1973-05-30

USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE-STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know or suspect, there is a procedural question relating to the use of unparliamentary language in the House which is uppermost in my mind and has been for the last 48 hours. I did mention yesterday that there were other procedural aspects which I thought the Chair owed it to hon. members to have the House leaders consider for possible referral to the committee on procedure. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not yet been cleared up, so I think I will have to suffer another 24 hours before I seek to bring the matter before the House with, I hope, the cooperation of every hon. member at that time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Railton.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I wish to table in both official languages the text of a letter dated May 28 addressed to me by the foreign minister of Zambia on the subject of the recent tragic deaths of Miss Sinclair and Miss Drijberg.


NUMBER OF BARRELS OF GASOLINE EXPORTED PER DAY-CORRECTION OF FIGURE BY MINISTER
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the debate on Monday last, when discussing shipments of motor gasoline in April from Canada, I conveyed to the House figures from the National Energy Board putting the barrels a day rate for such shipments at under 10,000 barrels a day. The board has informed me that late on the day of the debate notification of an additional shipment from the Atlantic provinces was received which puts the April rate at the rate of 17,000 barrels a day, which is over the previous figure and over the figure for March. I wanted to correct the record in that respect.


THE ROYAL FAMILY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion of importance under Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House expresses its congratulations and best wishes to Her Royal Highness, Princess Anne, on the occasion of the announcement of her engagement to Lieutenant Mark Phillips, and that Mr. Speaker be requested to kindly convey this message on behalf of the Canadian House of Commons to Her Royal Highness.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Leeds. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Diefenbaker:: On the government side.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a

May 30, 1973
Urban Affairs
matter of pressing and urgent necessity arising out of the early June deadline when a national airline strike can gravely affect the public interest during a peak travel period. Latest press reports show that 97 per cent of Air Canada machinists are voting in favour of strike action against Air Canada. This threat to the public interest is caused by Air Canada's disregard of the legitimate grievances of the machinists against discriminatory airline practices.
With consent, Mr. Speaker, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt):
That this House resolves that Air Canada immediately take all steps necessary in the public interest to ensure settlement of its dispute with the 6,900 machinists in its employ.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[ Translation]


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 request the unanimous consent of the House in order to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under its program of loans to municipalities for the establishment of water and sewage systems, wishes to help low income Canadians anxious to buy a house; since there is now a very strong demand for houses, and procedures to be followed by municipalities to obtain such loans are often long and arduous, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That the House consider in the shortest delays the possibility of revising procedures to be followed in order that municipalities may obtain more easily and rapidly loans from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the establishment of community water and sewage systems.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, and the motion cannot therefore be put.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, because of the confusion regarding the movement of the Canada Development Corporation head office to Vancouver emanating from conflicting statements in the House by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), I rise, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek consent to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the House request the Prime Minister announce that his statements to this House on November 29, 1971 and April 5, 1973, are in fact government policy and that the CDC head office will be located in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of national interest.
In view of the fact that the CMHC is always wont to grant contracts to contractors whose past gives us cause to question their competence, that a large number of contractors have gone bankrupt, that dissatisfied owners have benefited from court judgments advocating the cancellation of their purchasing contracts as well as the reimbursement of rather important damages, and that, when the contractor proves insolvent, it is absolutely impossible to carry out the said legal decisions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House examine as soon as possible the action required so that the Ministry of Urban Affairs be empowered to grant subsidies to certain buyers who are nothing less than victims of a disaster whose property needs urgent repairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; therefore, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.
May 30, 1973


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, concerning a matter which should be brought before the House, namely, that an amendment unanimously recommended by the western police chiefs be introduced into the Criminal Code so that any person committing an indictable offence while armed with a firearm will be liable to a minimum sentence of two years in prison. This would curb the increasing problem of offences committed by armed persons and will help solve an increasing western problem, cattle rustling. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study and report to the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. Is the hon. member rising on the same motion?


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: No, Sir. I have another motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lethbridge.


PROPOSED AMENDMENT RESPECTING HORSES SHIPPED TO EUROPE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of urgent necessity arising from public concern about the shipping of live horses from Canada to European markets for human consumption. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That an amendment be introduced to the Criminal Code stating that all horses shipped to Europe be processed and inspected in Canada before shipping.
This would stop the inhumane shipment of horses to Europe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is no longer presenting his motion. He is presenting an argument in support of the motion. I suggest to hon. members that when they propose a motion under Standing Order 43 to the House it should not include argument. Would the hon. member indicate whether that is the motion he wishes to put to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is illegal for live horses to be sent from the United States to France and I would ask hon. members to give unanimous consent to the said motion.
Government of Yukon


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, therefore, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
May 28, 1973-Mr. Nielsen:
That the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on May 22, 1973, be concurred in.
An hon. Member:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that this motion stand. I think I owe it to the House to put hon. members on notice that this motion, referring to a committee report, could perhaps be out of order. I have serious procedural reservations about some of the reports that are coming from committees and the motions presented to the House on the basis of these reports. I believe we may be preparing some future difficulties for the House unless hon. members are prepared very soon to look at this procedure very closely. I mention this to put hon. members on notice and to suggest to them that when this and perhaps other motions of this kind come before the House I will invite procedural advice from hon. members.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I have been concerned about the point Your Honour has raised. It has come to my attention that committee clerks have been advising chairmen that because no ruling has been made by Your Honour on these reports-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is putting to the House an argument he may want to put to the House for the consideration of the Chair and other hon. members when the matter is brought to the attention of the House. I was not raising it at all by way of a point of order but only for the purpose of putting hon. members on notice. Perhaps at that point the parliamentary secretary and other members, I am sure, would want to give the Chair the benefit of their wisdom, knowledge, experience and advice.
Order Paper Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS

May 30, 1973


CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
May 28, 1973-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on February 23, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would simply like to say that I filed this motion in the hope that it would put pressure on the government to bring in its bill to amend the Pension Act. In the hope that that might be done in a few days I would like the motion to stand.
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. November 23, 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.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will, of course, stand the motion but I wonder whether it is in order for hon. members to present an argument in support of the suggestion that a motion should stand. In any event, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made the point. He asks that the motion stand. The Chair will say that it is stood.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Agriculture on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a)
8,964 as at January 31, 1963; (b) 9,057 as at January 31, 1973.
2.
January 31, 1963	January 31, 1973
(a)	8,746
(b)	218
(c)	Nil
6,085
2,612
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2804


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2804?
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?

LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2975

Question No. 1,359-Mr. Allard:
1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2975?
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. November 24, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 1, 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-5898


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5898?
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 9, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 15, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applica-
May 30, 1973

tions 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-5886


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5886?
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 6, 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-5885


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5885?
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 9, 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-5917


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5917?
Order Paper Questions
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 9,
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-5734


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5734?
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 8, 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-5732


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5732?
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.

May 30, 1973
Order Paper Questions
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-5900


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5900?
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 9, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 5, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$96,968.
5.	Eight hundred eighty-four man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1539


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1539?
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. November 3, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 6, 1972.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$63,517.

5.	Five hundred forty-six man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2911


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2911?
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. November 24, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 9, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$28,476.
5.	Two hundred forty-eight man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2805


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2805?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal by the government to finance it?
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. November 23, 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-2781


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2781?
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?
May 30, 1973

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. November 23, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 3, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$48,672.
5.	Four hundred sixteen man-weeks.


Mr. Godin: Since 1965, has the government supplied Viet Nam with any type of equipment and, if so (a) under which program (b) what was the nature of such equipment (i) technical (ii) medical (iii) military (c) what was the total value of each category of supply?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since 1965, Canada through the bilateral grants program of the Canadian International Development Agency has provided equipment to the Republic of Viet Nam (often in conjunction with technical assistance) in the field of humanitarian relief assistance and for paramedical projects. The value of equipment in the paramedical sector which included emergency hospital units has totalled approximately $1,664,200. The value of other equipment is approximately $764,300 and included iron roofing material. Canada has never provided military equipment to the Republic of Viet Nam.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the total amount of loans in each year 1965 to 1972 inclusive made by the CNR Pension Fund to (a) Canadian companies (b) foreign-controlled companies?
2.	What amount has been loaned to Fidinam (Ontario) Limited and at what interest rate?
3.	Is Fidinam (Ontario) Limited a Canadian-owned company?
4.	Have railway workers any voice in Pension Fund decisions concerning monies in the fund that have been contributed to a large extent by them and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The management of the Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The CNR Pension Fund does not make loans as such. It does invest in mortgages, corporate bonds and debentures and as at December 31, 1972, it had total mortgage investments of $225 million, at least 95 per cent of which have been placed with Canadian controlled companies. As at the same date the Pension Fund held bonds and debentures having a total par value of $331 million and less than 10 per cent of these obligations were issued by Canadian companies that were foreign controlled.
2.	Nil.
3.	To the best of our knowledge the company is not Canadian-owned.
Order Paper Questions
4.	The fund is administered by the CNR as trustee. The amount of pensions payable to employees is guaranteed regardless of the amount of money in the fund or the return on investment.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the government intend to re-introduce legislation not passed by the last Parliament for control of wire tapping and electronic snooping and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Yes, at the earliest suitable opportunity. Note: Bill C-176 received 1st reading on April 13, 1973.


Mr. Masniuk: 1.	Has the government made loans to the Government of Senegal and, if so, on how many occasions, what amounts and, in each instance, at what rate of interest?
2.	With any of the loans made by the government to Senegal, was there a loan for the purchase of outboard motors and, if so (a) how many outboard motors were purchased (b) at what cost (c) from what firm or firms?
3.	Were tenders called for the purchase of these outboard motors and, if so (a) what firms were invited to tender (b) which firms submitted tenders (c) what was the amount of each tender in each instance?
4.	Were any firms in Manitoba invited to tender and on what basis was a selection of firms in Manitoba determined?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Department of Supply and Services as follows: 1. Yes, two. One concerned with a project called: Chaine de froid, $880,000 and a second for the motorisation of dugout canoes, $2,710,000. Both were awarded on the following terms: no interest, 10 years before the first payment and 40 years to repay.
2.	(a) 1650 motors; (b) $689,254; (c) Outboard Marine Corporation of Canada Limited, Peterborough, Ontario.
3.	At the request of Canadian International Development Agency and Senegal, this program was a directed procurement to ensure compatibility and interchangabili-ty with Outboard Marine engines already in use in Senegal.
4.	See answer to part 3.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	To date, which province(s) has the government met with at the ministerial level to discuss the teaching of a third language and culture in (a) primary schools (b) secondary schools (c) universities?
2.	To date (a) which province(s) has shown interest in the government's policy on multiculturalism (b) with which provinces have discussions been held concerning multiculturalism?
3.	Has the government been in touch with the Canadian Education Association for the purpose of discussing the teachings of
4246

May 30, 1973
Order Paper Questions
languages and cultures in the schools and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reasons?
4.	Has the government surveyed the provinces to determine (a) the availability of instruction in non-official languages in the public school systems (b) the relationship between those languages available and the ethnic composition of the province in question?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1. None.
2.	(a) All provinces have expressed interest; (b) Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
3.	(a) No; (b) any such discussions would be held with the provinces individually or with the Council of Ministers of Education, after the results become available from the current research program on language as a factor in cultural retention.
4.	(a) The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism examined the availability of instruction in the non-official languages and the results of that study are available in Volume 4 of the Commission's reports; (b) no.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Have listening devices of any kind been discovered at any time since 1958 in Canadian Embassies, Consular Offices, or any other buildings occupied abroad by the Canadian Government and, if so, in what specific places were such devices found and on what dates were they found?
2.	During the above-mentioned period of time, did the government ever become aware of third parties listening to telephone conversations to or from any buildings occupied by the government abroad and, if so, what were the dates of such occurrences and specifically where did these incidents happen?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes. We have had evidence of such activities directed against some of our missions abroad. It would not be in the national interest, however, to go into detail on this evidence or how or where we obtained it.
2. No. Due to the ease with which telephone conversations can be monitored, members of the Canadian foreign service exercise caution and discipline in the use of telephone.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What were the considerations that led to the appointment of Mr. Russell Honey, formerly M.P. for Northumberland-Durham, to a Judgeship as announced by the Minister of Justice?
2.	Did the fact that he was formerly a Liberal Member of Parliament have a bearing on his appointment?


Otto Emil Lang: Governments in the past have not commented on matters relating to specific judicial appointments except in respect to policy and procedure. The major formal consultative process in considering appointments to the Bench involves the submission of names of potential candidates to the Judicial Committee of the Canadian Bar Association and their return of a judgment about whether or not the person or persons under consideration for appointment are quali-

tied, well qualified or not qualified for the appointment. The criteria considered before recommending individuals for judicial appointment to the Governor in Council for approval include competence, integrity, honesty, experience and merit, as the quality of our justice is measured by the quality of our judges. The chief criterion in the past has been, and will remain, one of competence for the appointment under consideration.


Mr. Dick: 1.	How many persons were hired, in each of the past five years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 by the Public Service Commission to become public servants?
2.	How many hired, in each year of the past five years, were not Canadian citizens?
3.	Of the number who were not Canadian citizens, how many were not landed immigrants at the time they were accepted in the Public Service?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1.
1968	1969	1970	1971	1972*	TotalBy Public Service	17,602	11,206	8,350	7,226	7,992	52,376Commission By Departments	2,777	9,527	14,705	20,480	30,576	78,065(under delegated	authority)	Total	20,379	20,733	23,055	27,706	38,568	130,441
'Figures taken from annual report.
2.	The Public Service Commission does not keep a central record of the number of persons who were not Canadian citizens hired in each of the past five years.
3.	Since the Commission does not maintain records of persons hired who were not Canadian citizens, it has no record of those who were not landed immigrants.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	By what percentage rate did the Bank of Canada inflate the money supply between January 1 and December 31, 1972?
2.	By what percentage rate does the Bank of Canada plan to inflate the money supply between January 1 and December 31, 1973?
3.	What rate of inflation of the consumer price index does the Bank of Canada expect will result from this increase in the money supply during 1973?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: tive economic conditions. In a recent speech, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, while stressing that "the banking system would continue to be in a position to accommodate reasonable growth in bank lending", expressed the view that "the recent pace of bank credit expansion had clearly been too rapid".
3.	The extent to which prices in Canada will rise in 1973 is dependent upon a great many factors other than the increase in money supply in 1973.


Mr. O'Connor: 1.	To how many people, businesses or corporations was the Information Canada Bookstore 9-page Customer Survey sent?
2.	(a) How many replies have been received (b) has a cost benefit study of this survey been undertaken and, if so, what are the results of this study?
3.	What is the total cost of the survey including, but not limited to, computer time, postage, printing, staff salaries and calculations of results and implementation of new programs or procedures based on survey results?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. Nine thousand questionnaires (in French and English) were distributed through our bookstores and to mail order customers.
2.	(a) to date, 1,200 questionnaires have been returned; (b) since the survey is still in progress, no cost benefit study has been conducted.
3.	Twelve thousand dollars.


Mr. Boisvert: How many CBC employees earn (a) less than $5,000 per annum (b) from $5,001 to $10,000 (c) from $10,001 to $20,000 (d) more than $20,000?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) 139; (b) 3,746; (c) 5,093; (d) 346; Total, 9,324 (Number of continuing employees).


Mr. Yewchuk: Since March 1967, how many candidates have appealed against the decision of the Public Service Commission, because of the provisions in Section 20 of the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The statistics kept by the Appeals Branch do not permit a direct reply to the question as posed. However, the Appeals Branch is able to provide some information relating to the topic covered in the question.
Statistics indicating the key issues raised at appeal hearings have been kept since January 1, 1972. During the 16-month period from January 1, 1972, until April 30, 1973, issues relating to language requirements were raised in
Order Paper Questions
110 appeals out of a total of 3,530 appeals heard. Of these, 44 were allowed and 66 dismissed. This category of the Appeals Branch statistics includes allegations of irregularities and/or unfairness with regard to three Sections of the Public Service Employment Act: Section 14(2) which deals with the language of notice of a proposed competition, Section 16(2) which deals with the language in which an examination, test, or interview is to be conducted, and Section 20 which deals with the language qualifications necessary of employees in order that the functions of the department, portion or part can be performed adequately and effective service provided to the public. Section 20 of the Public Service Employment Regulations deals with the establishment, period of validity, and extension of eligible lists. The Appeals Branch statistics do not indicate appeals against this section of the regulations as a key issue in appeals hearings.


