1973-06-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about a group of integrated programs which the government is undertaking to encourage eligible resident immigrants to obtain their citizenship and to provide financial support to national voluntary organizations engaged in stimulating a greater awareness among Canadians of the meaning and significance of citizenship.
Since the government does not oblige anyone to take out citizenship, there is no exact number of Canadian residents who now qualify. However, we estimate that there are over 850,000, possibly a million, immigrant residents in Canada who could now apply for citizenship.
As in other democracies, ours is not a coercive society. This is especially true of the registration of new citizens. The government can readily make available a range of services and essential information to them about these services. But it is up to the individual to initiate voluntarily the procedures leading to equal status with other Canadians. It will be a gentle invitation, this call to citizenship.
It is to extend the present registration and counselling facilities, and to add to the information at the disposal of potential citizens, that I am announcing today an additional budget of $2 million.
The Department of the Secretary of State has been receiving requests for the provision of special services for potential citizens. To help respond to the need, the services of citizenship branch officials and citizenship courts are being broadened in areas where the population density is high and the immigrant concentration is heavy.
New branch offices are being opened in Quebec City, in Brampton and Barrie, Ontario, and in Kelowna, British Columbia. On an experimental basis, travelling teams of citizenship registration officials will be located in "target areas" in Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and Vancouver. They will be available upon demand to take applications and answer questions in such places as work sites, shopping centres, and recreation centres. There are plans for a storefront office in a busy location in Toronto, to make citizenship registration services as informal and as accessible as possible. The aim is to make the services available to people in the familiar surroundings of their own communities. Where we can, as with the storefront office, we also want the hours of service extended into evenings and weekends.
In support of this extension of court services, there will be a promotion program in the media, with emphasis on local newspapers. It is anticipated that there will also be some use of pamphlets and posters, and some reliance on radio and television.
A third program is the development of new resource materials to be provided to citizens and potential citizens to help them learn about Canada. These will include specially designed and specially written booklets, attractive and up to date, and audio-visual materials and kits for the use of individuals and citizens' groups.
It is with considerable pleasure that I announce today the first grants to be made under our new program of support to voluntary organizations engaged in special projects to reinforce the meaning and importance of our common citizenship. These grants will go to the Canada Studies Foundation in Toronto and the Canada Committee in Montreal.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Progressive Conservative party totally endorse the government initiative to assist those who come to this country to understand and to use their rights. We wish those who emigrate to Canada to do so with a genuine involvement.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are aware, as are the ministers involved, of woeful shortcomings. There are no reliable figures available as to the number of illegal immigrants in this country. It is truly disgraceful that the honest must often wait for years, subjected to great anxiety through a cumbersome and outdated appeal process-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: -while the less scrupulous are able to freely enjoy the advantages of this country.
It is a disgrace that newcomers are given such hopelessly inadequate instruction in the new society into which they enter, and I hope that the government announcement today reflects a serious coming to grips with this problem.
Fully two-thirds of those who immigrate to this country are below the age of 30. We must keep this fact clearly in mind while developing immigrant services. Their access to the rich multicultural resources of Canada must be assured. Their full acceptance as Canadians should they desire to become citizens ought to be guaranteed. Consideration might be given to removing all legal differentia-

June 6, 1973
Citizenship
tion between native and naturalized citizens. This is surely in the spirit of the minister's initiative, and would certainly make citizenship more attractive to our resident immigrants.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that the immigrant to this country has three major areas of difficulty: the first is one of information, often including a language barrier. The government has recognized its responsibility in general terms in this area, but we would like to see far more sensitivity shown with respect to the type and particular needs of immigrants for information, particularly for those who come from a radically different cultural background. The second great problem is loneliness. Here the direct role of the state is limited, yet that of its indirect influence is substantial. We must not allow the immigrant to disappear in our national debates on linguistic and cultural issues. Finally, there is a substantial economic problem. Many barriers are placed in the way of the newcomer; many of those with substantial skills are forced to work in positions and at wages which are far below their capacity, and all of Canada is made poorer by the limiting of their potential contribution.

