canadian. I was very interested in the speech this afternoon by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It amused me. When I first came here 15 years ago there was no simultaneous translation system. When a member from Quebec made a speech in French everybody went out and had a smoke. No one listened and no one cared. The member making the speech did not care either because when he had completed his speech he went back to Montreal or Quebec City and we did not hear from him until he wanted to make another speech. Following the installation of the simultaneous translation system there was an obligation to consider every argument that was made. Other changes have been made which have been advantageous in the development of this country.
I am not sure whether we will go ahead holus-bolus with bilingual districts across Canada. I am not sure whether in communities where only English is spoken it will be necessary to have bilingual services. I hope that unilingual people in English communities will not be denied opportunities because the community in which they live is in a designated bilingual district. I am not sure this will be avoided, because it has already begun to some extent. We do not want to see anyone demoted because they cannot pass an examination. We must be very careful about how this policy is implemented. The resolution must not be totally ignored.
I think this government has done a lot of window-dressing. The member who preceded me said that he had been studying French since 1968, but he did not even give us a sample of what he has learned. Perhaps he does not require a second language in Sarnia. It may not do him any good. Perhaps he is engaged in an exercise of futility.
June 4, 1973

A second language would be a decided asset to me. On several occasions I have tried to learn the French language. I have not taken an immersion course, but I did take lessons from a very nice, competent young lady in the West Block.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: The classes lasted for two hours. After leaving a class to attend a committee meeting or a sitting of the House, you forgot all about French. You did not think of it again until you returned for another lesson two or three days later. Our teacher became very frustrated because it was necessary to start all over again. There is no way to learn a language or have any facility in it unless you speak it regularly. I am not very impressed with $45,000 a year deputy ministers who are able to answer one question per year in the second language. I suppose it cost $50,000 to train them. Who ran the shop while they were being trained? If an assistant deputy was running the shop, he should have had the job.
I suggest that to some extent this type of training is an exercise in futility. I am not opposed to everyone in this country being bilingual, and I am aware of some of the criticisms that members from the province of Quebec will make. I am prepared to vote reasonably large sums of money to create a bilingual nation. I am prepared to put that money into every kindergarten and primary school so that children may spend the first two or three years of their education totally within the climate of the other language.
Hon. members may wonder why this has not been done already. The reason is this, and my friends in the Social Credit party are well aware of it: a bilingual nation would quickly be created and the second generation would all be English-speaking, because on the North American continent English is the predominant language and, very likely, the second language would fall into disuse. If it fell into disuse and was no longer spoken in any normal business conduct, it would obviously no longer be accepted. I know that ability in the second language would make Canadians better people.
I am very proud that my father, my brother and other members of my family have always been able to speak French. I went to work at an early age and my job in the mines, apart from running the machines underground, was to train other people to speak the English language. That is why I murder it so badly-the result of the input from so many other languages! But I am very proud that my grandchildren speak French as their first language. I am sure they will grow up to be bilingual, because my son is not proficient in French.
These are all matters which will have to be considered carefully. The bigots on all sides must be convinced that the teaching of the second language is accompanied by very real rewards. I studied French in high school for four years. I was taught by a teacher who could not speak to any of the French people in the class or in the community. She went to Paris and learned a different type of French. It was like a person who had learned Latin trying to talk to Italians. She encountered a certain amount of difficulty.
Official Languages
In schools in Ontario the authorities usually hire a teacher who has a degree in the French language, rather than someone who can speak French. As a result, the time spent by the children is totally wasted.
Most members of this House are biased. Most members of this House and most people in the country are prejudiced. Nevertheless, there is a tradition in Canada of tolerance toward other people, of tolerance when we embark upon a program intended to produce a bilingual nation.I think there will be a great deal of tolerance shown on the part of parents. But you cannot give Ontario a large sum of money and tell them to run their education system on these lines because, obviously, they would find they were short somewhere else and would use the money for another purpose, as they are now doing.
If we are serious about language education, we shall need to arrange for exchanges of our people from different regions. If we decide to educate civil servants and they are willing to spend months at the task of learning the second language, then at least we should make sure they do this in Quebec rather than in Calgary or Ottawa.
If we are really considering the development of a bilingual policy in this country, we should be prepared to spend some money on it. It is for this reason I object to the resolution which has been placed before us, somewhat in the same terms as resolutions put forward when we want the Americans to get out of Viet Nam or when we want the French to discontinue exploding nuclear devices in the South Pacific in their atomic energy tests. The resolution should have been put into a form which would embody the controls which are being suggested in a way which it would be difficult to change. It seems that the resolution is an attempt to encourage the people of Quebec to believe they are part of this nation. Mr. Speaker, we decided that a long time ago. It has never been questioned in this House. Since I have been here I have not heard any member question whether the country should exist in the form in which it now exists.
What we are discussing is our lack of ability to produce the bilingual character which is necessary. I was very impressed when listening to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) speaking recently in this debate. I was impressed by the fact that he moved a motion very similar in tone to the solution now before us. A spokesman for the government took objection to it and declined to support him. Now we see it in the form of a resolution-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. MacEachen:: I was wondering whether it might be possible, Mr. Speaker, to come to some agreement tonight as to the possible termination of this debate. I have held discussions with other House leaders, and it might be possible for us to agree to terminate the debate tomorrow night, in view of the number of speeches which have been made.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have taken part in these discussions. I am fully aware there are those who feel the debate should not be ended until members who have a keen desire to intervene have had that opportunity. At first blush I