Mr. Hellyer: How many persons were in receipt of unemployment insurance payments in Canada in January, February, March and April 1972 in the week in which Statistics Canada took its sample of unemployment levels?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Beneficiaries of Unemployment Insurance Benefits1
Regular Benefits2
1972	No Earnings Reported	With Earnings Reported	Special Benefits2 3	TotalJanuary	552,000	34,000	34,000	620,000February	614,000	40,000	43,000	697,000March	613,000	42,000	42,000	697,000April	589,000	41,000	35,000	665,000
JEach of these statistics relate to a reference week taken as representative for the month in question (The same week as that used by Statistics Canada).
2Regular unemployment insurance benefits including benefits for trainees who have completed their courses but have not found work.
3Special benefit types include Sickness, Maternity, Retirement, fishing and benefits paid to trainees while on an approved training course.


Mr. Beaudoin: For each year since 1965, what was the total amount received directly or indirectly from the government by the municipality of Ham-Nord, in the constituency of Richmond?


John Mercer Reid: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on government expenditure dis-
4248

May 30, 1973
Orders for Returns
bursements for municipalities, constituencies or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way. Information concerning expenditures could be supplied where specific projects, programmes or payees are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular municipality or constituency.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Muir: 1.	How many cab companies have contracted parts of their fleets to government service in the National Capital Region?
2.	How many cabs are under contract with each company and at what cost?
Return tabled.



LANGUAGE COURSES

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	To date, how many public servants have taken language courses and of these, how many took (a) English courses (b) French courses?
2.	What was the cost of these courses?
3.	How many were there from each department?
4.	Of these, how many met the bilingual requirement to qualify for the special bonus awarded bilingual public servants?
5.	What has been the cost of the special seven per cent bonus since it was introduced?
Return tabled.



COST OF PEACEKEEPING ROLES

Mr. Forrestall: What has been the length, manpower strength and total cost to date of all internationally supervised peacekeeping roles played by the Canadian government, broken down by departments involved?
Return tabled.



UIC BENEFIT PAYMENTS

Mr. Hueglin: 1.	Are total UIC benefit payments in 1972 running twice as high as the originally estimated $1.02 billion and, if so, for what reason?
2.	On what basis was this estimated $1.02 billion for payments made?
Return tabled.



ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL POWER GRID IN CANADA

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What progress has been made in establishing a National Power Grid in Canada?
2.	What provinces are inter-connected to the extent of meeting peak loads on the basis of exchange of power?

3.	Has a committee been established to co-ordinate the Grid and, if so (a) who are the members of the committee (b) on what date did it last meet?
4.	(a) Are major power projects, such as the Nelson River in Manitoba and the James Bay Project in Quebec, planned with a view to the power savings to be realized by inter-connection with the National Grid (b) what discussions have there been with Quebec Hydro in this regard (c) what agreements have been reached?
5.	What savings in cost would there be on the James Bay Project as the result of this inter-connection?
Return tabled.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-BENEFIT CONTROL COMMISSION

Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	How many Benefit Control Officers were employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as of April 15, 1973 (a) how many were men (b) how many were women?
2.	How many of the Benefit Control Officers speak (a) English only (b) French only (c) both French and English?
3.	How many speak English or French and another language?
4.	How many Benefit Control Officers have previous law enforcement experience?
5.	(a) what are the various job levels within the Unemployment Insurance Commission (b) what are the salaries for these various job levels?
Return tabled.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK

Mr. Laprise: 1.	For each fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973, how many loans did the Industrial Development Bank make in each province and territory and for what amounts?
2.	For each of the same fiscal years, by province, what were the number and amount of unpaid debts and how many are considered as a loss?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 205 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 205 be deemed agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 30,1973



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING DECISION TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF CN TOWER IN TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 205-Mr. Forrestall:
That an humble Address bo presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all notes, correspondence or memoranda exchanged between the government, the City of Toronto, Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and any other department or agency of the government with respect to the decision to approve the construction of the proposed 1800 foot CN Tower in downtown Toronto.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 187, 215 and 219.



BRITISH COLUMBIA OFY AND LIP PROJECTS-COPIES OF AUDITED OR UNAUDITED STATEMENTS 1971-72

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 187
John Douglas Reynolds: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the audited statements or unaudited, as the case may be, of all OFY projects in British Columbia for the year 1971-1972.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
| La ter:]


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, when you were calling motions I was busy for a second and, if it is not too late, I would like to have my motion read today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking for leave of the House to return to motions? We require unanimous consent of the House for the purpose of returning to motions.


John Douglas Reynolds: No, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to return to motions. I want you to read the motion you called earlier.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to motion for the production of papers No. 187.


Mr. Speaker:: No. 187.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned this motion is not acceptable because the requested papers are of a voluminous character, and an inordinate cost and length of time would be required to produce them.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned the motion is not acceptable because the requested papers reflect on the personal competence or character of an individual and are also private or confidential and not of a public or official character. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Douglas Reynolds: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers



TRIDENT STEAMSHIPS LIMITED-OWNERSHIP PARTICULARS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 215-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the full particulars as to ownership of Trident Steamships Limited.
He said: Stand, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to beg your indulgence to ask the parliamentary secretary if he would mind going back to the production of papers. The reason I asked for my motions to stand in the first place was that I could not locate them in the book but I now have them here. Would he be so kind as to provide answers to Nos. 215 and 219?


Mr. Speaker:: We will return to that item of business and call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this motion is unacceptable to the government because Trident Steamships Limited was incorporated provincially and no source exists in the federal government for determining the ownership of this company. I would therefor ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Duncan M. Beattie: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



NEWFOUNDLAND STEAMSHIPS LIMITED-OWNERSHIP PARTICULARS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 219-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the full particulars as to ownership of Newfoundland Steamships Limited.
He said: Stand, Mr. Speaker.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this motion is unacceptable to the government because no source exists for determining the ownership of this company. Annual returns submitted to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs under the Canada Corporations Act and the Corporations and Labour Unions Act indicate officers and directors but not the ownership of companies. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Duncan M. Beattie: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. speaker, I ask that the other notices of motions be permitted to stand.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 30, 1973
Motions for Papers


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, before we leave the production of papers I rise on a point of order. My point is that either the government has been particularly negligent in responding to certain motions passed by the House or is seeking to avoid answering them. On February 21 two motions standing in my name were passed by the House, each of them relating to documents concerning fish canning facilities on the north coast of British Columbia. On March 28 three other motions or a total of five, relating to the same subject matter were passed by the House asking that there be laid before the House certain documents and exchanges of correspondence with respect to canning facilities on the north coast of British Columbia.
The same motions were put forward to the House during the previous session of parliament. There is ample information, ample advance notice, and ample knowledge about them in the hands of the government and the Department of Fisheries. My point of order is that either through negligence or a desire not to comply with orders of the House the returns have not been tabled. I would like to have some response from the government on why it has not complied with five orders of the House with respect to the tabling of documents.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there are two points I would like to raise with the hon. member at this time. The first is that before we can table these documents in the House we must receive consent from the government of British Columbia, and I have been informed that to date it has not been forthcoming.
The second point is that when we do have permission to table these documents it then becomes necessary to provide them in the two official languages. That means a built-in delay not only with respect to the production of the documents the hon. member for Skeena has requested but the production of all documents under this order of business that hon. members request. These are built-in delays, and I am sorry that it is not possible for me to expedite either the consent of the government of British Columbia or the translation process once we get permission.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member as well as to the parliamentary secretary that we could go on for a long time discussing the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena and the response made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. I would hope that we could go on to the next item of business. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Frank Howard: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Production of the documents in response to only one of the five motions, separately passed by this House, rests on the consent of the government of British Columbia. The delay in producing the other documents is purely the responsibility of the federal government.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS BEATITUDE, JOSYF CARDINAL SLIPYJ

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to call the attention of the House to the presence in the Senate Gallery of a distinguished visitor, His Beatitude, Josyf Cardinal Slipyj of Rome, Archbishop-Major and Primate of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of State responsible for the federal government's policy on multiculturalism I would like on behalf of the government of Canada to join with the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) in extending a very warm welcome to His Beatitude Josyf Cardinal Slipyj.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out once again that we have not received an answer to question No. 832. I have asked on several occasions that the answer be produced. The Auditor General has now referred to this matter in his report and I believe the House is entitled to an explanation why this question involving some $28 million in expenditure has not been answered to the satisfaction of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, of course, is now going back to questions and we have already moved beyond the production of papers. If we continue going backwards we will find ourselves back to Tuesday.


Mr. Oberle:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I too may be wanting to go back but I am a little confused by the proceedings. I have a question on the order paper, No. 2,048, which was placed there on May 14. I do not abuse the privilege of asking questions on the order paper and have had very few. This question is very timely and concerns thousands of Canadians throughout the country. I would seek the indulgence of the House to ask the parliamentary secretary to answer this question in the immediate future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement by Peter Flanigan, President of the Council on International Economic Policy, to the effect that there is no schedule for resuming trade talks between Canada and the United States, can the
May 30,1973

minister tell the House whether he will take the initiative in arranging a meeting at the earliest possible date?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that a meeting will take place in the very near future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the government prepared a series of proposals and a comprehensive strategy for such talks and has the government suggested any specific date for resumption of the talks?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on an earlier occasion, the result of my previous discussions with Secretary Shultz was that both sides would examine their positions and at a later date-I would hope very shortly- both sides would sit down together at the official level to discuss matters of mutual interest.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In light of the concern of the Premier of Ontario about the 15 per cent import duty on new cars and in the interest of Canadian automotive parts producers, is the minister going to consult with the government of Ontario on these two areas in particular prior to the resumption of the talks?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of the auto pact to the province of Ontario. I have had discussions with the Minister of Industry for the province and have indicated to him that on the appropriate occasion I would have further consultations with him if there is some point at which it would be appropriate.


GASOLINE-POSSIBILITY OF SHORTAGE-REQUEST FOR CONTROL OF EXPORTS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of Canada's largest independent retailers of gasoline, including such firms as Caloil Inc. of Montreal, Gasex Oil Limited of Montreal, Premium Oil Company of Toronto and Capital City Gas and Fuel Company of Ottawa, have all stated that their inability to secure supplies of gasoline is compelling them to abandon plans to open new outlets and even to close some filling stations now in operation? In view of the minister's statement on Monday that he was keeping this situation under close scrutiny, I should like to ask him whether he is now prepared to extend export controls to cover refined products?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I recall from the article in the Globe and Mail this morning to which the hon. member refers, the explanation was given by several of the distributors that it was an inability to purchase the refined product overseas which had imposed this termination on them. I would like to confirm that the board is keeping close surveillance on exports, but the basic problem is the tight international supply situation and the
Oral Questions
inability of these firms to buy refined gasoline abroad as they have been doing for the past several years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's explanation may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by revenue minister Allan Grossman in the Ontario legislature yesterday to the effect that in the month of April Ontario exported 4.1 million gallons of gasoline, or 11 times as much as it exported in all of 1972? Since this gasoline was refined from western crude oil, may I ask the minister what action he or the National Energy Board proposes to take to protect the gasoline consumers of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the hon. gentleman that I would agree there is no action that can be taken about exports that occurred in April, but we have indicated to the refiners that we will expect them to meet the demands of the Canadian market and that if they fail to do so we will put on export controls.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that exports of gasoline have risen astronomically and that imports have virtually come to a standstill, creating a real problem in Canada, may I ask the minister whether he has taken any action such as he promised on Monday, that the National Energy Board would intervene informally to make sure that these independent distributors get adequate supplies of gasoline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir, the National Energy Board has been intervening in a number of cases. Indeed, on page B2 of the Report on Business in the Globe and Mail this morning he will see an example of the intervention.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether the government intends to publish the 13th file on Quebec's economic performance and, if so, when?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and convey it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us whether the study referred to was undertaken when he was responsible for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, studies were constantly being made when I was in charge of that

May 30, 1973
Oral Questions
department; I do not know whether this study had anything to do with them.
As I have not seen it, I shall have a look at it and then answer the question.


AIR CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that Canada faces a tie-up of its national airline, Air Canada, because of a dispute with the machinists' union, and indications are that a vote favouring a strike is very likely, one local already having voted 97 per cent in support of a strike, what action is the government taking to avert this strike which could have devastating effects on many parts of the country? I might say that this question was directed to the Acting Prime Minister five days ago and at that time the Acting Prime Minister promised he would have the Minister of Labour bring a report to the House.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I prefer not to go into further details in reporting to the House and the hon. member until such time as we know the official result of the vote for ratification. If it is turned down, I will be pleased to indicate what further action the government will take.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to implementing the recommendation of the Woods Commission, which was made five years ago, that an industrial disputes commission be established to avert strikes that threaten the national interest and tie up the national economy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this report was considered quite some years ago, and whatever decision the government decided to adopt was incorporated in the bill which has long since passed before parliament.


James Aloysius McGrath: On May 25 a similar question was directed to the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister, as recorded on page 4092 of Hansard said that the government was giving this matter consideration. He said, "However, the government has not found it easy to deal with this question in a satisfactory manner." He did say, and this is on the record, that the government is considering this question. In light of that answer, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would like to revise his answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously some ministers are considering this matter but it has not come before cabinet recently. I will look into the matter and see if consideration is being given to it at any departmental level.
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).l


STRIKE BY FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In light of the questions asked last Friday, can he now advise whether or not he has had discussions with Air Canada with the object of getting Air Canada to accept the unanimous report of the conciliation board concerning the strike of the financial and administrative group of Air Canada employees in Winnipeg?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts whether the question is supplementary, but as it has been asked it might be easier to allow the minister to reply, if he has a reply for the hon. member. Perhaps the hon. member might like to renew the question. Apparently it has not been heard.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will direct my question to the Minister of Labour if he is prepared to turn this way. In light of the questions asked of him last Friday, can he advise the House whether or not he has been in contact with Air Canada with a view to having it accept the unanimous report of the conciliation board, signed by their own nominee, concerning the dispute with the financial and administrative group now on strike in the city of Winnipeg?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, contact has been made with both parties to the dispute.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And what happened?


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a question through you, Sir, to the Minister of National Revenue. He said he had to consult with some cabinet colleagues before replying. I think he has had that opportunity. It had to do with the livestock inventory provisions in the latest budget. Can the minister tell the House whether these provisions will be retroactive to January 1, 1972, and, if not, will the government take any steps to cure the tax hiatus between the termination of the basic herd provisions and the commencement of the livestock inventory provisions?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have checked, and section 28, subsection 1, as amended by Bill C-170, is effective from January 1, 1972. I can assure the hon. member that if farmers who filed 1972 returns prior to the passage of Bill C-170 would like to so request, their returns will be adjusted.
May 30, 1973


NATIONAL REVENUE
Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, with your permission perhaps I might reply further, as promised, to a question posed to me last week by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I have inquired and am advised that my department does not order its forms from the private sector but obtains them through the Department of Supply and Services.


PATENTS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a brief question to the President of the Treasury Board. May I ask him whether or not he will direct that the annual report of Canadian Patents and Development Limited, a Crown corporation, be referred to the appropriate committee? If so, can he do so before June 15, and to which committee would he refer it?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the appropriate committee would be the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. I will consult with the House leader about such a reference.