The government has a positive role to play in those three areas. We have been delighted with the announcement of the minister, but I would like to express our wish that tjie government will integrate with efficiency and understanding those who come over to live in the Canadian community.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I welcome the statement made this afternoon by the minister as a first step in a broad, general review and extension of government services to immigrant people in Canada. The minister has given us a firm assurance in committee that such an overhaul of the programs being presented by his department is now under way and, taking him at his word, we look forward to further developments of a similar nature in future.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the citizenship outreach program outlined this afternoon by the minister is not only needed but overdue and that it will prove to be well utilized so long as it operates on the principle that its prime concern is to meet the needs and convenience of its clientele and not those of the officials. The pilot experiments conducted in recent years by the department indicate that the present program, extended as it is, will be fully used. I would stress that the question of the hours of the services is crucial to the success of this program, and I would say to the minister that I hope the plan to operate it in the evenings and on weekends will not be limited merely to one storefront office but will include the mobile teams as well. I also hope that the department will establish advance liaison with the communities through existing organizations as well as the specialized media that often publish in the language of the immigrant community.
I would also point out that there is abroad a mystique to the effect that successful application for citizenship may involve answering tough questions or examinations. This

has in the past proved to be an inhibition to applications for citizenship. I hope that the promised programs to be undertaken by the department will assure that the process of applying for and receiving citizenship is an encouraging rather than a discouraging one.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we look forward, as I said, to the continuing overhaul and extension of government programs aimed at new Canadians. I would emphasize that this process should be undertaken in close consultation with the communities affected as well as with provincial and municipal governments. I conclude by hoping that the program will extend beyond the range of the immediate services indicated in this afternoon's statement to the educational and cultural fields.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the
announcement just made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in order to assist the voluntary groups dealing with immigrants is full of good intentions, and I believe that the whole House agrees with that decision.
However, it is necessary that those applying to emigrate to Canada be well informed. Rather unfortunate situations happened in the past, and I just have one in mind, Mr. Speaker. A Frenchman made an application to come over to Canada, and the Canadian immigration office in France told him that he absolutely had to speak English in order to emigrate to Canada and work here. With that information, the applicant went back home and managed to follow intensive courses in English, and after one year, he applied again at the immigration office. He was then accepted and once in Canada, in the province of Quebec, he went over to Normetal Mine, in my constituency, to take a job as a miner. Upon his arrival he realized that there were no English-speaking persons working in that industry. You can appreciate his disappointment in the face of that situation. He lost a year merely because of this anomaly.
In my opinion, steps should be taken first of all to properly advise those who want to become Canadian citizens. Then, the procedures for granting Canadians immigrants citizenship certificates should be instituted early enough for them to receive their papers when the time comes. Of course, cases may differ but, in my opinion, they should not be considered separately.
Some immigrants who want to qualify for Canadian citizenship could certainly meet our requirements within a year. However, there are others-a limited number, I am glad to say-who will never really become Canadian citizens. In all fairness to those who have been accepted among us, they should be granted their certificates of citizenship as soon as possible, when the time comes, so that they may become Canadian citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has received notice from the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe of a question of privilege of a non-controversial nature. The hon. member might be recognized for that purpose at this time.
June 6, 1973



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time because today, June 6, marks the twenty-ninth anniversary of D-Day, and I am sure I speak for all members of the House and all Canadians in requesting a moment to pay homage to those valiant soldiers who took part in the allied invasion of Normandy.
Canadian veterans who took part will reflect today, I am sure, wherever they may be, on events which took place on the beaches of France some 29 years ago and think of their comrades who fell by their side and were denied the chance to return to Canada to avail themselves of the great opportunities of our growing and prosperous country. It is significant that today, 29 years later, the overriding topic that we are discussing across our nation is national unity and we are trying to attain this goal by legislation and with words. Yet we fail to recognize that we started to become a great nation because thousands of our young citizens from 1939 to 1945, including many who sit here as members of parliament, volunteered to fight for their country in far-off lands to defend Canada and the free world against the greed and lust for power of other nations. They fought together regardless of race, creed, colour or origin. They fought united as Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: We can continue to build a greater nation if we take time to reflect and take an example from the comradeship which was instilled in our veterans through suffering together on the battlefield, a comradeship that will remain in their hearts as long as they live. We should think of this today. Let us ever remember the thousands of our veterans who lie in graves in foreign countries because of their duty to their country. Let us remember those veterans who returned, maimed and disabled, and who must look to us for help. Let us never forget our responsibility to those veterans who, by their sacrifice, protected our freedom to govern and to build a great nation for those of us who remain, a nation with pride, prosperity and peace, a nation with unity and comradeship among all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the unexplained and dangerous decision of the government to increase by approximately 60 per cent port rates payable by ocean vessels using the port of Vancouver. I therefore move,
Order Paper Questions
seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House insist that the Minister of Transport present a detailed explanation of why this increase was undertaken, and insist that the minister undertake an immediate review of that decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform this House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PAROLE ACT