June 4, 1973
Official Languages
thought that Tuesday night would be acceptable, but it has just been brought to my attention that some members of our party will not be able to get here by tomorrow because of the strike. I was about to suggest, as an alternative, a set time on Wednesday. I think it highly desirable in a debate of this nature that there be a time certain appointed so that members who wish to vote may have that opportunity.
I also think we should take into account the fact that the Creditiste party, who sought to move a subamendment to our amendment which was declared out of order because of its non-relationship, might have an opportunity, as they are entitled to, after our amendment has been voted on, to have their amendment put and have the House divide on it. While I personally, as well as a great many members of my party, would be quite in favour of terminating the debate on Tuesday, in view of the fact that some members are anxious to be here perhaps the President of the Privy Council would be prepared to consider a time certain on Wednesday when the debate would be concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader has indicated, there have been certain discussions among us. Obviously, those discussions are still going on, and in that process I should like to support what has been suggested by the hon. member for Peace River. I gather he is suggesting that the debate on the present amendment, the one moved by the Leader of the Opposition, be concluded at ten o'clock tomorrow night, but that the vote not be put at that time; rather, that the vote be put at the beginning of government business on Wednesday. We would then agree to conclude all matters relating to this subject by a quarter to six on Wednesday.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, allowing for a Creditiste amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This would allow for an amendment to be moved by the Social Credit group on Wednesday afternoon and for it and the final vote to be put to the House by a quarter to six on Wednesday.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to vote tomorrow night on the Progressive Conservative amendment, but we would like to have the opportunity to introduce our amendments Wednesday, since only two members of our party were heard on the matter and that we still have five or six who wish to take part in the debate. We would like to have the same opportunity to speak as other members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. There does not quite seem to be agreement. Hon. members might sleep on this question and see how the debate goes tomorrow.

As there does not seem to be any specific agreement, I will then let hon. members continue the consideration of the matter this evening or tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 I inquired of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) about the provision of fishing and harbour facilities in the Atlantic area, particularly in Newfoundland and my riding of St. John's West. My question to the minister was prompted by the fact that in the Atlantic area, and in my riding in particular, there is a very desperate need for more and better harbour and fish landing facilities. I find that in my riding the Department of Public Works of the federal government is completely derelict in its responsibility to provide decent harbour and fish landing facilities to enable fishermen to successfully prosecute the fisheries.
The situation is not made any better when one realizes that this year the Department of Public Works has estimated its total expenditure on capital projects, maintenance and operation of public buildings to be $386,209,000. The situation is, of course, even further aggravated by the fact that in Ontario, where unemployment is around 4 per cent or 4.5 per cent, the expenditure on capital projects is $109,696,000. For maintenance work and operation of public buildings there is an expenditure of $96,484,000, or a total in the province of Ontario of $206,180,000.
In the Atlantic area, where we have an unemployment figure of 7.9 per cent, we find there is a capital expenditure of $15.5 million, with something like $12 million for maintenance and operation of public buildings. Of course, speaking for my own province, where we have an unemployment rate of 16.2 per cent, we find that on capital projects there is an expenditure of $4 million and something like $3.5 million for maintenance and operation of public buildings, for a total of $7,749,000. These figures were submitted recently to the Standing Committee on Public Works by officials of the Department of Public Works, and substantiated by the Department of the Environment and Fisheries.
While this year in the Atlantic area there is an expenditure of $12 million on maintenance and public works, according to these people there should be an expenditure of $30 million. In the committee, these officials told us that in order to satisfy the needs of the Atlantic area and to bring it up to a level where fishermen would be able to fish successfully, with adequate facilities, there should be an expenditure of at least $100 million. We appreciate the need for more, and bigger and better buildings in Ottawa and in Ontario generally and in other parts of Canada, and we appreciate the need for bigger and better air-conditioning units, bigger and better cafeterias and bigger and better parking structures. We are not against these because we recognize that, this being the seat of government, certain amenities must be provided for our public servants.
June 4, 1973