HOUSING
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the initial 60-day moratorium on proposed rent increases for senior citizens' accommodation operated by Metro Toronto Housing Company will expire tomorrow, will the minister advise the House what steps have been taken to extend this moratorium to March, 1974, as he originally requested. Also, can he assure the House that the planned increases will not be proceeded with?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as CMHC housing is concerned, of course the House is aware that we have imposed a freeze on that. With regard to this particular housing, I have had an answer given to me by my advisers with which I am not entirely satisfied and I will be wiring the officials either this evening or tomorrow morning to determine what the position will be.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In view of the fact the minister advised the House on March 15 that officials of CMHC would be entering into discussions with Metro Toronto Housing Company in order o work out the details of the moratori-
Oral Questions
um, can he advise the House whether these discussions actually took place?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been discussions but I am not entirely satisfied with the outcome in order to ensure the protection of senior citizens in the buildings, and I want to change what has been presently suggested.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The hon. minister tabled in the House a copy of a personal letter from the foreign minister of Zambia concerning the killing of two Canadian girls about a month ago in Zambia.
On page 2 of the letter the following can be read:
Responsibility for the death of these persons must definitely be laid at the door of the rebel government of Salisbury . ..
And further on, it is stated:
The news also deeply shocked us in Zambia.
Therefore, here is my question:
Following this entirely irresponsible and childish statement of the Zambian government, does the hon. minister intend to call upon the government of Rhodesia, accused in the circumstances, to let us have its version of the facts, since the country guilty of the murder is making a cowardly accusation against a country which was never involved in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question, as stated, is entirely out of order. The hon. member is not asking a question but making a statement and I believe that the question should not be accepted. On the other hand, since the hon. member has formulated statements in his question, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have an opportunity to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, the foreign minister of Zambia lays responsibility upon the Rhodesian authorities for the death of the two girls. We are pursuing our inquiries with the Zambian government to try to ascertain the facts.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since Rhodesia has been accused by the Zambian government, is it also the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ask the Rhodesian government to present its account of the events in order to know both sides of the picture?
4254

May 30, 1973
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our Assistant High Commissioner in Lusaka was in Rhodesia. He interviewed eyewitnesses. He received the utmost courtesy from the government of Rhodesia. Since we do not have diplomatic relations with the Rhodesian government, we are not addressing any inquiries directly to them.


ALLEGED LOSS OF LIFE BY CITIZEN OF ZAMBIA IN CANADA-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question.
In the letter tabled in the House, I read the following: [English]
"Last year a Canadian and a Zambian lost their lives in your country in the cause of strengthening our relations."
[ Translation]
Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House the names of those two persons who died in Canada, and in what circumstances, in order perhaps to reassure those who will read that letter from the foreign minister of Zambia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I took note of the same statement in the letter and am making inquiries. I was not familiar with the incident.


PERSECUTION IN THE UKRAINE-REQUEST THAT QUESTION BE BROUGHT BEFORE UNITED NATIONS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the House has just paid tribute to Cardinal Slipyj who for 18 years was imprisoned by the communists in Siberia. Attention has been directed to the fact that today Ukrainian writers, literary critics, journalists, professors and students are being thrown into prisons and psychiatric hospitals for expressing their thoughts and beliefs with regard to linguistic and cultural freedom, even though freedom of speech is guaranteed under the constitution of the U.S.S.R. In view of the persecution that is taking place in the Ukraine, will the minister bring this question before the United Nations to the end that the U.S.S.R. be asked to live up to its agreements under the charter of the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as one of the signatories of the convention on human rights we are urging all countries, including the U.S.S.R., to live up to their obligations.


John George Diefenbaker: A generalization of that kind will not do much to help those who are in great difficulty. Has a protest been made to the U.S.S.R. against the inhuman treatment being imposed upon people who appreciate freedom and who are simply speaking out in favour of certain principles in the constitution of the U.S.S.R.?


Mitchell William Sharp: Like the right hon. gentleman, I believe in those principles and I urge that they be observed everywhere. Unfortunately, there are many parts of the world where the standards are not as high as they are in Canada. I hope they will all reach our standards, at least.


John George Diefenbaker: That is no excuse at all. That is just an alibi.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? In view of the fact that national egg quotas will be established among the provinces shortly, has the minister received assurances from all the provinces that they will be participating in such a way as to ensure the proper operation of the plan?


Eugene Whelan: The national egg marketing agency runs its own operation. I had been assured it will do so in a proper and fair fashion. I have no doubt it will do this.


GASOLINE-ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY TO INDEPENDENT OPERATORS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources supplementary to the one addressed to him by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. It concerns the effect the shortage of gasoline supplies to service station operators is having not only on the smaller companies mentioned by the hon. member but also on individual independent operators who, in communities such as Scarborough, are in danger of being put out of business by their inability to obtain gas. Is the minister prepared to call representatives of the major oil companies together and use his good offices to ensure a more equitable distribution of gasoline among all operators, including those independent dealers who are so important in keeping prices of gasoline competitive in Toronto?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I had a meeting with representatives of the industry on Friday last.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: I thank the minister for the teaser he gave us by telling us there was a meeting. Will he now tell us whether it produced any results? We know that the price of gas in Toronto has gone up by six cents in the past month.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I told the House in the debate last Monday, we advised the industry that we expected them to meet the demands of Canadian consum-
May 30, 1973

ers as a priority before any exports of gas, and that if they failed to do this we would apply export controls.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the hon. gentleman received any information about an alleged conspiracy by the United States government to break into the Canadian embassy in Washington? Has he any information he can give us in the form of an answer to the question?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have no information of that kind nor any evidence to suggest there is any substance to the allegation. I believe the answer given by an anonymous spokesman for the department was a good one, namely, that if the Americans wanted to know about our policy toward draft dodgers and deserters, they had only to ask.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hope they do better than we do when they ask.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Mr. Lewis:: I had a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, but he seems to have disappeared. Perhaps Your Honour would recognize me if he returns.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member at any time.


FINANCE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is in the same vein as a question asked some days ago; the minister said then that he would look into it. Has the government taken any measures to assure that sufficient loans are being made available to farmers under the legislation providing for government guaranteed loans, as well as under the arrangements concerning small business loans and loans to fishermen?


John Napier Turner: On that subject, when we have something to announce we shall announce it here.
Oral Questions


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It relates to the Canada Development Corporation. In April, 1971, the Prime Minister announced that the head office would be located in Vancouver. Again, in April of this year, he reassured me that this would be the case. However, some of his colleagues in the cabinet are going round the country saying it will not be located in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question. He is now making a statement. He has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question.


John Douglas Reynolds: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he misinformed me when he told me in his statement in April that the head office would be located in Vancouver?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I did not misinform the hon. member. But I should like to inform him that unintentionally he himself misinformed the House when he said that ministers are saying the contrary.


John Douglas Reynolds: There is a restaurant in Vancouver called Sneaky Pete's and I think it was named after the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members may applaud that kind of remark but I do not. I think that kind of statement by the hon. member is not conducive to the dignity of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I respect your statement, but might I point out that the Prime Minister said his ministers did not make the statements I attributed to them. About two weeks ago, in this House, the Minister of Justice said to one of his own members that the CDC would be locating in western Canada but not in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not quarrel with the hon. member's statement now. Obviously, there is a disagreement as to fact between the hon. member and other members. But I suggest it is always possible to make that kind of point while remaining within what I regard as being the traditions and proprieties of debate in the House of Commons.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who two weeks ago informed me he would consider the possibility of making a statement to the
26314-52}

May 30, 1973
Oral Questions
House concerning his review of too-liberal abortion laws. In light of the fact that more than 7,000 foetuses have been aborted since he announced his review on March 5, is the minister now willing to make a statement on this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: I am giving consideration to that question. I have, of course, discussed the proper enforcement of the criminal law with the provincial Attorneys General upon whom the main responsibility rests.


LABOUR RELATIONS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It arises out of another unfortunate strike of four or five weeks' duration by the employees of the Nova Scotian Hotel in Halifax, a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways. Is the minister's department taking any steps to bring the parties to the dispute together in the hope that a settlement may be reached?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, we have offered mediation services to the parties to resolve the dispute. I can obtain further particulars for the hon. member.


David Lewis: I am certain the minister made that statement in good faith and something may have happened, but in view of the fact a spokesman for the union informed me only last night that there has been no such invitation to the parties to meet, would the minister inquire and make certain that such an invitation does in fact go out to the parties without delay, because I am informed there may be an opportunity for settling the dispute?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observations of the hon. member and I will do that.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo has a supplementary to his question and he will be recognized for that purpose, [Translation]
-and then I shall recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.


CRIMINAL CODE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is currently envisaging bringing
{Mr. Beatty.]
down any further amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with abortion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of the fact that some homeowners who were dissatisfied with the houses they bought from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Place Morin, Vanier City, have recently obtained a court judgment cancelling the sale and granting the payment of $1,500 in costs, as a result of the action they had brought against Darec Construction and since the said judgment cannot be enforced because of the insolvency of the firm, could the minister indicate what steps he considers taking to help the victims whose houses are in need of immediate repairs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look into the judgment first and the situation before I answer, so I will take the question as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On May 11 last, I asked the right hon. gentleman a question at which time he stated he would take it as notice. The question is as follows, as reported on page 3659 of Hansard:
In view of the fact South Africa has been expelled from the Commonwealth of Nations for some time now, would the Prime Minister tell the House why no plans were ever formulated by his government to withdraw Commonwealth preferential tariff treatment from that country?
I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman could give me an answer to that question today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I did look into the question at the time. The answer is not fresh in my mind, but I will try to formulate it. These preferences are on a reciprocal basis. Their object is to obtain as much gain as possible for the Canadian people as a trading nation, and I do not see any link with the Commonwealth. If they are favourable to us I can see no reason at all to abolish them. If they are unfavourable to us, then I think they should be negotiated out, whether South Africa is in the Commonwealth or not.
May 30, 1973


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister reconsider his refusal to accept the invitation of the Alberta Conservation Authority to have a federal parks representative sit on the panel at the hearings concerning the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, which are dominated by national parks, and where proper hearings cannot succeed without the full co-operation and participation of the federal government?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the situation correctly, these territories are outside the national parks. I do not see how I could interfere with the activities of the Alberta government, since I am myself so touchy whenever the Alberta government meddles with our affairs within the parks.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that an invitation was issued by the province of Alberta, which indicates that they were not particularly concerned about jurisdiction-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary question.


Charles Joseph Clark: My supplementary question is this. Would the minister at least give an undertaking that the briefs that his department intends to submit will, despite his answer, be detailed and not general, and will give enough guidance about parks plans that the province and private citizens can make sensible plans of their own for development of that region?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am quite at ease in that connection, because we had public hearings held over a year ago on possible developments in Jasper and Banff parks. Plans were then made public. Many comments were received from the public at large and if someone has not received copy of those plans, I will be pleased to send them directly or through the hon. member.


AIR CANADA
Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman said earlier in answer to a question about the possible Air Canada strike that he had not looked at it recently. In view of the fact that it has had very low priority, would the Prime Minister move it up to
Oral Questions
a higher priority on his agenda and take a look at the matter before the strike takes place rather than after the strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there must be some misunderstanding. I do not recall ever having said that I had not looked at it recently. I am sure that if I commented on it at all it was to refer the matter to the Minister of Labour who, on the contrary, has reported more than once to me and the cabinet on the situation and is following it very closely.


REVIEW OF OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN ROYALTIES AND LEASE RATES-REQUEST FOR DEBATE
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are the federal oil and gas regulations still under review and, if so, when will the review be completed, and will the royalties and permit and lease rates under the new regulations be substantially increased over the rates existing under the present regulations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, they are still under review. Royalties for offshore oil development are one of the questions under discussion and negotiation with the five eastern governments at the present time, and until those negotiations are completed I would not anticipate that there would be any change in the regulations. The exact nature of the changes will be announced at that time.


Randolph Harding: In view of the statement in the Canadian trade journal, Oilweek, that the petroleum industry has had frank, open and understanding discussions with the government on the new oil and gas regulations, may I ask the minister if and when similar discussions on these regulations will be held either with this House or the appropriate standing committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, whenever the House wants to so order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Against the background of the statement made in the House yesterday relating to withdrawal of the truce supervisory group from Viet Nam, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is prepared to give to the House and to the country, either today or at some early date, a clear statement on the status of the other two supervisory commissions still legally in existence in Southeast Asia, that in Cambodia and the one

May 30, 1973
Oral Questions
in Laos, and about Canada's present and future involvement on those commissions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I might attempt a brief answer, and if it is not satisfactory I might make a statement later. The position in Laos is that Canada is one of the signatories to the agreement under which the International Control Commission is operating in that country and therefore we have obligations, unlike the situation in Viet Nam. The International Control Commission in Cambodia has been adjourned sine die and I see no prospect of it being revived.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General which refers to one I asked on May 7 regarding the slowness of mail, to which I did not receive an adequate answer since specifics were required. Does the Postmaster General consider a complaint received by him from Rosedale Presbyterian Church in Toronto, stating that a letter posted at noon on April 26 in Toronto was not delivered in Toronto until Monday morning, April 30, and the fact that a letter addressed to the Prime Minister from the manager of the Red Deer exhibition and mailed in Red Deer on May 11-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question should be put on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. When will he appoint the women's advisory council which he promised early in March would be appointed in six weeks, and what accounts for the inordinate delay in such appointment?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in the touch with the House and the hon. member on that matter very shortly, indeed.


REQUEST FOR GRANTS TO FAMILY PLANNING GROUPS TO REDUCE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises from a question that was asked by

the hon. member in front of me, and also from the concern expressed by the Minister of Justice about the number of abortions that are taking place in this country, a concern not shared by the rest of the Canadian people. Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare give consideration to additional grants for family planning purposes so there may be some approach to reducing the number of abortions in a rational way and an appropriate education program developed across the country?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member takes the trouble of referring to my departmental estimates he will find out that large amounts have been allotted for that purpose.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for manpower regarding the policy of extending LIP. In light of the fact that the Audit Service Bureau, as a result of the lack of records by many LIP projects, has on several occasions either declined an opinion or at best has only given a qualified or negative opinion, is the minister aware of this, have there been any recommendations made to his department and has he followed them through in respect of this entire program?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge we are following through on the recommendations when we have examined them, checked into them, looked into them and agreed with them.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-NUMBER OF PROJECTS EXTENDED-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ALL PROJECTS KEEP RECORDS FOR AUDIT PURPOSES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact the minister is on the verge, I would hope, of giving some indication as to the number of projects that have been extended-I would hope he is in a position to tell us how many projects have been extended under this new policy-can he assure the House that all the projects being extended have had a favourable auditor's report upon which the minister can act? In other words, can he assure the House that all Local Initiative Programs that have been extended have been the subject of a complete and full auditor's report that has been favourable?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question in its detail as notice.
May 30, 1973


IMMIGRATION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of our government's humane and generous gesture last year of inviting to Canada a number of immigrants from Uganda, can he tell the House whether it is now the policy of his department to recover from these refugees, who came to Canada as a result of the inclement climate in their political system there, the transportation costs incurred by the government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will check into the status of that and let the hon. member know.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of his statement that the government would be introducing incentive programs to help farmers "grow to beat the band this year", can he tell the House when these incentives will be introduced as seeding is already far advanced?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, prices have been incentive enough for them. A lot more fertilizer has been used and they have seeded as many crops as expected and will seed even more than they did before.


HIGH WATER LEVEL IN LAKE ONTARIO-EFFECT ON PRIVATE LANDS OF LACK OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES ON ADJACENT GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
Mr. Kenneth J. Higson (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Is he aware of the continuing erosion of vacant lands owned by the government of Canada along the shoreline of Lake Ontario as a result of the increasing high water level of Lake Ontario where no protective measures are being taken, and the adverse effect this lack of protection is having on adjoining improved privately owned lands where such protective measures have or are being taken, and what does he propose that the government should do about this situation?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works or the Canadian government do not necessarily assume responsibility for all damages caused by erosion. This erosion must have been caused by navigation or by federal undertak-
Oral Questions
ings in order for us to assume responsibility. I will have in this instance to check the hon. member's request to see whether this actually comes under the responsibility of the federal government.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can he assure the House that the proposed expansion of the Windsor, Ontario, airport is based on domestic demand and is not a response to the Detroit charter business?


Jean Marchand: It is
most surely for local demand.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain the rationale behind extending the airport in a community the size of Windsor, Ontario, for the purpose of jumbo jet aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is argumentative or invites debate-perhaps that is a better way to put it-and is not in order.


INDUSTRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he now confirm that he has received a report from the anti-dumping tribunal in respect of the shoe industry in Canada and, if so, when will he be in a position to make a statement as to what his department or the government intends to do to relieve the plight of the shoe and tanning industries of this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have received a report from the anti-dumping tribunal and I expect to make a statement in the very near future.