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of External Affairs on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Expenditures of the Department of External Affairs were as follows:

June 6, 1973
Order Paper Questions
	A	B	
1968-69	447,698	Nil	1969-70	1,469,084	33,674	(including $29,108 for advertising space)1970-71	1,170,570	29,948	(including $26,019 for advertising space1971-72	1,613,332	31,397	(including $29,479
ior advertising space)
The amounts under column A pertain to direct program costs under the department's Information Program the objective of which is to publish and disseminate information about Canada in foreign countries and provide information on international affairs to the Canadian public.
2.	The amounts under column B were paid to John Doherty and Company Limited, Ottawa in connection with a nation wide publicity campaign to inform the public on requirements relative to the procurement of passports.
3.	Nil.



DREE-NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE, 1971

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the total number of applications received by province, by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for assistance in the fiscal year ended 1971?
2.	Of those approved, how many applications were exercised by the applicants, by province?
3.	What is the total operating cost of the Department for the same period, exclusive of grants?
4.	What is the total operating cost of the Department for the same period, inclusive of grants?
5.	What is the average cost, based on the above, of each decision made by the Department on applications received?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, the number of applications for assistance under the Regional Development Incentives Act received by the department is, by province, as follows: Newfoundland, 80; Prince Edward Island, 40; Nova Scotia, 83; New Brunswick, 121; Quebec, 740; Ontario, 136; Manitoba, 164; Saskatchewan, 69; Alberta, 75; British Columbia, 47; Location of facility not specified by applicant at time of submission, Nil; total, 1,555.
2.	For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971, the net number of accepted offers of development incentives authorized under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act is, by province, as follows: Newfoundland, 12; Prince Edward Island, 14; Nova Scotia, 41; New Brunswick, 35; Quebec, 150; Ontario, 25; Manitoba, 54; Saskatchewan, 23; Alberta, 23; British Columbia, 7; total, 384.
3.	The operating costs for the Incentives Division of the department exclusive of grants were $1,041,542 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971. This cost includes the expense of administering inspections and payments under the Regional Development Incentives Act and the Area Development Incentives Act, as well as that associated with the processing of applications.

4.	The operating costs of the Incentives Division for the same period including RDIA and ADIA grant payments were $61,240,390.
5.	It is not possible to give a meaningful response to this question. As pointed out in 3, officers of the Incentives Division carry a number of responsibilities that are not directly related to the processing of applications. These include the administration of payments, promotional activity, general research activity and a number of other supportive functions. The evaluation of applications cannot be broken out so as to provide average cost figures on the basis requested.