But speaking for my riding, I think I am echoing the sentiments of most people in the Atlantic area when I say that we cannot accept the fact that this government and our present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), in conjunction with the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries, have obviously placed a greater priority on building office towers in Ottawa and the amenities to which I have just referred than providing facilities to enable our fishermen in the Atlantic area, especially in Newfoundland and my riding, to be able successfully to prosecute the fishery.
It is a little alarming to find we have a government which is more interested in spending, or at least in committing itself to an expenditure of $36 million on a new building for the Department of Finance, and Treasury Board in Ottawa than it is in providing these badly needed facilities in the Atlantic region or indeed in maintaining the present facilities. We have the Minister of Public Works presiding over a department which has permitted properties in eastern Canada, especially in Newfoundland, to deteriorate to a point where in many cases they have been marked as being unsafe for people to travel on or reside in.
Can you imagine parts of Newfoundland-and I have seen this-where fishing is so vital to the economy of the province, where it is the mainstay of the people who live in that area, where barriers are erected on public wharves advising people not to bring their vehicles there because it is unsafe? This is a government that pleads poverty when it comes to providing these facilities, but is able to spend this year in excess of $25 million on providing other facilities for the bureaucracy in Ottawa and upper Canada. This is hard to take. Of course, some of the blame, perhaps all of the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries because he is obviously now more concerned with imposing regulations and restrictions on fishermen than with helping them to increase their catches and their earnings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) may not be aware of the fact that the federal taxpayer spends more money by far on the fishing industry, per dollar of profit per employee, than any other industry in Canada. This is the case today. It has been the case for a number of years. Therefore, as Minister of Fisheries I make no apology to him or anyone else for the level of federal assistance to fishermen.
In recent years a number of departments have been involved in assisting fisheries, the most notable of which is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In the last half dozen years there has been a fantastic growth of fish processing facilities. The hon. member knows that, the fishermen know that well, and the industry certainly is aware of it. Also, in the last three years there has been a remarkable increase in the number of new fishing boats built. At the moment there are far more fishing vessels in
Adjournment Debate
total being built in this country than at any time in the history of the industry. In that case, as well, there is a 35 per cent subsidy for practically all of those vessels.
So, one, in respect of processing and, two, in respect of vessels and gear there has been a remarkable expansion in the public effort in support of fishermen. We are now going into the third phase because bigger vessels are being built and we need different kinds of docks and wharves. I will be the first to admit that we have not put anything like the effort into looking after small craft harbours as we must do in the next few years to look after these new vessels and to make sure that fish flow efficiently from the boats to the plants.
The total budget of the Fisheries Service in Canada is now approaching $100 million. A very large proportion of that budget is spent in the province of Newfoundland. I wish the hon. member had referred to figures of that kind rather than to public buildings which are of little direct use to the fishermen of Newfoundland in any case.


ENERGY-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF REFINERY AT GROS CACOUNA-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION WITH QUEBEC IN DISCUSSIONS WITH SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, some time last week I began asking a series of questions of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) with regard to the proposed construction of a supertanker port in the Gros Cacouna-Ile Verte region in the St. Lawrence River region of Quebec. Needless to say, I was not thoroughly satisfied with the answers and that is why I am up again tonight to pursue the matter.
Particularly with regard to the question I asked on May 29, the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, we have already completed an environmental impact assessment on the Lorneville project in New Brunswick, and a joint investigation regarding the Canso project is under way. We are happy to join with the provinces in these kinds of appraisals at any time.
The point, of course, is that although this was a satisfying answer to some, it was not an answer to the question I was asking, which was with regard to the proposed construction of a supertanker port at Gros Cacouna-Ile Verte. Obviously, this is not a very good area in which to build a supertanker port. At that point the St. Lawrence becomes quite narrow; the tidal currents are very strong and extremely variable. On both sides the river has shallow waters, and in the middle of the river there is a dangerous little island called Red Islet. Knowing that supertankers can take ten miles to come to a dead stop, one wonders whether putting a supertanker port in that area is an idea, or somebody's bad dream.
I have an indication that the minister may be worried about this project, from reading a letter of his which was printed in the Globe and Mail last Saturday in which he wrote, among many other things:
So why run the danger of messing up our beautiful Gulf islands?
These are the west coast Gulf islands he was talking about.
Why run the risk of polluting a scenic area which is many times