May 30, 1973
Multiculturalism



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Paul Yewchuk: That this House, re-affirming that generations of peoples of diverse races and many nationalities have joined in peace and war to build a free Canada and to mold a Canadian nationality, regrets the government's reluctant and token recognition of this reality.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the opportunity to use one of our opposition days to discuss the question of multiculturalism. The diversity of origins, customs, religions, languages, literature, music and the arts is a precious Canadian asset. Retention and enhancement of these contributions to our society should be given every reasonable assistance, and where assistance involves the use of public funds it is incumbent upon the government to insure that there is no suggestion that such funds are being used to gain political favour.
To date, steps taken to implement a multicultural policy in this country have not convinced many Canadians that the aim has not been in some ways partisan. The program so far has been almost exclusively related to a few grants for this and for that; throw in a four-page ad which has the distinct appearance of election campaign material, and one could easily become suspicious of the motives. I am not being critical of the idea of grants, but it is clear that in order to realize the aims of a policy of multiculturalism much more than a few government handouts is necessary. There has to be a genuine effort to introduce appropriate legislative changes designed to give complete equality to all ethnic groups in the country.
We recognize that you cannot buy or legislate cultural activity or harmony. The government's cultural role has to be a supportive one to create the proper atmosphere and institutional basis to allow the realization by all Canadians of their cultural aspirations, and conditions must be such that these aspirations could emanate from the people, not from the state.
Multiculturalism is a uniquely Canadian concept and represents the traditional difference between the American melting pot and Canadian mosaic. This mosaic probably remains the single most important strand in the fabric of our national identity. Inside the melting pot everyone is rootless, floating like driftwood in the ocean, no roots to attach it to firm soil. Here in Canada, the English, the French and other Canadians of European origin, the Indians, are maintaining their identity and therefore maintaining their roots on Canadian soil. These groups occupy a special place in the unofficial agreement between people of various backgrounds living together, recognizing and appreciating each other's differences and respecting these while maintaining their own particular identities.
The original "B and B" concept failed to recognize this Canadian reality and in fact implied a quiet suppression of non-official cultures and languages, creating a feeling

not conducive to unity in the country. Acceptance of and recognition of Canada's multicultural reality gives official status to the positive value of the contribution of other cultures to the Canadian cultural framework. In short, Canada's basic fibre consists of many groups, each of which has a rich and cohesive internal life, each of which has a desire to reach outward, to co-operate with, and appreciate the others.
Official recognition of this Canadian multicultural reality is a new thing for many Canadians. Many Canadians have greeted this recognition with joy, while others have greeted it with some suspicion. There have been feelings expressed that in some way an official policy of multiculturalism will detract from, or undermine, Canada's two largest ethnic groups, namely the English and French.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that I do not see multiculturalism in that kind of light. Multiculturalism simply adds to the richness contributed to this country by the two largest ethnic groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: It is an embellishment and refinement of the definition of Canadian society as it actually exists. I would like to assure those who feel threatened that multiculturalism is not a threat to anyone. As I mentioned previously, official recognition of multiculturalism was generally accepted as a step in the right direction. As far as the non-official language groups are concerned, the policy was nearly universally received with some pleasure.
The minister's announcements of a few days ago concerning the establishment of an advisory council and the plan to hold a national conference on multiculturalism, as well as the various grants, are also small steps in the right direction but none of these things are satisfactory from the point of view of creating a feeling of complete equality amongst all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, there is a growing feeling amongst the ethnic groups that steps so far taken connot be interpreted as much more than tokenism.
Many of the recommendations of the fourth book of the B and B Commission are left unattended, and many moves that could be made to achieve a better sense of belonging are yet to be made. There are certain legislative changes for example that could be carried out. First, a constitutional change would be in order which would officially embody the concept of multiculturalism within the Canadian constitution. This move is not something that would cost the taxpayer but would go a long way toward making all minority groups feel officially recognized and equal as Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: The language bill could be improved as well by the strengthening of section 38, which deals with the rights of ethnic groups, in such a way as to make the section more positive. The purpose of such an amendment would be to ensure that the Official Languages Act does not have the effect, either directly or indirectly, of restricting in any way the current status or the future growth of any minority languages. Such an amendment could include guarantees of the right to speak a minority
May 30, 1973

language other than either of the two official languages, and the right of that language to enjoy natural development within this country. Furthermore, the language act could be improved in such a way as to bring about consultation and agreement between federal and provincial governments for the purpose of assisting and encouraging the natural development of any such minority language. It would also be useful to declare minority languages that have been in common usage in this country for many years to be Canadian languages.
I have a letter from the deputy language commissioner which refers to the takeover of a radio station in Winnipeg by CBC and the future right of non-official language groups to use this radio station for programming. At least six times in that letter, the assistant language commissioner refers to German, Italian, Ukrainian and other languages that have been programmed on this station as foreign language broadcasts and, at the same time, to English and French as Canadian languages. The fact of the matter is that English and French as well as German, Italian, Ukrainian and many other languages are all of European origin and therefore, by definition, are all foreign languages to Canadian soil. However, we accept English and French as the official languages of the country, and I do not think that anybody suggests there should be more than two official languages. But we must recognize that other languages commonly used are no more foreign to this soil than either of the two official languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I can see no particular reason that other languages cannot be declared to be Canadian languages in order to avoid the application of the word "foreign" to Canadians who have been here for generations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is right.


Paul Yewchuk: Again, that would not cost any money and would not undermine in any way the two official languages. I want to point out that there are many countries of the world which have several languages which are their own but which have only one or two official languages.
Another legislative change which would go a long way towards creating equality amongst Canadians would be to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights, section I, which deals with the four traditional freedoms. Two more freedoms could be added. One would be the freedom of choice of language to be spoken by any individual-and again I do not suggest the addition of more official languages-and the other would be freedom of choice of culture or way of life. This simple move would put into statute the intent of this parliament and this government to ensure Canadians that the Canadian Bill of Rights explicitly sets out and guarantees Canadians the absolute right to speak any language they may wish, regardless of the universality of such language, and to guarantee them the absolute right to adopt as a style of life any culture or part thereof contributing to the Canadian mosaic.
These changes would reassure Canadians of their right to exist as a cultural group-and you may call that a group right if you like-and the right to be different if they so choose. These rights would guarantee that no politician,
Multiculturalism
no political party or any other group of significant importance could trample on the mosaic and therefore disturb the fine balance between Canadians that has developed over the years.
In addition to amendments to the Bill of Rights itself, Canada should set up an independent national human rights commission to deal with the whole range of individual rights in every field be it labour, housing, status of women or any other field where there is jurisdictional involvement of the federal government. If properly set up and administered, such a commission could be of enormous value in reinforcing the practical every-day application of the Bill of Rights. In terms of moral force, in terms of publicity through periodic reports to the House of Commons, and in terms of administrative decisions, its influence could be considerable. Such a commission could deal with a number of matters which the federal government itself, might refer to it. For example, they might refer matters like questions on the census forms, or place of birth information required on Canadian passports, or situations such as have been produced by the takeover of station CKSB by CBC in Manitoba. The commission could also be helpful to the government in the process of removing from the statutes all remaining distinctions between native and naturalized Canadians in order to lessen the opportunities for discrimination that may be presented by these distinctions.
I mentioned before that while Canada has always been a multicultural country, the concept was officially recognized only recently and there are some Canadians who do not fully understand multiculturalism, who feel that in some ways it may threaten them or detract from the official language groups of the country. In order to overcome these problems and to make the general public more aware of multiculturalism and of the contribution made by all Canadians, certain steps need to be taken as part of a public educational program. A two pronged approach would serve the purpose, namely, first, the use of the mass media, of national radio, of television, of newspapers, and of cablevision; and second, the educational system itself, which involves dealings with the provinces in their area of responsibility for education.
With regard to the mass media, the Broadcasting Act appears to present certain difficulties to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in that it specifically suggests that the language of broadcasts is to be English or French. While it does not say that other languages should not be used, it is interpreted by the CBC in such a way that other languages are not used. The president of the CBC, when questioned about this matter, indicated that amendments to the Broadcasting Act were not necessary in order to allow the use of third language programming and broadcasting, but that direction from the government and from parliament must come prior to any changes in their policy. At the same time other languages are used in broadcasting in the north, namely, the native languages, a move which I fully support but one which also confirms the fact that the Broadcasting Act does not stand in the way of the use of other languages than English and French on the national networks.

May 30, 1973
Multicul turalism
When questioned in the House on this matter, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) seemed to be of a different opinion. He felt that it was up to the CBC to set policy, and only a day ago suggested that possibly amendments to the Broadcasting Act would have to be made in order to allow third language broadcasting. Whether or not it is intentional, there appears to be a conflict between the opinions of the president of the CBC and the Secretary of State on this question of third language broadcasting. However, this is a subject which must be squarely faced and dealt with in order that multicultural programming can be made available to the Canadian public within a reasonable time. Cablevision could be used for this purpose initially, and the national networks in due course. The National Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should certainly be exhibiting a greater awareness of the variety of backgrounds of Canadians than they presently are.
The ethnic press in Canada has been an important source of information, cultural and otherwise, to many Canadians, but it is experiencing severe difficulty. While government advertising in the ethnic press is of some benefit from the point of view of revenue, such advertising in itself is in no way a means of guaranteeing the viability of the ethnic press. I do not need to emphasize the importance of the survival of the ethnic press as a tool of maintaining language and culture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Yewchuk: Increases in postal rates in recent years have acted as a great drawback to a wide circulation of Canada's ethnic press. The situation could be easily remedied by a roll back in postal rates as applied to ethnic and other uniquely Canadian publications.
Another step in assisting the ethnic press would be to establish an ethnic press bureau in Ottawa operated by the ethnic press itself, independent from government ties but with government assistance.
Finally, greater recognition of the third force in Canada could be given by promoting more outward signs of Canada's multicultural nature. Again, these do not run into additional costs. They simply require decisions to be made. For example, we could produce commemorative stamps commemorating authors, poets or other great men originating from ethnic groups. Every level of government can certainly do more to promote multiculturalism through the naming of public buildings, streets, and other public institutions by names which originate in other ethnic groups. In short, all public means should be used to give more indication of our commitment to multiculturalism.
These are some of the principles that must be considered and some of the policies that must be implemented. We must create a society in which every Canadian is proud of his past, his present, his origin, his name, and his ability to achieve equality in this country.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion before the House this afternoon, a motion submitted by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) on behalf of his party, which reads:

That this House, re-affirming that generations of peoples of diverse races and many nationalities have joined in peace and war to build a free Canada and to mould a Canadian nationality, regrets the government's reluctant and token recognition of this reality.
In my 12 years as a member of the House of Commons, I have never heard anything more unfair to a government which has a tremendous and enviable record of achievement on all fronts. This motion, I think, demonstrates such an incomplete knowledge of the facts and lack of appreciation of this government's and other Liberal administrations' achievements in the recognition and support of all the people comprising the Canadian society that I am disappointed that the hon. member for Athabasca allowed his name to be associated with such a motion.
I am pleased this afternoon to take this opportunity to put on record the achievements of Liberal governments and to clarify any misconceptions. We in the Liberal party have always worked for unity in diversity. May I refer to the first Liberal prime minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, under whose administration Canada flourished and welcomed to our shores people from many nations. Who is there who is not stirred or not inspired by his ideals and his oratory, especially when he reads the speech that Sir Wilfrid Laurier delivered to Acadians in August of 1900 when he likened his concept of Canada to the harmonious structure of a great English cathedral, saying:
As long as I live, as long as I have power to labour in the service of my country, I shall repel the idea of changing the nature of its different elements. I want the marble to remain the marble; I want the granite to remain the granite; I want the oak to remain the oak. I want to take all these elements and build a nation that will be foremost amongst the great powers of the world.
I recall many other speeches of Liberal prime ministers, such as those of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent who recognized the Canadian reality of multicultural Canada, who in their words as well as in their deeds worked tirelessly for unity in diversity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister for interrupting his speech but he is lauding former Liberal prime ministers. I believe he made a statement which was erroneous when he said that the first Liberal prime minister was Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In fact, it was Alexander Mackenzie. I would think he would know that.


Stanley Haidasz: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I meant the first French Canadian Liberal prime minister.
It was our beloved prime minister, the late Lester B. Pearson, who recognized the need to build a modern Canada as we were approaching the 100th birthday of Canadian confederation. When he established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in 1963, he directed them, among other things, in their terms of reference to:
take into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution.
May 30, 1973

The Liberal government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) acted upon the recommendations of that royal commission, and he announced formally in the House of Commons on October 8, 1971, his government's policy on multiculturalism. That, Mr. Speaker, was an historic date that will be remembered as the most significant event in the Canadian history of our time.
Our late prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, will also be remembered for his enlightened and humanitarian approach to the needs of the Canadian people. The legislation he introduced such as medical insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, and other progressive and reform legislation will be remembered gratefully by the Canadian people.
Canada also honours its men and women of outstanding achievement with the Order of Canada, thanks to Lester B. Pearson. The Order of Canada was created on Canada's 100th birthday, and will be forever associated with Lester B. Pearson whose initiative led to the establishment of the order, and gave our country its own system of recognizing merit, achievement and courage. It is a fitting memorial to his great patriotism and statesmanship. Among his many other achievements is our national flag which takes its place of honour to the right of your chair, Mr. Speaker. It was with satisfaction that the Canadian people learned that effective July 1, 1972, the Order was to be enlarged, while at the same time a new Order of Military Merit gives recognition for outstanding achievement on the part of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Liberal governments, present and past, have recognized other outstanding Canadians of various ethno-cultural groups by appointing them to the cabinet, to the Senate to diplomatic posts around the world, to the courts of justice, and to federal agencies and advisory bodies. I recall at this time distinguished Canadians so honoured by Liberal governments such as the famous Ukrainian Canadian, Senator Wall of Winnipeg, a Lebanese Canadian, Senator Basha of Newfoundland, our Jewish Canadian senator, Senator David Croll, a Ukrainian Canadian physician, the Hon. Stephen Worabetz who was appointed the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan, His Honour John Decore, a chief judge for the district of northern Alberta, and also the Hon. Michael Starr and Peter Taraska, and as recently as May 15 this year Mrs. Isa Scotti, were appointed judges of the Canadian Citizenship Courts. The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) is also considering commemorating famous Canadians and ethno-cultural groups through a special series of commemorative stamps.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it was Liberal governments, always guided by compassion and humanitarian considerations, that opened Canada's gates to refugees from displaced persons camps, to thousands of former soldiers, to refugees fleeing from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tibet, Uganda, and to other immigrants. Our governments have a distinguished record also in assisting these refugees to settle in Canada. Many immigrants to this country have been assisted through paid language courses, vocational retraining or up-grading, in this way facilitating their entry into the main stream of Canadian life.
Canada has also assisted its citizens who are striving to be reunited with their families by being a signatory to the
Multicul turalism
United Nations Charter on Human Rights and by insisting, during preparatory talks on European security, that countries act on the reunification of families, freedom of travel, and information exchange.
But the most recent significant development in the field of federal recognition of the contribution of Canadians of all ethno-cultural origins was on that historic date, October 8, 1971, when the Prime Minister formally announced his government's official policy on multiculturalism. May I take time to quote some of his remarks on that occasion. He said:
There are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than a Canadian, and all should be treated fairly.
He also said on that occasion:
A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians.
The importance of the Prime Minister's statement is that it clearly presents the government's position in this sensitive area, and in doing so it removes constraints and sanctions, particularly official or quasi official ones, that impede the full participation of all groups in Canadian society. Furthermore, the statement is a clear recognition of a reality, the reality that multiculturalism has always existed in Canada, beginning with the diversity of the native peoples, followed by the arrival of explorers from various countries, and reinforced by waves of immigrant settlers from around the world. The record of our government is one of recognition, respect for and encouragement of this cultural diversity as a distinctive feature of the Canadian identity.
An aspect of this recognition is that while Canada is to have two official languages, and legislation in the form of the Official Languages Act has been passed to ensure that Canadians can deal with their government in one or the other of the official languages and guarantee the acquired legal and customary right of other languages, Canada does not, and I repeat does not, have an official culture or cultures. A policy of multiculturalism is a policy of virtually unlimited scope and one which allows all strands of thought, values and beliefs to contribute to the identity we have as Canadians. Culture is not something which should be officially sanctioned, for if it is to have any meaning it must be free to grow and change as the values and beliefs of the Canadian people change. The role of the government is to eliminate barriers to cultural development and, where necessary, to provide support to expressions of the various cultures in our country.
Moreover, this support must be in response to an initiative on the part of the groups themselves. To have it otherwise, in my judgment, would be folly. The government cannot and should not develop a multicultural society by decree, for in attempting to do so something artificial would be created. The cultural identity we have as Canadians is for all Canadians to contribute to, and what we as a government must ensure is that everyone has a full and equal opportunity to participate in the development of our way of life. This concern of ours that all Canadians should participate in the development of our cultural identity is a major consideration which guides our actions. Consequently, we are well aware of the need