DREE-NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE, 1972

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	By province, what was the total number of applications received by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for assistance in the fiscal year ended 1972?
2.	By province, of those approved, how many applications were exercised by the applicants?
3.	What was the total operating cost of the Department for the same period (a) exclusive of grants (b) inclusive of grants?
4.	What is the average cost, based on the above, of each decision made by the Department on (a) all applications received (b) applications approved (c) applications rejected (d) applications accepted but not exercised by the applicants?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. For the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, the number of applications for assistance under the Regional Development Incentives Act received by the department is, by province, as follows: Newfoundland, 118; Prince Edward Island, 39; Nova Scotia, 157; New Brunswick, 149; Quebec, 1,754; Ontario, 227; Manitoba, 172; Saskatchewan, 67; Alberta, 75; British Columbia, 57; Location of facility not specified by applicant at time of submission, 19; total, 2,834.
2.	For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, the net number of accepted offers of development incentives authorized under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act is, by province, as follows: Newfoundland, 43; Prince Edward Island, 26; Nova Soctia, 75; New Brunswick, 87; Quebec, 704; Ontario, 72; Manitoba, 123; Saskatchewan, 37; Alberta, 36; British Columbia, 24; total, 1,227.
3.	(a) The operating costs for the Incentives Division of the Department exclusive of grants were $3,499,327 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972. This cost includes the expense of administering payments under the Regional Development Incentives Act and the Area Development Incentives Act, as well as that associated with the processing of applications, (b) The operating costs of the Incentives Division for the same period including RDIA and ADIA grant payments were $99,773,034.
4.	(a) It is not possible to give a meaningful response to this question. As pointed out in 3(a), officers of the Incentives Division carry a number of responsibilities that are not directly related to the processing of application. These include the administration of payments, promotional activity, general research activity and a number of other supportive functions. The evaluation of applications cannot be broken out so as to provide average cost figures
June 6, 1973

on the basis requested, (b), (c) and (d) For the reasons pointed out in 4(a) these costs are not available.



PRINTING CONTRACTS

Mr. Lawrence: What departments, commissions or other agencies of the government or the Crown in the Right of Canada awarded printing contracts or had printing work completed for them for a consideration in the Province of Ontario during 1971 and 1972, other than the Department of Supply and Services?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Agriculture Canada, Canadian Livestock Feed Board; Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Nuclear Limited; Department of External Affairs; Department of Finance, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Northern Canada Power Commission: Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Statistics Canada; Department of Justice; Department of Manpower and Immigration, Immigration Appeal Board, Unemployment Insurance Commission; Department of National Health and Welfare; Department of National Revenue, Taxation; Post Office Department; Department of Public Works; Department of Regional Economic Expansion; Ministry of State for Science and Technology, Science Council of Canada; Department of the Secretary of State, National Film Board, Public Service Commission, National Museums of Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Ministry of the Solicitor General, Canadian Penitentiary Service; Canadian Arsenals Ltd., Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Royal Canadian Mint; Ministry of Transport, The National Harbours Board, The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, The Seaway International Bridge Authority; Treasury Board Secretariat, The Canadian Patents and Development Corporation Limited; Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, National Capital Commission; Department of Veterans Affairs.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-SALARIES

Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Justice?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Justice?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. There were 484 full-time employees in the Department of Justice as of January 31, 1970.
2.	One hundred and three of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually and distributed according to $1,000 intervals they were:
5 earning between $15,000 and $16,000 13 earning between 16,000 and 17,000 15 earning between 17,000 and 18,000
9	Order Paper Questions earning between 18,000 and	19,0007	earning	between	19,000 and	20,00011	earning	between	20,000 and	21,00012	earning	between	21,000 and	22,0006	earning	between	22,000 and	23,0003	earning	between	23,000 and	24,0003	earning	between	24,000 and	25,0002	earning	between	25,000 and	26,0003	earning	between	26,000 and	27,0001	earning	between	27,000 and	28,0005	earning	between	28,000 and	29,0005	earning	between	23,000 and	30,000*2	earning	between	30,000 and	35,000*1	earning	between	39,000 and	42,000
*Not separated to $1,000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with TB circular 1969-206.
3.	There were 731 full-time employees in the Department of Justice as of January 31, 1973.
4.	Two hundred and fifteen of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually and distributed according to $1,000, they were:
20 earning between $18,000 and $19,000
20	earning between	19,000	and	20,00029	earning between	20,000	and	21,00017	earning between	21,000	and	22,00013	earning between	22,000 and	23,00026	earning between	23,000	and	24,00011	earning between	24,000	and	25,00017	earning between	25,000	and	26,00015	earning between	26,000	and	27,0004	earning between	27,000	and	28,0007	earning between	28,000 and	29,0007	earning between	29,000 and	30,00026	earning between	23,000	and	36,000*2	earning between	34,000	and	40,000*1	earning between	45,000	and	50,000*
*Not separated to $1,000 intervals in order to protect privacy of salary information in accordance with TB Circular 1969-206.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4210


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4210?
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?