June 4, 1973
Adjournment Debate
more valuable than the Thousand Islands on the St. Lawrence River?
How he compares the Gulf islands with the St. Lawrence Islands, I do not know. Further in his letter he wrote:
The idea of bringing 250,000 ton tankers into a narrow channel such as that approaching Eastport, Maine, is ridiculous, not only from an environmental but also from a navigational point of view. The same applies to ports well up the St. Lawrence River. We mustn't be stupid about these things.
He does not specify what "well up" is. I do not think he uses the term "well up" in the sense that Alice used it in "Alice in Wonderland." I would like to know if the minister is fearful of the project at Gros Cacouna-Ile Verte, and why he has been wary about answering questions put to him directly. Indeed, in the past some of the officials in his department have been more forthright. In an article printed in the Ottawa Citizen of December 6, 1972, Robert F. Shaw, deputy environment minister, said:
Ports for supertankers shouldn't be built without major studies into possible environmental effects.
In the article he went on to point out that there were considerable fears about building a port at Gros Cacouna-Ile Verte. We know there has been a certain amount of artful dodging, I am not saying here on the part of the minister, but between the federal government and the provincial government over this matter. The Minister of Industry and Commerce in Quebec has said, unsaid, and resaid on several occasions, in October, November and December, 1972, and again this year, that federal approval had been given for the building of this port. I have tried to find out on two occasions, once from the acting prime minister and once from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whether federal approval had been given, and which department of government had given that approval. So far I have received no answer. I do not expect an answer on this particular point tonight from the Minister of the Environment, but I would not mind having an answer soon.
Just to end off my question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister specifically whether he intends to proceed with serious ecological studies of the lower St. Lawrence, particularly in view of two facts. The first is the immense danger posed to those extremely valuable and historic waters of ours if there were a major oil spill, and the second is with a view to using the St. Lawrence as a source of aquaculture. I did not say "agriculture," but "aquaculture". We all know that we are suffering a food shortage in the world and that the food shortage will become worse. One wonders whether it is wise to doom a source of food supply such as the St. Lawrence to complete sterility forever, rather than proceed to develop its natural capacity to produce food for us and for the world.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) knows, no port is absolutely safe and no development is absolutely safe from an environmental point of view; they vary a great deal, one compared with another. We have not carried out exhaustive environmental studies in the general area of Gros Cacouna-Ile Verte. The principal developer has begun to carry out the necessary investi-[Mr. Harney.l
gations. The company has been in touch with our officials with a view to determining what criteria, what guidelines, what tests we would apply in assessing ports of that general character.
I understand that the developers will be completing some of these studies using basic data supplied by the Department of the Environment for Canada, and relevant Quebec government departments as well, within the next two or three months. This fits in very well with the approach we are taking generally-the developer must present his case showing the advantages of the development, must look at the environmental aspects of the development as well as its economic aspects, navigation, the risks inherent in sailing through those waters and the risks to surrounding industries including fisheries, tourism, and so on. We do not have an adequate report on tanker offloading and onloading development in the stretch of the St. Lawrence River in the vicinity of lie Verte-Gros Cacouna. We are working with the developer and we will see what the results are.


HARBOURS-LADNER, B.C.-REQUEST FOR DREDGING TO ASSIST FISHERMEN
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, when I first started asking questions about the Ladner harbour the hon. minister did not seem to know what the problem was, so I asked to be put on the ten o'clock debate. Better than telling the House in my own words what some of the problems are in the harbour, I should like to read into the record a letter from Mr. Edgar A. Birch, a fisherman in the area and a member of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, local No. 4. It was a letter to the editor and it reads as follows:
Editor,
Once again we have seen stupidity carried out to its fullest by the Fraser River Harbour Commission-that body of people who are answerable to no one, except Ottawa, since they are appointed and not elected.
Three years ago, myself and Nick Spilchen, who are fishermen, and two aldermen, met with this commission at the Delta Municipal Hall.
We pointed out to the commissioner that it was useless to go on this way without a plan, as to what we are going to do with the harbour and where to put the sand when dredging is done.
They agreed that even a couple of fishermen could be right.
They went away and that was the last we saw of them. However, a year ago, an engineer from the Department of Public Works showed up in Ladner. We showed this man what we wanted done in Ladner, and we pointed out that the slough would have to be widened to 300 feet, twice its present width. He agreed and said it was no problem from an engineer's point of view.
Eight months ago we started asking for the slough to be dredged again as it was filled up at the mouth to the point where you couldn't get in at low tide with any boat that draws over four feet of water.
Just about each month they informed us they were too busy, until March when we took the Member of Parliament, John Reynolds, on a trip of the river. Two weeks later we were informed that Ladner slough would be dredged. It seems that Reynolds did his homework in Ottawa. However, all consultation ended there.
The dredge came into Ladner and no one consulted the fishermen or the council as to what should be done, and went ahead and dredged the sand up along the edge of the slough and left it there.
June 4, 1973