May 30, 1973
Multicul turalism
to sensitize the majority groups in Canada to the value of a multicultural society.
Last November the Liberal government manifested its faith in the concept of multiculturalism by appointing a Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism and by assigning to him the task of the implementation of its policy in a vigorous and effective manner. Upon assuming this post, I requested of my officials that they prepare a policy paper which would, on the basis of the experience in the past year and a half, and in light of representations made to us, expand the existing programs and introduce new ones. I am happy to say to you today that I was successful in obtaining approval for a new and expanded program which underlines the fact that the policy on multiculturalism, initiated by this government, is being implemented with both seriousness and determination.
On May 17 in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to announce the first appointments to the Canadian Consultative Council on multiculturalism. I envisage this council playing an important role in the development of multiculturalism in Canada. It is composed of able people who were selected on the basis of their achievements and abilities, and not, and I wish to emphasize this, because they belong to certain ethnic organizations. The primary role of the council is to provide an overview of all ethno-cultural groups in Canada including the dominant groups, the native peoples, the well-established minority groups and the newer ones which are still arriving in Canada. It is intended to examine their changing relationships to each other and to chart the long-range course of multiculturalism.
We see this council as a unique experiment in consultation for the federal government. It is much larger than most advisory bodies simply because we want to ensure that it is as fully representative as possible of all peoples and regions of Canada. In addition to serving as a source of consultation for the government, it is our desire to see it serve as an effective instrument for the development of cross-cultural understanding among members of all Canada's ethno-cultural groups, by playing an important role in sensitizing members of the dominant cultures to the needs, aspirations and values of Canada's minority groups.
The responsibilities of the council are onerous, but we have every reason to be optimistic for, in my judgment, the membership of the council is composed of excellent people who will work to ensure the full participation of all Canadians in the cultural development of this country. I am asking them to begin their work as soon as possible and expect that five regional meetings across the country will be convened in the next few weeks in preparation for a national meeting.
Our federal government continues to take the initiative in meeting the need to preserve and nurture our cultural heritage and is responding to the aspirations of the ethnocultural groups of Canada by creating and further developing the multicultural program. If the program is to continue to meet the needs of Canadians, an ongoing consultative process is necessary. The Canadian consultative council on multiculturalism is, of course, an important instrument in this process. But other techniques are neces-

sary, too, if we are to keep closely in touch with those we serve, and specific organizations and individuals should be given an opportunity to express their views within a national forum. For this reason, I am convening the first national conference on multiculturalism to be held in Ottawa this fall. The members of my consultative council will be in attendance and I hope that all interested organizations will be active participants in these deliberations.
There have been those who said that the multicultural policy has been one of "tokenism". The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) said that a few moments ago. We reject this view entirely. Funds in the amount of $3 million were made available in January, 1972 to carry out the initial organization and launch not only a project grants program, but also other specific programs to express the multicultural reality of Canada. These included a major research program into the role that language plays as a factor in cultural retention, the commissioning of a series of textbooks on the histories and contributions of ethno-cultural groups to the development of Canada, an examination of ethnic studies in academic institutions, developmental work with multicultural centres, negotiations with provincial governments and ethnocultural groups regarding the writing of language textbooks, the beginning of a series of films on the present day life styles of different ethnocultural groups, the initiation of programs to make books and films in ancestral languages available across Canada, and the development of collections and exhibits depicting the heritage of all the groups making up Canadian society.
I list these activities not merely to illustrate how much work has been done since January 1972, but to make a very essential point. The multicultural program is not merely a granting program. It is something far more complex and far more significant than that. It is a response to a major change in direction in our society, a change of which many organizations in Canada are in the forefront and of which they are well aware.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that at a time when governments at all levels in Canada are being accused of excessive, and indeed frequently wanton expenditures of public funds, it is refreshing to be accused of having an undue regard for the public purse. Unfortunately, the allegation that has been made by the hon. member for Athabasca rests neither upon accuracy nor a recognition of this government's efforts to exercise both restraint and wisdom in the expenditure of public funds.
The basic argument of his party is that we are not doing enough to promote multiculturalism and more especially our expenditures reflect a token recognition of the multicultural fact in Canada. As I mentioned, only a few days ago I announced in this House that my budget for the multicultural program has been tripled to $10 million. This is a large sum by any standards and if the members of his party regard amounts of this size so lightly, I think the people of Canada ought to note this and count their untold blessings that they have not entrusted the government to a party which would use public funds of this magnitude so flippantly.
I do not take the hon. member's charge of tokenism seriously, Mr. Speaker, as I do not think he really means it. Perhaps it is intended to be provocative for its own sake
May 30, 1973

or for the sake of the debate this afternoon but the barrenness of his party's policy on multiculturalism is evident. So that there will be no confusion over the plans which this government has for multiculturalism, and so that at least we can retain the distinction of being clear on what we advocate as a party, I should like to highlight for the edification of hon. members opposite, the major direction and components of our multicultural policy.
I want to say that the best known of our programs, and certainly the one from which we have had the greatest public response, is that of multiculturalism grants. This program was implemented in January of 19V2, and since then more than 300 ethno-cultural groups have received financial assistance to assist them in undertaking cultural and social projects. One of the basic criteria of any responsible government is to determine needs which can be legitimately made before deciding how much money to seek and then deciding how to spend it. This latter course appears to be the one which the hon. member for Athabasca favours, and it is quite possible the reason his party is not in power today.
Governments must base their decisions on a good deal more than talk, Mr. Speaker. They must decide on the legitimate aspirations and genuine needs of the ethno-cultural groups. The government is well satisfied that the multicultural grants program is meeting the needs of those whom it is intended to serve. On the basis of expressed interest in it, and also because we have regretfully had to refuse a number of deserving applications in the past year, $1.1 million will be added to the existing budget for this program in this fiscal year.
Further on the subject of program expansion, Mr. Speaker, and the allegation of tokenism, let it be noted that under our program of grants for multicultural centres, we are increasing our expenditures there by well over 300 per cent in actual dollars; the amount involves an increase from $154,000 to $654,000.
As well as having increased the funds available for the establishment of multicultural centres, we have also modified the criteria originally established for this program so that we can provide greater support for these very desirable facilities. Indeed, it is our desire to see multicultural centres develop throughout Canada because they can be a very significant factor in developing cross-cultural understanding. I must say, however, that the basic initiative for establishing these centres rests with the people in the communities themselves and, as they demonstrate a desire for these facilities, I shall ensure that adequate resources are made available so that those requests which do come within the clear terms of established and public criteria need not be denied assistance. If this is tokenism, Mr. Speaker, I would be most grateful to hear how our position could be more liberal and still remain responsible which, of course, is a concept that the opposition party does not have to attach great significance to, since they have been unable to persuade the electorate to entrust them with the care of federal programs.
As I announced in the House of Commons on May 17, the government is establishing a Canadian identities program as a further, and important part of its multicultural
Multiculturalism
program. The purpose of this program is to increase an awareness and understanding by all Canadians of the cultural diversity and, within Canada, expenditures under the Canadian identities program will, in this fiscal year alone, exceed $3.8 million.
Additionally, the government plans to continue its assistance to multicultural projects involving all media of communication, including films, radio and television, theatre, literature, crafts and cuisine, travelling exhibits under the sponsorship of the National Museum of Man, and the collection and exhibition programs of the Public Archives. Encouragement to conduct research in ethnic studies is an integral part of our multicultural policy, and the government proposes spending a further $425,000 on its multicultural studies program in this fiscal year.
The very special role and problems of the ethnic press in Canada are well understood, and we shall be making greatly increased use of the ethnic press to supply all cultural groups with essential information on such matters as the availability and entitlement to pensions and other individual assistance programs which are of interest to many Canadians.
The government recognizes that many young Canadians experience difficulty in retaining their ancestral languages, and in consultation with the provinces and to give Canadians greater opportunity to learn more of their cultural origins, we have undertaken to provide language teaching aids to those provinces and ethno-cultural groups which have expressed concern because these aids are not presently available from Canadian sources. Research on the role of ancestral languages as an element in the retention of a culture is currently under way. We are extending this program to include a larger number of ethno-cultural groups and rural areas in Canada in addition to the large urban centres, previously the focus of this program, as recommended to us by many ethno-cultural groups and members of this House.
Our multicultural programs are relatively new, and I think it is only prudent that before seeking additional funds, or making additional commitments, we, as a responsible government, should be satisfied that there exists a legitimate reason for doing either of these. Neither do I profess to have ready all of the solutions to our multicultural needs, or, indeed, to foresee all of them. I am, therefore, always grateful for advice which is objective and factually given and which comes from members of this House and various ethno-cultural organizations. There is no doubt that the government's multicultural programs have been received with great success, and that is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in the desire of the official opposition to identify themselves with support for the basic concept of a multicultural Canada. I thank them for that.
I have followed the public reaction to our multicultural programs very closely, and I think it is worth citing from an article in the Montreal Star of May 12 by a distinguished Ukrainian Canadian, Mr. Roman Rakhmanny. He wrote:
. . . neither the Progressive Conservative Party nor the New Democratic Party has included in its program any form of multicultural policy.

May 30, 1973
Mul ticulturalism
I shall be quite content, Mr. Speaker, to have the Canadian people decide at an appropriate date whether this governments effort to foster a multicultural society has been a token one or not. I take some consolation in this matter, even at this stage in the life of our government, in knowing that we shall have a record on which to go to the people. Unfortunately, the Conservative party continues to remain in its traditional position of saying what they would do if only they could persuade the people of Canada to entrust them with the responsibility of leading the country. The record of this government already exceeds that of any government in the past with respect to assistance to all of Canada's peoples and our position and programs are clearly stated. We have not indulged in epithets; we have not recited meaningless cliches or adopted positions of tokenism.
Canada stands today on the threshold of troubled times. In an era when economic and technological changes in the world have produced sweeping dislocations without precedent in the entire swell of human history-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired and he may continue only if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that we must insist that members stick to their allotted times. The minister could be allowed a minute or two in order to finish his remarks but it will take our members every minute that is available this afternoon to straighten out the fantasy which he has been putting on record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the proposal submitted by the hon. member agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Haidasz: In an era when economic and technological changes in the world have produced sweeping dislocations without precedent in the entire swell of human history, and at a time when the traditional seams of cohesion threaten to snap, a major thrust in Canadian multicultural development is most opportune. Whether the search for identity and struggle for survival prove to be divisive or cohesive, futile or fortunate, will depend on the degree of our participation in shaping Canadian society.
Our attitude, our interest, our response to the federal government's initiative and leadership must transcend economic problems, social differences and language barriers. It must involve all of us. Yes, all of us must be concerned with the development of the Canadian cultural mosaic that will do justice to all Canadians. The additional human and financial resources which will be allocated to carry out these programs is further evidence of the importance that this government attaches to its multicultural policy. That is what multiculturalism is really all about, and I invite all hon. members to participate fully in this Canadian multicultural destiny.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to ask the minister a question on a matter that needs clarification.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Haidasz: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could not ascertain from press releases whether the people who represent the minister's advisory council represent visible minority groups who make up our cultural mosaic. Can the minister clarify this question for us? Does it, in fact, represent the ethnic minorities?


Stanley Haidasz: I am pleased to say the membership of the council on multiculturalism is representative of all the ethno-cultural groups in Canada. I will send the hon. member particulars of the membership, from which he will see that it includes representation from among the black people in Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was not making reference particularly to the black people, though I am glad to see the minister has included them. I am thinking of the Indians, the East Indians and the Eskimos. I am pleased to know that this is what is happening. I would appreciate the information in any event.


Stanley Haidasz: The native peoples of Canada are represented, both Indian and Eskimo. And the East Indians.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, proposed the establishment of the Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultur-alism. The New Democratic Party Members of Parliament supported the recommendations made by that commission because we recognized that the unity of Canada was endangered by the feeling among French people, particularly those in Quebec, that they had not been treated fairly in Canada. Some of us, though, including the former member for Selkirk who is now premier of Manitoba, suggested on more than one occasion that while recognizing that English and French were the official languages of Canada, both the federal government and provincial governments should encourage, financially and otherwise, the continuing use and development of the cultures and languages brought to Canada by the other ethnic groups. This was probably because all of us represent essentially English-speaking constituencies and because many of us represent constituencies whose population is largely ethnic in origin, that is, they contain large numbers of Canadian citizens whose origins are neither English nor French. Such citizens, now, in fact, make up one third of the population.
I do not regret the support which I and other members of the New Democratic Party gave to the policy of bicul-turalism. But I want to say to the minister who has just completed his statement that it is because so many Liberals made this policy appear to be a political issue which only the Liberals can solve that so many Canadians have in recent years felt doubts about that policy. The Liberal
May 30, 1973

party did no service to Canada by taking such an approach. I say to the minister that he does nothing good for Canada by suggesting that only the Liberal party has such a policy with regard to multiculturalism. If these programs are to be successful they will succeed only to the extent to which Canadians of all ethnic origins in all provinces accept them as being a response to the aspirations of all Canadians irrespective of party. When the minister gives the impression that only his party has a policy which meets the needs of those whose origin is neither English nor French, he invites opposition parties to criticize his programs even though, occasionally, they are on the right track.
We accept the principle that the cultural traditions brought to Canada by the various ethnic, religious and racial groups which came to this country during the past 200 years are of value to the development of our national culture. The literature, art and music they brought to Canada have all helped to develop a greater cultural depth in this country. As to the native peoples, in recent years Canadians have begun to realize, for the first time, I suspect, that the people who lived in this land before it was called Canada also have a culture and a way of life which possessed, and possesses, an ability to make a contribution to the over-all achievements of our society. I draw attention to the world-wide acclaim which has been given in recent years to Eskimo sculpture, prints and other forms of art. It is only in recent years we have begun to realize that those who lived here before our forefathers arrived possessed a distinctive and valuable culture of their own-that they were not savages, and so on, as they were too often called, and as they are still sometimes referred to, in our history books.
Volume IV of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism recognized and accepted many of the ideas which some of us who are neither of English nor French origin have been expressing from the time the proposal to establish the commission was first made. I have already indicated the principles which guided us. The minister, in his speech, quoted with approval the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on October 8, 1971 at which time he accepted the principle of multiculturalism. The words he spoke on that occasion were excellent, as was the document tabled at that time, which was entitled "The Federal Government's Response to Volume IV of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism". I do not have time to put on record all the excellent ideas and principles which were expressed in that document, but let me quote just a few of the statements made in that response by the government:
Bilingualism does not properly describe our society. Multiculturalism is more accurate.
And later:
The Government of Canada will support all of Canada's cultures and will seek to assist, resources permitting, the development of those cultural groups which have demonstrated a desire and effort to continue to develop, a capacity to grow and to contribute to Canada, as well as a clear need for assistance.
It goes on to say:
Government aid to multicultural centres, to specific projects of ethnic groups and to displays of the performing and visual arts as
Multiculturalism
well as the programs already mentioned, will promote cultural exchange.
Then, later:
The government will continue to assist immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages in order to become full participants in the Canadian society.
After discussing the process of implementation and administration, the document states:
The growing provincial interest and public action in the field of multiculturalism make it imperative that the two levels of government co-operate. Patchwork programs and jurisdictional confusion will result unless an attempt is made to coordinate federal and provincial policies at the ministerial level and good relationships are established between the officials administering the programs.
All these are excellent ideas. What dismays me is that for a period of almost a year and a half after this statement was made, the government did virtually nothing to implement these principles. We are told today that the government is providing $10 million for that purpose this year. Until the present year, the appropriation was a great deal less-something in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million. Why is this? It is not as if the ethnic communities are bereft of organization or leadership or ideas. Ten times the $2.5 million appropriated last year could have been spent. Why was there virtually no consultation between the government of Canada and the ethnic groups? The minister has not explained that.