June 6, 1973
Order Paper Questions
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. December 12, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 7, 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-4213


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4213?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 12, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 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.	$13,522.
5.	One hundred twenty man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4216


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4216?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 12, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 7, 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-6107


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6107?
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 11, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 14, 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.	$18,711.
5.	One hundred sixty-two man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3729


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3729?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 5, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 28, 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.	$27,819.
5.	Two hundred forty-seven man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2276


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2276?
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?
June 6, 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 17, 1972.
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.	$49,186.
5.	Four hundred twenty-two man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2609


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2609?
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
22,	1972.
2.	Rejected on January 5, 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-2790


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2790?
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
23,	1972.
2.	Rejected on January 12, 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.
Order Paper Questions
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.



OFY-PROJECTS OKANAGAN-KOOTENAY 1971-72

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What Opportunities for Youth Program grants were paid to associations in the constituency of Okanagan-Kootenay in 1971 and 1972?
2.	What were the names and addresses of each association and sponsors?
3.	What were the names and addresses of each association and sponsors who did not receive a grant?
4.	What study did the Secretary of State's Office make of the grants paid in 1971 and 1972 in the constituency of Okanagan-Kootenay as to their effective utilization?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. A
list of all projects funded under the Opportunities for Youth program in 1971 has been completed. Projects are classified by province and then by type of project, not by constituency. A list of all projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and in alphabetical order of the towns and cities in which the projects were carried out, not by constituency. Information included the project title and number, a short description of the project's activities, amount of the grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This 421-page listing can be obtained from the Secretary of State Department.
2.	Groups were not required to have sponsors or to be connected with an association.
3.	Groups were not required to have sponsors or to be connected with an association. No tabulated records exist for project applications which were not selected for funding under Opportunities for Youth in either 1971 or 1972.
4.	All projects funded by Opportunities for Youth in 1971 and 1972 were visited at least once by the project officer responsible prior to receiving the second of three payments on the grant allocated. Further visits were made at the discretion of the officer concerned. Prior to receiving the third and last instalment of the grant, all projects were required to submit an evaluation report to the Secretary of State outlining the project's activities. All project evaluations were reviewed by officials in the Department of the Secretary of State. Evaluations are not classified according to constituency.



NEW BRUNSWICK-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of New Brunswick and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 408.
Constituency	Amount Granted
Carleton-Charlotte	$ 752,233
Fundy-Royal	262,351

June 6, 1973
Order Paper Questions		
Constituency	Amount Granted	
Gloucester		2,148,574
Madawaska-Victoria		1,133,734
Moncton		720,620
Northumberland-Miramichi		1,073,237
Restigouche		1,676,257
Saint John-Lancaster		721,172
Westmorland-Kent		1,229,257
York-Sunbury		1,009,145



NOVA SCOTIA-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Nova Scotia and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 358.
Constituency	Amount Granted
Annapolis Valley	$ 815,347
Cape Breton-East Richmond	361,193
Cape Breton Highlands-Canso	2,026,594
Cape Breton-The Sydneys	1,486,424
Central Nova	828,820
Cumberland-Colchester North	514,982
Dartmouth-Halifax East	683,828
Halifax	1,566,120
Halifax-East Hants	413,257
South Shore	623,998
South Western Nova	879,062



NEWFOUNDLAND-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Newfoundland and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Prince Edward Island and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 95.
Constituency
Amount Granted
Cardigan
Egmont
Hillsborough
Malpeque



$589,990 628,174 449,623 285,619 MANITOBA-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Manitoba and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 242.
Constituency
Amount Granted
Brandon-Souris	$ 494,154
Churchill	859,857
Dauphin	567,734
Lisgar	118,265
Marquette	209,128
Portage	584,926
Provencher	509,580
St. Boniface	181,594
Selkirk	324,202
Winnipeg North	217,298
Winnipeg North	Centre	1,621,174
Winnipeg South	905,439
Winnipeg South	Centre	273,033


Mark R. MacGuigan: 327.