Now if we want the slough widened, as we proposed, we will have to move two weeks' of dredging to do so.
If they had put it another 300 yards further inland it would have come to good use later on.
This we are supposed to call an intelligent harbour commission which consults no one. It is time this body was elected and answerable to the public if we are ever going to get anywhere on the Fraser River.
The icing on the cake came when an official assured the fishermen that the channel was dredged enough and they were leaving. The dredge only went about 400 yards when it went aground and stayed there three and a half hours until the tide came in enough to float it.
This once again shows the stupidity of this commission.
Edgar A. Birch
Mr. Speaker, I went up to the slough again last week and took five Members of Parliament with me to show them what the area should be like. It should have better docks. Fishermen are told by the companies, "You can use our facilities for free". But they must give away sometimes 5 per cent or 10 per cent of their bonuses every year to pay for these dock facilities. That can amount to quite a bit more than their competitors to the south, across the border, pay. They can go to the finest port facilities and for $200 or $300 per year keep their boats there.
This government is spending in excess of $100 million in British Columbia on ports this year, and yet is not touching Ladner or sloughs or small fishing ports in the area. We want to know why. The fishermen in the area want to know why, because they are the mainstay of the economy of the area. We demand that some action be taken with respect to sloughs and docks in that area.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised this question on a number of occasions. Tonight he raised a few questions that he had not originally raised. With respect to those questions that were not raised originally, I hope to bring them to the minister's attention so that he can give the hon. member appropriate answers. This evening the hon. member referred to over-all harbour development, and so on. This is a much broader question than the one asked originally.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In this special proceeding points of order cannot be raised. There is limited time for hon. members to ask questions, and the minister or his representative has three minutes to reply.


Len Marchand: The question that had been raised, as I recall, had to do mainly with the dredging of Ladner harbour. I have the following brief note: I have been informed that dredging at Ladner, B.C., was carried out by departmental dredges during the period April 16, 1973, to May 3, 1973. The dredging was done in the
Adjournment Debate
navigation channel only. The dredging was to provide for a grade depth of 12 feet, and the channel is 150 feet wide. The dredge spoil was deposited in an area designated by officials in the area. I am further advised that the dredged channel is considered quite adequate for the use of fishing vessels in that particular area.


John Douglas Reynolds: How did the dredge get stuck?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence and with the consent of the House I should like to advise hon. members as to arrangements that have been considered and agreed upon by House leaders with respect to the debate on the official languages resolution. I think we can agree that the debate on the amendment now before the House, moved by the Leader of the Opposition, should terminate at the end of the day tomorrow and that the vote on that amendment should take place as the first item of government business on Wednesday. It then would be possible for the Social Credit party to move its amendment, and the vote on that question and on the resolution would take place at a quarter to six on Wednesday. I am tempted to go further and ask the House to endorse that arrangement, although probably we ought to do that tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, that is satisfactory. We will give legality to it tomorrow. We hope that the House takes notice of this statement tonight. It comes within the ambit of Standing Order 40 (4), under which the time requirement for questions and answers with regard to the business of the House is now being discharged by the President of the Privy Council, myself and other House leaders. We are most anxious that the House be put on notice that this is imminent, so that hon. members can conduct themselves accordingly and make their plans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we concur in what has been said and we would be willing to legalize this arrangement tomorrow.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, we agree with what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has just said, because during our discussions he told us that four members of our party would have a chance to speak and we readily accept.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I understand the good will and state of mind of the House leaders of the various parties. I think the President of the Privy Council suggested that it might be difficult to do this at the time of adjournment, when many hon. members have gone and when there might not be a quorum in the House. I think the suggestion is well taken, that the House should confirm this decision tomorrow at the earliest opportunity.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Tuesday, June 5, 1973