Stanley Haidasz: There was consultation.


David Orlikow: The minister says there was. I represent a constituency which probably has more ethnic groups and people of ethnic origin than any other constituency in Canada. I am in frequent consultation with them and I know the groups that receive funds and the groups that do not. But until today I have been unable to get any explanation from the government or from these groups as to why certain of them get grants while others do not. Much more important than the fact that I could not get any explanation is the fact that the organizations themselves could not get any explanation. It is true that criteria were tabled supposedly outlining the basis on which grants would be made. I have looked at these criteria and I know which organizations received grants and which did not. Although I have lived in my constituency all my life and know these organizations quite well, I know no more than they do why some got grants but others did not.
The document that I quoted refers to the absolute need for consultation with the provinces. I have not had a chance to discuss just what happened in other provinces, but I do have some connection with the present government of Manitoba and on more than one occasion I have discussed with the minister in charge the objectives of this program in that province. The province of Manitoba is doing its own work in this field, and also encouraging ethnic groups by providing funds. It makes no sense to me, as it made no sense to the federal government when they tabled their response to volume 4 of the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, to run these federal and provincial programs virtually in separate compartments.

May 30, 1973
Multicul turalism
On the many occasions when I discussed the amount of consultation being had between the federal government and the provincial government of Manitoba in respect of this kind of programming, I was assured that there was little, if any, consultation. The minister in charge of these programs, the former Secretary of State, came through Winnipeg once or twice and paid a courtesy call on the minister in charge in Manitoba, but there was no-


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps it would be helpful to the hon. member if I stated that I met, on a visit to Winnipeg, with the hon. Mr. Desjardins and had several talks with one of his chief advisers, Mr. Cecil Senchyshyn.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I accept what the minister says and it merely confirms what I have been saying. The minister has only been in his present portfolio for a relatively short period, and I am saying that until he was appointed to his present position the federal government and the departmental officials responsible for implementing the program were not in consultation with the provinces. I am not just talking about a meeting between ministers but about detailed discussions between officials of the department of the federal government responsible for this work and provincial governments across Canada. These kind of discussions are required to achieve a sensible co-ordination that will make these programs work.
The minister spoke with a good deal of pride about the appointment of his advisory committee and I want to congratulate him on that score. But again I point out that almost a year and a half has been lost. There was no need to wait a year and a half before appointing a committee representative of most of the important ethnic groups so that the kind of consultation that is really required if the program is to be meaningful is had. The appointment of the advisory committee is a case of better late than never.
Members on this side of the House have been critical of the government in view of the fact that, having apparently enthusiastically endorsed the recommendations made in volume 4 of the B and B commission report a year and a half ago, the Prime Minister and his government have taken all this time to do the most elementary and fundamental things that are required to be done if this program is not to be what the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) said it has been. I agree with him that, to a large extent, the program until now has been tokenism.
Those of us who represent constituencies that are largely ethnic in composition cannot be blamed if until now we have felt that to some considerable extent grants were given not on the basis of need, or on what organization can do the best job or is the most deserving, but rather possibly on the basis of political considerations. I am not saying we are right on that count, but I am saying that until the government made the move it made recently and appointed an advisory committee that is representative to conduct meaningful consultations with the provinces and provide a budget that begins to meet needs both for this year and next year, we critics could not be blamed, either inside or outside parliament, for feeling that the program was, as I say, tokenism to a large extent.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. member asking me a question but I only have a few more minutes. If the House will give the hon. member the time when I have finished, I will be more than happy to answer his question.
Let me say further that we hope to be able to say the government has finally moved along the lines we felt it should have moved a year and a half ago. We hope that the advisory committee will have real power and that consultations with the provinces will be meaningful. We hope that if the government finds that $10 million is not enough it will provide more money. We can assure the minister we will not criticize the minister for being profligate with the taxpayers' money but will support him in the expenditure of whatever amounts are reasonable in order to implement the policy the government has adopted in principle and that we enthusiastically support.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) seeking the floor to ask a question?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the hon. member did complete his remarks when his 20 minutes had expired, I think the hon. member must seek the consent of the House in order to ask a question. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: This is not a controversial question, Mr. Speaker, but rather to enlighten the House. Does the hon. member realize how difficult it is, and how long it takes to set up a multicultural advisory committee? Does he realize the multitude of consultations which must take place in every province of Canada? Unless someone is appointed by the government, and this could be done very rapidly, does the hon. member realize the difficulties that must be faced in consulting every single ethnic group in every single province in Canada, and how long this would take if it is to be well done?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member asking the question came from an area closer to Manitoba than he does, he would realize he need not ask a member of any party representing north Winnipeg that kind of question. My constituency is like a small United Nations, and if any Member of Parliament knows the difficulties and intricacies in respect of ethnic groups in this country, I want to assure the hon. member that I surely do.


Marcel Prud'homme: There are 17 languages spoken in my district.


David Orlikow: I should think it would be easier to appoint an advisory committee of this kind when the ethnic groups are well organized and represented by a multitude of organization than it would be to set up a Local Initiatives Program or an Opportunities for Youth Program. We spent a lot more money in this regard, and
May 30, 1973

we started with no organization and no representatives at all. I do not think that is a very valid reason for taking so long.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will bear with me and my bad voice, but spring has been catching up with me.
I enjoyed hearing the minister's statistics in respect of moneys proposed for ethnic grants, but to date I still fail to see a clear government policy benefiting all Canadians. I should like to take the opportunity of answering the minister's allegation regarding this party. I can assure him that, if and when this party forms the government, we will not only have a policy we will update on a continuing basis but, more importantly, it will not take us three and a half years to realize that we have a multicultural situation in Canada, whether we like it or not.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, let me just make my thinking clear as far as multiculturalism is concerned. Contrary to the critics of multiculturalism in Canada, and unfortunately there exist a great number of critics, some here in this House, multiculturalism in no way constitutes an attack on the basic duality of our country. We all know there are two official languages in Canada and no one is trying to take away the importance of either of them. We all know that Canada has many of its own original cultures, such as Eskimo and Indian, and no one is trying to take away the importance of that. We all know that Canada has developed many talented individuals and organizations over the years in all walks of life, be it in education, literature or the arts, and no one is trying to take away the importance of that either.
What then do we want, Mr. Speaker? We want both justice for all Canadians and recognition of the cultural diversity of this country. We want the opportunity of continuation of the talent, cultures and arts brought to Canada by our fathers and forefathers. The federal government can and must play an important role in utilizing the resources and powers which only it has rather than promoting itself and its ministers as it so lavishly did through the recent national advertising campaign at the taxpayers' expense. The government should assist all ethno-cultural communities in Canada to become dynamic and creative. This course would benefit not only the Canadian members of a certain community but, in the long run, all citizens of Canada. This is a simple principle of preserving and enhancing the many cultural traditions which exist within our country.
I agree with some of the suggestions made last year by Heritage Ontario for the benefit of all Canadians. These are suggestions which the government has not acted upon or even reacted to. But how can you expect this government to act upon anything if it does not even have a clear policy of its own on these matters? The only thing the government seems to have done so far, as I said earlier, has been to advertise through the ethnic press across Canada the fact that it, indeed, has a minister responsible for multiculturalism. I suppose we cannot blame the government completely for this display, as how else would the people of Canada know there was such a department, let alone a minister responsible for it?
Multiculturalism
In the last number of years, Canada has been characterized by an expanding economy in which there has been a vast increase in the impact of technology on the forms of our social organization and the cultural life of our society. Two results of these changes have been the social and spatial mobility of people and the increasingly important role played by the mass media, primarily television, in the lives of the population. For the minority ethno-cultural groups, the consequence has been an increased pressure to adapt to these changes at ever increasing rates. Groups have been forced to concentrate most of their energies on self-preservation. Since the cultures of Canada's ethnocultural minorities are a common resource, they must not only be maintained but, above all, developed.
It is not only necessary to deal directly with the individuals and their organizations, but to deal and work as much as possible with such national bodies as the National Film Library, the Public Archives, the National Film Board and many others; to work and to promote in the interest of all Canadians, within a unifying scheme, the development and promotion of all cultures available to any Canadian citizen. For Canadians to reap full benefit from the many-faceted nature of these cultures, we must have an adequate means of cultural exchange among all segments of our population. The government, the media, the cultural agencies and our educational systems must share responsibility for ensuring that the people of Canada are informed about all of Canada's ethnocultural groups and have access to each other's cultural heritage.
It has long been recognized in Canada that international cultural exchange is an important aspect of cultural development. It was to this end that the government of Canada participated directly in international conferences with France and other French-speaking countries. I believe this to be a very positive development which should be extended to other countries that share with Canada common cultural attributes. I strongly endorse the recommendations of Heritage Ontario that the federal government and Canada's ethnocultural groups initiate cultural exchange programs with the originating countries of Canada's ethnocultural groups.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion concerning what I believe to be the only realistic way to operate with regard to this multitude of problems and possibilities. I must point out that I am speaking personally and am merely expressing my own opinion in this regard. I do not believe that the council which is presently being assembled by the minister will be able to cope with the problems at hand, if for no other reason than size alone and the indiscriminate manner in which appointments are made to the council. I believe a government agency, perhaps along the line of Sports Canada, should be formed which would be representative of all Canadians. This agency would be manned and operated by representatives of all minority groups, including Indian and Eskimo, who would be selected or elected by their own communities and who would sit under one umbrella organization, so to speak, which would be directly responsible to the minister and his department.
Until something along this line is developed, I cannot foresee the government being in a position to deal in an

May 30, 1973
Multiculturalism
adequate, fair, equal and productive manner with the hundreds of different groups in Canada. I wish to remind the minister that the greatest strength of Canada lies in its people of various cultural heritages and backgrounds. The quality of the lives of all Canadians has been enriched by the number of cultures that have joined to form our society. It is important that we maintain this rich cultural heritage while adapting to changing conditions in Canada. I believe in Canadian unity, and will play any part I can to ensure that this unity is maintained in every sense of the word. First, however, we must persuade the government to do the same.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this discussion and to find that we have before us a most interesting motion. It deals with various questions-particularly from an ethnic viewpoint-concerning the technicality of biculturalism and multiculturalism.
Mr. Speaker, this motion reads as follows:
That this House, re-affirming that generations of peoples of diverse races and many nationalities have joined in peace and war to build a free Canada and to mold a Canadian nationality, regrets the government's reluctant and token recognition of this reality.
Yet, during the war, for instance, we recognized all those nationalities and because of that war, we allowed all those ethnic groups to live more decently and to speak their languages. In spite of the war, they were also allowed to continue erecting their buildings, use their mother tongue and learn a lot of things.
War, Mr. Speaker, actually put an economic power in the hands of citizens. Even if several things were manufactured only for the purpose of war, citizens suffered many technical and physical hardships. Nevertheless, we were able to develop in a few years a hundred times more than during the ten depression years. During the depression nothing was possible, but with the war everything became possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before talking of bilingualism, multiculturalism and languages, people must have the means to live. I know that in Canada we have some means but we must borrow from future generations in order to be able to live. To build what each nationality needs to develop and even live-schools, churches, well, everything-we have to use the formula of capitalism which says that you have to go into debt and borrow. We cannot do anything unless we go into debt and mortgage the future in order to develop our country. So it is quite difficult from that point of view to allow all ethnic groups in Canada to develop according to their aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, according to the study and a survey made by the Treasury Board, the number of French-speaking and bilingual public servants is not adequate. Bilingualism programs are ineffective and inadequate. High officials are always recruited among unilingual anglophones in preference to others.
This is what Mr. Spicer says in his report.
I am certain that the problem, Mr. Speaker, has to do with economics: all those who have economic power are free and self-governing. Money has no language, but it has power, and this is what Canadians need most.

Then, Mr. Speaker, if a beneficial economic system were set up, if taxpayers were provided with the necessary funds, they would have their own power and they could use it as they please, and they could develop technically in all respects. They could also speak their own language and develop their nation according to their aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, in order to establish unity in our country, to reinstate unity, national unity must be strengthened by granting equal rights and opportunities to all Canadians. Whether they be French-speaking, English-speaking or other, all Canadians have the right to live. Every human being has the right to live and this right, Mr. Speaker, must be safeguarded and it is up to us, in this parliament to safeguard the rights of the citizens. At present, we safeguard the rights of the dollar bill, of finance, but the rights of the human being, we despise them. That is what we are doing now.
In fact, I claim that in this country, the problem is not so much one of language than of participation. Even though the whole federal administration were bilingual, the problems would not be solved, since French Canadians or people from other countries would not feel at home. Thus, it would not be possible to solve the problem only through bilingualism. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that structures and administrators be fairly and equitably divided among the ethnic groups making up our country.
We have been living in hope for a long time. In 1969, when the Official Languages Act wAs passed, it gave rise to great hopes because we thought then that we would have a tangible contribution to make. What did the royal commission on biculturalism do to settle the problem of bilingualism? Though this inquiry cost more than $9 million, we only learned that there were so many French Canadians, so many Ukranians, so many English Canadians and so many German Candians in Canada. That is all we got out of this inquiry. Then, the problem will not be solved through inquiries. To solve this problem, we must enable Canadians to take part in the administration of their country, give them the importance they deserve.
If, for instance, 27 per cent of the people are French Canadians and 10 or 12 per cent belong to other ethnic groups, each nationality, according to the population ratio it represents, must be accepted within the public service and each should be able to exercise powers and participate in the administration like all the other groups in Canada. That is how we will really create in Canada social unity and give Canadians their true rights.
All linguistic rights are recognized, but financial power is necessary in order to exercise them. Since that power is detrimental to all that, we find it difficult to exercise our true powers and allow each nationality to develop normally. If we have true respect for human beings and their linguistic and cultural rights, let us arrange to make available to them what they lack to acquire their rights. And such true rights citizens will enjoy if we supply the population with economic power, which dominates all others. The exercise of any other power is useless without economic power. So let us fight for and demand economic power. Having obtained it, we shall have political,linguistic and ethnic powers, in short all powers.
May 30, 1973

There is much else I should have liked to say, but since other hon. members want the floor, I shall be content with the few remarks I have just made.


Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) for choosing this topic for today's debate, even though his motion is drafted in such highly partisan terms-


An hon. Member:: Like the minister's speech.