SASKATCHEWAN-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Saskatchewan and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?
Constituency	Amount Granted	Mr. Mark MacGuigan	(Parliamentary Secretary toBonavista-Trinity-Conception	$1,575,643	Minister of Manpower and Immigration): 182.	Burin-Burgeo	1,274,257	Constituency	Amount GrantedGander-Twillingate	1,479,101	Assiniboia	$ 116,937Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador	2,684,941	Battleford-Kindersley	304,561Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe	2,954,183	Mackenzie	134,224St. John's East	971,834	Meadow Lake	817,016St. John's West	739,352	Moose Jaw	129,140

June 6, 1973

Constituency Prince Albert
Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain
Regina East
Regina-Lake Centre
Saskatoon-Biggar
Saskatoon-Humboldt
Swift Current-Maple Creek
Y orkton- Melville
Amount Granted 514,391 339,565 1,025,085 138,681 446,076 645,081 154,774 367,662



ALBERTA-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Alberta and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 277.
Constituency
Amount Granted
Athabasca
Battle River
Calgary Centre
Calgary North
Calgary South
Crowfoot
Edmonton Centre
Edmonton East
Edmonton-Strathcona
Edmonton West
Lethbridge
Medicine Hat
Palliser
Peace River
Pembina
Red Deer
Rocky Mountain
Vegreville
Wetaskiwin



$ 796,927 313,188 764,457 277,681 745,082 263,228 1,304,573 20,021 262.246 373,285 326,793 203,895 153,874 432,771 297,344 129,748 376.247 523,604 138,393 DREE-APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE 1972-73

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the total number of applications received by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for assistance, by province, in the fiscal years ended 1972 and 1973?
2.	Of those applications approved, how many were exercised by the applicants on a provincial basis?
3.	What was the total operating cost of the Department for these periods (a) exclusive of grants (b) inclusive of grants?
4.	What was the average cost, based on the above, of each decision made by the Department on applications (a) received (b) rejected (c) approved but not acted upon?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. For data
Order Paper Questions
relating to the fiscal year ending 1972, please refer to reply to Inquiry No. 991. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 the number of applications received by the department under the Regional Development Incentives Act is, by province, as follows: Newfoundland, 71; Prince Edward Island, 32; Nova Scotia, 132; New Brunswick, 153; Quebec, 1,596; Ontario, 196; Manitoba, 151; Saskatchewan, 56; Alberta, 53; British Columbia, 48; Location of facility not specified by applicant at time of submission, 23; total, 2,511.
2.	For data relating to the fiscal year ending 1972, please refer to reply to Inquiry No. 991. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, the net number of accepted offers of development incentives authorized under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act is, by province, as follows: Newfoundland, 16; Prince Edward Island, 9; Nova Scotia, 39; New Brunswick, 51; Quebec, 541; Ontario, 39; Manitoba, 42; Saskatchewan, 16; Alberta, 10; British Columbia, 3; total, 766.
3.	(a) The operating costs for the Incentives Division of the department exclusive of grants were $3,474,361 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973. This cost includes the expense of administering payments under the Regional Development Incentives Act and the Area Development Incentives Act, as well as that associated with the processing of applications; (b) The operating costs of the Incentives Division for the same period including RDIA and ADIA grant payments were $88,500,899.
4.	(a) It is not possible to give a meaningful response to this question. As pointed out in 3(a), officers of the Incentives Division carry a number of responsibilities that are not directly related to the processing of application. These include the administration of payments, promotional activity, general research activity and a number of other supportive functions. The evaluation of applications cannot be broken out so as to provide average cost figures on the basis requested; (b,(c,(d) For the reasons pointed out in 4(a) these costs are not available.



DELORO MINING AND REDUCTION COMPANY

Mr. Ellis: 1.	Has the government, at any time, contributed public funds to the construction of the physical plant and/or to the capital structure of The Deloro Mining and Reduction Company situated at Deloro, Ontario and, if so, what amounts were allocated to (a) the construction of the physical plant, by way of grants, loans, subsidies, et cetera (b) the capital structure of the Company, by way of grants, loans, subsidies, et cetera?
2.	In what years were these funds allocated for the above-men-tionned reasons?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. No.
2. Not Applicable.	,



DREE-APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS IN CONSTITUENCY OF CHARLEVOIX

Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): In the consituency of Charlevoix for the years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and April 1, 1973 to date (a) how many applications were received by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for

June 6, 1973
Order Paper Questions
grants or loans to small businesses (b) how many were approved (i) for which firms (ii) in what amounts (c) how many are still being studied?