Charles L. Caccia: -that it does not add very much to an unbiased, lucid and objective approach to the topic of his choice. It strikes me as being significant that today's debate has taken place so far in English and French, not in Ojibway, not in Italian, not in Polish, not in Ukrainian, not in Greek, and not in Portuguese. This has a certain significance. If the hon. member had spoken in Ukrainian in making his opening remarks, if the Minister of State (Mr. Haidasz) had replied in Polish and had been followed by the next member speaking Jewish and then by me speaking Italian, perhaps we would have been achieving real multiculturalism. The fact remains that we are addressing each other in this debate today either in English or in French, and this is something that strikes me as being a fact of life in this country, a reality with which we are all coming to grips and from which we probably draw different conclusions but which nevertheless could also be a subject for a deeper analysis.
Apart from this observation, let me say that this debate raises several other questions. It raises the question of what is the role of the state in determining the cultural policy of the nation. Is it to strengthen and encourage the retention of identities along the road travelled so far which has found its definition in the term "mosaic", or is it that of strengthening and encouraging the integration of individuals in the new society which eventually leads to the so-called melting pot? Is it also to keep in mind considerations of national unity and of common denominators despite differences, this being a third alternative apart from the other two?
Another question that this debate raises in my mind is whether it is good to have a separate policy, a separation between the multicultural policy on one hand and the other cultural policies of the state. Should there be a distinction between the two, whereby you have the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) implementing a policy aimed at Francophones and Anglophones and another policy that takes care of all the others. Is this something to which we would like to address our thoughts? I would like to do that, and also to consider what the consequences are of these approaches in the long run.
Another question that comes to my mind, of course, is one that has been raised by many other speakers, namely, do we believe in hyphenated Canadianism, such an Anglo-phone-Italo-Canadian, or a Francophone-Greek-Canadian, or an Anglophone-Armenian-Canadian, and so forth? What is the meaning of that and what are the implications of this approach?
These are very intriguing questions, but I should not compliment myself upon the fact that I am asking these
Multiculturalism
questions. Nevertheless, they arise from the motion which is now before us. I do not have the answers, of course, but I think there is more to this subject than is revealed by the terms of the motion put to us in a highly partisan way by the hon. member for Athabasca. This is a very important and serious matter which cannot be measured in terms of the cash value of cultures. It is for this reason that when the idea of creating a council and its composition where announced by the Minister of State I thought it was a tremendous thing. I believed that a body had been launched which perhaps could provide some of the answers to these questions which cannot be resolved in the course of an afternoon's debate. For instance, some of the questions which should be put for guidance and deliberation are: Which direction is the state to take within the Canadian experience, and if there is a balance to be achieved between identity and integration, what kind of balance should it be? What is the role of the federal government, of provincial governments, and of municipal governments?
The hon. member for Athabasca raised a number of points in his remarks, some of which were purely under provincial jurisdiction, such as, for instance, the teaching of other languages in high schools. Different standards and different patterns are applied in the various provinces. Another question is: What is the role of volunteer agencies. The next one is related to the point which I just raised, namely, should multiculturalism remain a separate component of Canada's cultural policy? Another area for investigation which intrigues me very much is: What do the second, third and fourth generation Canadians expect from multiculturalism, and what does it mean to youth, to the ones who will probably be implementing some of the ideas that are being forged now? When you have individual approaches, there are all sorts of replies to such questions and some of them are so much in conflict with each other that it is rather difficult to reach a conclusion regarding what the expectations are. Obviously, the expectations of the first generation Canadian who has voluntarily become Canadian during his lifetime are quite different from the expectations of second, third or fourth generation Canadians.
The perception of the country and the ambitions are varied as a result of the experience of each generation. This is why I say it is rather sad when cultural programs are measured in terms of dollars and cents or, even worse, when they are compared with expenditures for implementing the Official Languages Act, as was done some weeks ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That question was raised by him in this House, and comparing the two struck me as being a kind of cheap politics. Really, this is not the way we should approach these two questions.
Obviously, bilingualism is a policy that is highly supported and is received with great enthusiasm by all cultural groups in this country, because through the bilingual policy we see a vehicle to a recognition of a multicultural society. Therefore, the comparison of one with the other is a most unfair approach. Actually one program complements the other. The bilingual policy is followed by the multicultural concept. There is historic evidence for this

May 30, 1973
Multiculturalism
statement because, if I remember correctly, when the commission was launched it was a bilingual and bicultural commission. Then, over the years it was discovered that there was more to the question than just biculturalism, and so that approach was modified. As I say, the two are tied in with each other. Bilingualism is a recognition of the two languages and is highly welcomed in Canada today.
Of course, it is true that financial support is important, but more than that is needed. What is needed is vigour, vitality, and the will to retain one's culture, and to keep it up to date. It is a dynamic force. It is a way of life. It is language, of course. It is customs. It is art. It is folklore. It is a way of doing things. If these ingredients are there, then the funds will follow as a natural consequence, but let us not measure the funds first and then see what happens to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is an option that is offered to the Canadian people, and its vitality has already been expressed in the first two years of the government's program. If that continues, the question of funds will be resolved. I am keeping my speech short because the thought has been expressed that there are others who want to speak in this debate. The main emphasis of my little speech is to ask that we treat some of these questions with care, in order that we approach the matter as objectively as we can.
The answers to these questions will be more readily found if we keep the subject out of so-called partisan politics, and whether we will be able to do that remains to be seen. Perhaps in these present days, Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in the process of shaping a rather unique society the like of which does not exist in other parts of the world. Perhaps we are travelling along a broad middle road, motivated by the liberal instinct of providing the broadest scope for expression to men and women of good will. Let us keep it that way, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sian Schellenberger (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of State (Mr. Haidasz) was consulting with the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), and I hope some solutions have been reached. I listened very attentively to the last speaker, and I assume that most of his questions will be answered in the future by the minister who, I may say, gave us a very good history of past prime ministers. I came to this chamber as a new member. I was very happy that the minister gave us that past history, but I am looking for some future policies. I hope, as the previous speaker just mentioned, that we can work together in developing a worthwhile type of multicultural society in Canada.
I am delighted to rise in support of the motion moved by my colleague from Athabasca, for to me the subject of multiculturalism and all it implies for our country is fundamental to our Canadian existence and prosperity. From the beginning in this country, we have wisely resisted the lure of an American style melting pot society in which all are assimilated. As a result of the decision of the British Crown to reject Lord Durham's recommendations and ensure the survival of the French language and culture, and the Roman Catholic religion, Canada has been a place where a multiplicity of identities has been encouraged, not as an end in itself but as a valid expres-

sion of the greatest unifying force we have in Canada, the common love of her varied peoples for Canada, and for each other.
My constituency mirrors the mosaic pattern of which we have heard so much. The elusive Canadian identity, which I think makes us stronger, not weaker; freer, not less free, shows up in my riding with a population which is 12 per cent German. I speiken zie Deutch, but I do not think our interpreters do here in the House. Some 7 per cent of the population is Ukrainian, and 10 per cent is other including Magyar, Gaelic and French. In the same way my own ancestry illustrates the rich background which has developed this land. My great grandfather left the plains of Prussia and settled in Alberta. His son's first language was German. His grandson, my father, had English as his first language but always remained fluent in German. And so today his great grandson rises to speak in the parliament of Canada, although I have lost all the German, in support and defence of that great tradition of diverse development. He rises as a man who is thoroughly Canadian and who only occasionally catches glimpses of his antecedents in the great dishes my mother prepares and in which I probably indulge too much.
But I rise as one who is convinced of the validity of my ancestry as part of the Canadian experience, an experience which, as I have said, has tremendously enriched this country and which can, if properly aided and maintained, continue to keep Canada Canadian, united and free. So a challenge presents itself to government today, and that challenge is a fundamental one. It is not an invitation to make funds available to sponsor pretty folk dances in quiet local communities, in town squares, as the Russians sometimes do for the slave states of the Ukraine and Georgia. It is a call to preserve a multicultural presence in a completely Canadian context, for we know that the various ethnic groups charged with this task are among the most fervent and patriotic in Canada today. Indeed, some of our self-appointed "relevant" trend setters, who have been here longer, could learn many lessons about Canadian citizenship from these people.
The motion before us refers to tokenism in the government's policies and attitudes towards multicultural development. Of course having a Minister of State charged with this is a very fine thing, but in itself it means nothing. One aspect of this tokenism is the appalling paucity of the budget for multiculturalism. A sum of $10 million sounds like a lot, and is in fact two and a half times last year's budget, but after the minister's overpriced advertising propaganda campaign, of which I hope the opposition has completely informed him, and the salaries of the bureaucrats who seem to proliferate these days, how much will actually be left to do the job? How much will get down to the local level where it can be much more effective? A government content to spend over a billion dollars of revenue to administer the unemployment insurance scheme-which we have just read is consuming our tax dollars at a new and record level-and a paltry $10 million for citizenship development, has got its priorities mixed up, and that is an understatement.
I should like to see much more assistance and funding available for the important experience of travel, to let
May 30,1973

Canadians learn to share their views and identities with each other. Personal contact is worth millions of words or dollars paid to an advertising agency. Education is, of course, the root of the problem and the solution. Too many school systems disregard the diverse ethnic contributions to the progress and history of Canada. Local and regional history is nearly totally ignored. Literature courses cover only Anglophone authors. Immediate assistance should be given by the government to fund provincial educational programs to allow a certain amount of teaching, not only in the two official languages, but also the other languages.
The school systems should be used to promote, rather than to discourage, the use of non-official languages in Canada. On a per pupil basis, this federal funding would be an investment in the future of this dominion. Assistance is needed, too, for school library programs, teacher training, provincial exchanges of information. With provincial co-operation, incentive grants should be made available to schools with outstanding multicultural programs. The resources of the government should be made available to develop history and social studies courses with a view to ensuring a more balanced picture and a broader perspective. The government should help to ensure that many languages are available for study, especially in the early learning years. These should be taught in relation to a cultural context, and not in a vacuum as if they were foreign to the Canadian experience. The previous speaker mentioned that perhaps education is a provincial matter, but I would point out that the education costs across Canada in 1971 were some $7.4 billion and the federal contribution was 21.3 per cent. The estimates for 1972-73 are $8.8 billion. Just the beginnings of the program I have mentioned would gobble up that $10 million budget in one bite.
One of the most important steps the government should take is the increasing of support and funding of multicultural centres across Canada. Only if at the local and regional level understanding and history are promoted will community understanding and more national unity be fostered. I must state the appreciation of many of my constituents for the grant given to their multicultural centre for development studies at Stony Plain, and the apparent co-ordination by Opportunities For Youth officials. But much more will be needed and, I trust, afforded this project in particular and other similar efforts.
I am not unaware, Mr. Speaker, of the need to proceed circumspectly in this field. We do not want insensitive handling or misunderstandings to give rise to the type of disunity and ill-feeling which this government has sometimes successfully promoted in the past. We exist not to divide, but to unite; what the government should remember, too, is that we exist to serve the people, and not as an end in ourselves. If the multicultural program is allowed to wallow in bureaucracy and civil service inefficiency, it will do more harm than good.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be associated with policies to develop our heritage and with the motion that the hon. member for Athabasca has put forward today. I am proud of the rich variety of that heritage which we can see even in this House. Let us hold fast to this good thing and develop it with the care and attention it needs; not to serve partisan propaganda ends or enrich
Multiculturalism
the sociologists and advertising men, but to help build a better, stronger Canada in which the diverse backgrounds of all are welded into a firm common future.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the motion of the hon. member for Athatasca (Mr. Yewchuk). Immediately, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was very much disappointed with this motion, in which the hon. member says that he regrets the government's reluctant and token recognition of this reality. At least, that is how it reads in today's order paper.
Mr. Speaker, a matter as important as that of multiculturalism in Canada should in fact transcend any party politics and we should admit that this motion of the hon. member is highly unfortunate. Of course I do not want to voice any political considerations myself; I only regret the terms he used to draft his motion. He accuses the government-particularly the present government-of tokenism when it comes to the multicultural policy.
Mr. Speaker, is it tokenism for government members to have been first to admit that Canada was multicultural? The hon. member knows very well that we have come a long way, beginning with a concept of bilingualism and biculturalism, and ending with the recognition of the Canadian reality which for historical reasons, is that of bilingualism but which, for reasons of social order, prompts us to recognize that multiculturalism exists in Canada.
This was a giant step taken by the present government. And the hon. member should not try to say anything to the contrary. In fact, this was a historical gesture when we announced on October 8, 1971 that henceforth we would prefer to have in Canada a multicultural policy which would be expressed within an official bilingualism.
The hon. member knows very well-and if he does not know, I will tell him-that I have always defended, long before it became official, the policy concerning multiculturalism.
I will keep some of my arguments for the debate on the bilingualism resolution which will soon be introduced in the House, but right now, I wish to say something in both French and English-I am extremely proud of being a French Canadian. However, when I really discovered that I was proud of being a French Canadian, I realized an important thing, that is others must also be proud of their extraction. Whether we are from Ukrainian, Italian, British, Irish, Scottish or Welsh extraction, we always have to be proud of it.
In such circumstances, I find the multicultural policy excellent. Indeed, it recognizes to each of us the right to be proud of our extraction. And for historical reasons which we may reconsider next week during the debate on bilingualism, we can say that our pride in our ethnic extraction is expressed in Canada through two official languages.
This multicultural policy, far from being a piecemeal approach, as suggested by the hon. member for Athabasca, is an additional example which should strengthen tolerance that has always existed in this country. In that regard, I think that I will now draw closer to the view expressed by the hon. member for Athabasca.

May 30, 1973
Multiculturalism
If some people in Canada, and especially in the House, believe that is perhaps there a superior race showing more tolerance towards the others, I immediately say that we must dispute such an ideology.
There is in Canada no superior race and no superior group. We are all equals in this country, and as long as I am a member of this House or am anywhere else in Quebec or in Canada, I will make absolutely sure that everybody realizes that no one is superior to anyone else because of background, because of the alleged superiority of his language or because we use one language more often than any other language in this country.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Athabasca should have told us that the government is not really interested in a multicultural policy, that it uses it merely to flatter the people and induce them into supporting the liberal party, perhaps for political ends.
For the guidance of the hon. member for Athabasca and those who may share his views, I shall quote a journalist of high repute who is certainly very well known in Canada. I refer to an article published in the Montreal Star on May 12, 1973.

I now wish to quote something written by a man, highly regarded, not only among Ukranian Canadians but, as well, by all others across Canada, including many writers and journalists. I am referring to Mr. Roman Rakhmanny, a Montreal journalist and native of the Ukraine who moved to Montreal 14 years ago. I will not quote much of his article. Nevertheless, what he wrote, it seems to me, refutes the charge that we are merely interested in tokenism in our multicultural policy. He wrote:
To be sure, no one doubts the sincerity of the architects of the policy; they did what they believed to be just and necessary for Canada. Nevertheless, there was no debate during the last election campaign, which would have clarified the primary issue of the problem; the need of constitutional guarantees for the 'third-language' groups.
More specifically, neither the Progressive Conservative Party nor the New Democratic Party has included in its program any form of multicultural policy.
I shall continue reading from the article in a moment. The author refers to the Ontario government. I wonder which government is guilty of adopting positions of tokenism in this country. Is it this government, the government of Ontario, or the government of the province of Alberta? Mr. Rakhmanny goes on to say:
The Ontario government supported a large Heritage Ontario Congress last June. A similar conference on multiculturalism was held in Alberta and its recommendations were upheld by the new Conservative administration.
However, as Professor M. E. Lupul, a prominent Ukranian Canadian of whom the mover of the motion must be aware, remarked, although those recommendations were upheld by the new Conservative administrations, "Neither has lifted a finger yet to put into practice the precepts they seemingly have embraced."

Let me tell you what I think about this, Mr. Speaker. I think that because the federal government in October, 1972, announced that Canada was a bilingual and multicultural country, and showed the way, the province of Ontario said, "We must do something, too," so they organized Heritage Ontario. This action was followed by the action taken by the provincial Conservative government of Alberta, which thought that it, too, must organize something similar. Consequently, it organized Heritage Alberta. Neither of these governments has done anything yet in the multicultural field. I will not mention all the things that the minister has done. I will only say that ever since he was appointed, the minister has been absolutely tireless.

The minister spared neither his efforts nor his time in making of this policy a truly positive policy to help Canadians better respect, know and understand one another.
The hon. member knows full well-and I said so a while ago to the hon. member for Winnipeg North-that it is not easy to set up an advisory committee whose members are obviously not all chosen from the riding of Winnipeg North. It is quite obvious that if the members of that advisory committee had been selected in the riding of Saint-Denis in Montreal, where 17 languages are spoken, and not solely in Winnipeg North



I have always said that the district I represent is like a small United Nations, and it works. My majority was not provided by the French; it was provided by every group. The community I represent includes 17 linguistic groups. If the minister had asked me to supply him with a multicultural board from the riding of Saint-Denis in Montreal, it would have been easy to oblige him. Obviously, it would have taken me only one week to do this. However, the minister had to consult with people all across Canada, with people in every one of the ten provinces and in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. He had to attend an unbelievable number of meetings with various groups.


Paul Yewchuk: Nonsense. He sent letters.


Marcel Prud'homme: I think the minister started by doing the right thing. He sent letters first and, after that, held consultations, as the hon. member ought to know.
[ Translation]
There are also, in the hon. member's remarks, certain points which I should like him to elucidate-not today, of course, but in the future-and which I find hard to understand.
When, for instance, he says that the CBC, under the Broadcasting Act, is denying us programs in languages other than French or English, I should like to ask him, in the first place, what he is suggesting to the House. Is it the creation of a third state television network, over and above the French and English ones? There is something which I personally dislike to hear, although I am of French origin, is that Canada is divided into three groups of different origins.
May 30, 1973



Some hold the concept, which I reject, that Canada is divided between the French, the English and the others.


Paul Yewchuk: That is the hon. member's concept.


Marcel Prud'homme: I have always said, even in the hon. member's district in western Canada, if my name were "Prud'hommeski", I would reject the concept, as would the hon. member of German origin who spoke, as would the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and as would the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), that I am "one of the others". I would object to that. I ask the hon. member, what kind of broadcasting act would he envisage in order that we might adopt such a concept in this country? Would the hon. member be ready to cut out some programs on the English CBC network in order to have programs in Ukrainian? If so, would not every single one of the other groups whose mother tongue is not one of the official languages of this country raise their arms and say, "We want a program in our language, too?" Is he suggesting that French stations should curtail their programs somewhat in order that we might broadcast programs in Italian, say?


Paul Yewchuk: Right.


Marcel Prud'homme: If that is what the hon. member is suggesting-


Paul Yewchuk: That is what I am suggesting.


Marcel Prud'homme: -then I, personally, reject that concept. I think we are now approaching a time at which, with the multiplicity of channels available, there will be no need to change the Canadian Broadcasting Act. We should continue to use Radio Canada and the CBC as they are, and allot other channels so that persons who want to listen to one of the other languages may do so.


Paul Yewchuk: You just rejected that.


Marcel Prud'homme: I did not. I said it should be done by others, not by the CBC.


Paul Yewchuk: You said you did not want a third one.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am asking you if you want a third CBC. If so, in what language will it operate? A CBC for the others? I say I reject that concept. I want the hon. member for Athabasca to define what he meant by "the others".


Paul Yewchuk: The hon. member asked me to define what I meant. I am sorry he was not listening to my speech. What I meant was that the CBC, as it now exists, should allow third language broadcasting on both the English and French networks.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, in case the time allotted to me is more advanced than I think, I should like to make a few constructive suggestions.
Multiculturalism
If the government is serious about this multicultural policy-and I think it is, judging from the efforts the minister has made to date and the amounts of money earmarked for this policy-if the government is really serious-and I shall think it is unless proven otherwise-it must appoint more and more people of ethnic origins other than French or English to sit on government agencies.
In all Crown corporations, it is obvious that people belonging to other groups than the French and the English are clearly in a minority, as well as elsewhere.
I believe-and it is already a beginning at the present time-that it is up to the CBC, through its French and English networks, to show Canadians what Canada is- and that can be done in French and in English-to indicate in both languages the cultural contribution of the ethnic groups other than the French and the English, who have, for all that, as everybody knows, historical rights that others have not.
I think that the National Film Board is beginning to make films in the languages of those people who wish to keep their identity in Canada by clinging to their language and origins, but the National Film Board should show those films in English and in French in order that Canadians of long standing, from English or French stock, may realize and appreciate better the cultural contribution that groups other than Francophones or Anglophones have made to Canadian history. That is something that is not well enough known among the Canadian people, Canadians of old stock if you would rather call them that way. As for me, I do not like the word "ethnic", I would rather say: old Canadians and new Canadians. If old Canadians of English or French origin were better informed of the cultural, historical and economic contribution of communities other than French and English ones, there would be better understanding in this country and people would accept one another better.
I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that during election campaigns there will be fewer and fewer people, especially in western Canada-

-and more particularly in western Canada where we see politicians who for the sake of easy re-election play ethnic group against ethnic group as I have myself heard, not only during the last campaign. I am not putting the blame on one individual or on one particular party.


Paul Yewchuk: Put it on the Prime Minister.


Marcel Prud'homme: I said I am not putting the blame on anybody, but if the member wants to start mentioning names I might give him a preview of names I could mention next week. What I am saying is that time after time we have seen politicians of various political parties- I am ready to go that far-playing one against the other. For instance, I have in mind the example of a district where the French Canadians-I prefer to say les Cana-diens frangais-you know where I place the emphasis; I did not do the translation from "Canadiens frangais" to "French Canadians"-I am as Canadian as the hon. member for Athabasca and Canada is as much mine as it is his, or anyone else from western Canada, I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker-

May 30, 1973
Multiculturalism


Paul Yewchuk: I agree with that.


Marcel Prud'homme: I want to say this in conclusion. I hope that in future politicians of every party will try to explain the history of Canada. I hope they will try to explain what we mean by recognizing two official languages. Then it will be much easier to make people understand why Ukrainian is not one of the official languages, even though in one particular district they might number 40 per cent of the population while the Canadiens frangais might account for only one per cent. The day politicians begin to realize the history of this country and explain it in various parts of Canada, Canada will be really bilingual as well as highly multicultural.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in favour of the motion before us, my purpose is to give the minister responsible for multiculturalism some of my views and suggestions. I trust they will be in a positive vein.
First, though, I must comment on some of the statements just made by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). It is precisely that type of veiled threat he has just finished making with reference to western Canada, in which he gave the impression that people are elected on the basis of bias and bigotry, which should have no place in this House. It should have no place in Canada whatsoever.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member rise on a question of privilege?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I took all possible precautions to escape the trap in which the hon. member would like me to fall now. I never said what the hon. member suggests I said and he has no right to credit me with such intentions. I spoke in a general way. I did not show any political partisanship and I think that the hon. member opens the debate on a very unfortunate note as my intentions were not really such and if that is what the hon. member understood, well, I think he misunderstood me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret, but I rather feel the hon. member is initiating a debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, I believe the innuendo was there, and I do not think an innuendo of that type has any place in a discussion of bilingualism or the multiculturalism we are discussing today.
As the underlying premise of the ideas I wish to convey to the minister, let me state clearly that bilingualism, together with biculturalism, is an historical fact of Canada. It is also a constitutional fact. I agree with other speakers that for too long we have paid only lip service to the French language. I fully recognize that Canadians who are French speaking have a right to expect services from

the federal government to be provided in the language of their birth. In other words, I want to say that multiculturalism does not detract from the official policy on bilingualism and biculturalism. I do not believe that multiculturalism is divisive. It does not undermine bilingualism or biculturalism. But I believe that this government in the past, especially between the years 1968 and 1971, gave the impression to many Canadians of so-called multicultural background that multiculturalism had to be played down in order that bilingualism and biculturalism could survive. It is clear to many smaller ethnic groups that while multiculturalism has been played down and just lip service paid to it as a policy, there has in fact been very little constructive policy between these years.
Ethnic and multicultural groups have made contributions to Canada of various kinds, and I shall not go into that aspect. Canada is a pluralistic society, but first of all we must be Canadians, not hyphenated Canadians. There is no such thing as an English-speaking or French-speaking Canadian being any better than any other Canadian; we are all Canadians and that is what we should stress. Each member of this House should take it upon himself to bring this message to all Canadians in their ridings. Divisiveness on the basis of nationality and ethnic background has no place whatever in Canada. I suggest members on both sides of the House'heed this lesson very carefully. I do not disagree with the minister that multiculturalism as such has been recognized, and I welcome this and commend him for it. But we must also recognize that the so-called third group-a term that I also bave some difficulty with-has a background which, when its members came to Canada, had to be if not negated at least reduced in terms of the importance those members would have liked to give it.
Today, we see our young people whose background is not French or English asking for a clear identification of their cultural background of generations ago. Someone said that a person who forgets the lessons of the past has no right to look to the future, and I think that multiculturalism proves that looking to the past is a valid concept. Canada has been a refuge for many people. This country welcomed those who do not belong to the two largest ethnic groups in Canada, and I believe that they have made their contribution in a positive way and added to Canada's contribution on the international scene as well.
Multiculturalism policy can fall into the trap of becoming partisan. Much has been said today about former prime ministers of the Liberal party recognizing this fact when they made multiculturalism part of government policy. I do not want to discredit that fact, but I should like to refer to the contributions made and the leadership given by the government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Speaking now as a western Canadian, the right hon. gentleman was recognized by multicultural groups as a man who, in turn, recognized the contribution that they had made to life in Canada, and that it was a positive contribution. It was not simply a matter of increasing funds from $3 million to $10 million and of saying: "I have now recognized you and that you have made a contribution".
May 30, 1973

In his statement in the House on October 8, 1971 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined the multicultural policy of the government. In reply to his statement, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as reported at page 8546 of Hansard of that date, had this to say:
I wish to state immediately, Mr. Speaker, that the emphasis we have given to multiculturalism in no way constitutes an attack on the basic duality of our country. What we want is justice for all Canadians, and recognition of the cultural diversity of this country.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we want, a recognition that the contribution has been made and that multiculturalism not only be an official policy but that clear cut action be taken to implement that policy.
I direct my attention to two specific areas. One is the problem of language instruction. Much is said today about third language instruction in schools. Having taught high school in western Canada for some time and taken a second language other than French, I know what has happened to second or third language instruction, depending on interpretation, in western Canada.
As long as our universities, specifically in Alberta and Manitoba, had a second language requirement for entrance to most faculties, there was in our high schools the maintenance of second language instruction. Generally this second language instruction was French, Ukrainian or German. Since the governments of Alberta and Manitoba have now dropped this requirement for almost all faculties, the impact on second language instruction in the high schools has been disastrous. Today, students do not opt for second language instruction, be it French, Ukrainian, German or any other language that is authorized.
The federal government and the provincial governments must together provide, to my way of thinking, a positive program whereby once again there will be a resurgence of second language instruction. Not only is a second language an advantage and gives a person an additional cultural outlook; it is a necessity if language instruction is itself to survive at all and western Canada is not to become even more unilingual than is the case now. So, a program of financial aid will have to be stepped up and students must be encouraged to take second language instruction.
Another point I want to make concerns radio broadcasting. The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has given the House his view about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, though I do not subscribe to that view. If the House will recall, we discussed the sale of radio station CKSB of St. Boniface for use by the CBC as a French language radio station. I have no quarrel with that, and I have so stated previously in a debate in this House. But I do suggest that the CBC re-evaluate this policy, and that if need be the Broadcasting Act be amended so that in cases where the need is demonstrated time be made available on English or French speaking CBC stations for so-called third language broadcasting.
Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? There are many radio stations across Canada, especially in western Canada, that might make time available. But very often this time is not prime time, and the financial obligations that have to be met are such as to pretty well exclude the use of these stations by multicultural groups. Volume four of the report on bilingualism and biculturalism, which is entitled
Multiculturalism
"The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups", contained these recommendations:
8.	We recommend that the CRTC remove restrictions on private broadcasting in languages other than English and French, except those restrictions necessary to meet the administrative and legal responsibilities of the licensees and those that also apply to English- and French-language programmes.
9.	We recommend that the CBC recognize the place of languages other than English and French in Canadian life and that the CBC remove its proscription on the use of other languages in broadcasting.
I suggest to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), to whom the CBC is responsible, that the necessary amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act be made so that time can be made available by the CBC, be it on the English or French stations, to these multicultural groups for the broadcasting of information.
I should like to commend the Secretary of State for embarking on this program, limited though it is, for the development of films of an ethnic nature. This present policy needs encouragement and expansion. I concur with the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that these films should be made in English and in French for the purpose of education and giving a better understanding among all Canadians of the various backgrounds we have, yet common to the Canadian identity we share.
Lastly, it is approximately 100 years since Canada really embarked upon a multicultural program, in the sense that it was approximately 100 years ago the so-called. third groups or third forces began to come to Canada. Up to that time, Canada was known to other than the native people as an English and French-speaking country. As these people are embarking today on centennaries, and I could point out various groups, I suggest there is great credit to Canada in that 100 years later, even though these people have learned the English language, primarily for economic reasons, they retained and gave to us some of the culture they brought, for which Canada is the richer.
As we approach this period in time, looking again at what effect this has had on Canada as a country, we should recommend very strongly to the minister and his colleagues that the department of multiculturalism should not simply be considered as a second-rate department, but rather a full-fledged department promoting programs based on the fact that Canada is better off because of the contribution these ethnic groups have made. Once this is done, I am sure a greater understanding will evolve in Canada. I, personally, am convinced that when we consider our various backgrounds it will only be when we understand and communicate with each other that understanding will develop and that we, as Canadians, will recognize our responsibility to foster a Canadian identity in spite of our diversity. Canada is too important to me to be divided by partisan issues on the basis of nationality. Our responsibility is to build a national unity.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I think I overheard someone mention that I have a lucky seven minutes remaining. I will try to be as brief as I can in my remarks as I know the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) has been trying for sometime this afternoon
4278

May 30, 1973
Multiculturalism
to get the floor. I may be able to complete my remarks in a couple of minutes so he will have an opportunity to speak.
First of all, I should like to say how much I regret the word "regrets" and all that follows in this particular motion before the House today. I think it most unfortunate that one member of the official opposition a moment or two ago summed up what I really wanted to say this afternoon, that this is surely a subject of concern to us all. We are all of ethnic backgrounds and all part of the multicultural complex that makes up Canada today. In fact, if anyone can say he is not a member of one of these ethnic groups, then he must be a native Canadian. Only a native Canadian can honestly say he is not part of what has been developed in Canada.
I think I am one of the few people who has risen this afternoon in the House who is perhaps not tarnished with that term I so much dislike, the "third group". I think perhaps the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and myself somehow get shoved into the other two categories. I do not see it that way at all. I see us as one people in Canada, members of a nation that has been built to greatness by diversity. It is only because we have grown over the years as English and French that we can say we are stronger because of that, and because of what one has offered the other and what each has offered this country. That is also so of the so-called "third force". It has grown in strength and is equally important. We are all equal and we all have something important to contribute.
I can very well remember 12 or 13 years ago, when I began working in the metropolitan urban area of Toronto as a young journalist, how dull and staid a city it seemed. It was not because the English, Scottish and Irish did not have a great heritage and style, but because that was all we had. That was the main force within the boundaries of that area. We learned about little else to diversify our understanding, pleasure and interest in the cultural backgrounds, languages and styles. In that 10 or 12 years, I have seen a tremendous change, which I think has in fact created a really great city that did not exist 10 or 12 years ago. It is now one of the most cosmopolitan cities on earth.
Some five years ago if you were a first or even second generation Canadian and did not speak English or French, you suffered a stigma; you were second class. I do not believe that is so today. I think all that changed in October 1971 when this multicultural direction was established by parliament. I think we have followed through on that with the $3 million given to the program last year and the $10 million this year. What other program dedicated to preventing the slipping away of the cultural backgrounds of these people has had its funds tripled?
I share the concern of some hon. members on the other side about the radio station in St. Boniface, and I certainly will make as many representations as I can to the government that its multicultural programming should remain. I agree with the issue presented by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) concerning second languages in school. I think that is predominantly a provincial matter, but certainly any federal input that can help should be forthcoming.
There are a number of things I wanted to mention, but I want to leave a moment or two for the hon. member for Meadow Lake. I want to conclude by saying how very proud I am to be the member of a riding in which, while it is made up of 40 per cent or 45 per cent with Italian background, 40 per cent or 45 per cent with an English background, 5 per cent with a French background and 5 per cent with other backgrounds, all the constituents consider themselves Canadians and have come to enjoy each other and to enjoy Canada even more because of each other.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I cannot recognize the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) as it is now six o'clock, unless the House agrees that we should continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: We have two minutes left according to that clock.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to quote something said on television not too long ago by a character named Archie Bunker. He said "Whattaya wanna learn yourself Spanish for? English is good enough." I hold in contempt the sentiments mouthed by this illiterate American television character, yet there appears to be reason for believing that the imbecilities cherished by Mr. Bunker are not totally absent from the Canadian scene.
I regard the various cultural traditions now domiciled in Canada as a great national good and as an extraordinary national resource. There is no reason for believing that a theatre group offering plays in German or Ukrainian is less important to our national wealth and welfare than mineral deposits or arable lands. It does take money and labour to extract minerals or to make wastelands arable. It also takes money and labour to extract cultural values, yet this fact is not accepted as completely. Much money is put into various economic programs by both federal and provincial governments. We are interested in creating jobs. However, we forget that things of cultural value nourish the body as well as the mind. In at least one aspect of national interest it seems preferable to pour development grants into multicultural programs rather than into industries because industries often are owned by non-Canadians. Multicultural projects in my view are most completely Canadian.
I have much more to say, Mr. Speaker, but this will complete my comments for today. I feel that one aspect which has not been touched upon today during this debate is that we should not worry so much about multiculturalism but should be thinking in terms of a Canadian culture, period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, according to Standing Order 58(11) this debate is now terminated.
[ Translation]
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 31, 1973