Marcel Prud'homme: The information relating to applications submitted for a development incentive in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act is indicated below; no applications were submitted for a loan guarantee under the said legislation. This information does not only relate to "small businesses" but to all applications received under the Regional Development Incentives Act legislation. (a) 1970-71, Nil; 1971-72, 1; 1972-73, 1; (b) 1970-71, Nil, (i) N/A, (ii) N/A; 1971-72, 1, (i) Reynolds Cable Co., (ii) $95,760; 1972-73, 1, (i) La Ferme de la Poule, (ii) $28,000; (c) 1970-71, Nil; 1971-72, Nil; 1972-73, Nil.



POLAR BEAR QUOTAS

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What is the quota of polar bears for 1973 permitted Eskimo hunters in the Canadian Arctic?
2.	What part of the quota can be sold by Eskimo hunters to non-Eskimos and what is the price in each case?
3.	How many non-Eskimo hunters were allowed to purchase Eskimo polar bear quotas in 1971?
4.	How many polar bears were reported killed in the Canadian Arctic in 1971 by Eskimos and non-Eskimos?
5.	What is the present population of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic according to the latest government estimate?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The quota for the season October 1, 1972 to May 31, 1973 was 445.
2.	Within the above quota a total of 21 tags were authorized to be sold to sportsmen. However, due to cancellations in bookings, only 16 sports hunters will be accommodated. Outfitting fee paid to Eskimo organizations for the hunts is $2,500 per hunter.
3.	In the calendar year 1971, 12 non-Eskimo hunters purchased polar bear quotas.
4.	In the licence year July 1, 1970 to June 30, 1971, 422 polar bears were taken, 7 of which were taken by non-Eskimos.
5.	No accurate total population is available, however the estimated figure is in the neighbourhood of 8,000.



PROSECUTION OF IRVING INTERESTS UNDER COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

Mr. Howie: As of May 15, 1973, what and to whom was the total amount paid for prosecution of the Irving interests under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Cost of New Brunswick Newspapers Prosecution1
William L. Hoyt, Q.C.	Legal Fees $ 75,839
Hoyt, Mackler, Allen, Dixon
& Godin, Fredericton, N.B. Disbursements 20,885 (Crown Counsel)
T. Joseph Scanlon	Fees	9,100
Dean of the School of Journalism, Carleton University, Disbursements	3,367
Ottawa, Ontario.
Special Assistant to Crown Counsel-Consultant)
Winnifred Johnston,	630
Saint John, N.B.
(Witness)
______	Total $109,821
(1) Does not include travelling expenses and time of Department of Justice personnel and of officers on the staff of the Director of Investigation and Research.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by Statistics Canada on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	what are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE-EXPENDITURES ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Privy Council Office on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.

June 6, 1973



DREE-GRANTS TO INDUSTRIES IN DRUMMONDVILLE AREA

Mr. Boisvert: 1.	How many industries in the Drummondville area received grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion since it was established (a) what are the names of such industries (b) what amount has each of them received (c) before receiving their first grant, how many persons were in their employ?
2.	Once the grants had been made, how many employees were working in such industries (a) how many in each industry(b) what was the number of jobs available (c) how many years did they last?
3.	Among industries that closed since 1968, how many had received grants (a) how many employees were dismissed (b) what was the amount of the grants made to each industry (c) what were their names (d) who are the main shareholders of the companies?
Return tabled.



EMPLOYMENT OF HANDICAPPED PEOPLE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Atkey: 1.	Which departments of the government, if any, have specific policies of employing handicapped people, and what is the nature of each of these policies?
2.	(a) Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration ever conducted advertising or promotional programs with a view to making employers in the private sector aware of the possibilities and benefits of employing handicapped persons and, if so (i) what was the nature of these programs (ii) what were the governmental expeditures required to operate them in each of the past five fiscal years (b) are such programs currently operating and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have specially trained manpower counsellors in Canada Manpower Centres and regional headquarters to deal exclusively with the specialized requirements of placing handicapped persons and, if so (a) how many such counsellors are there (b) where are they located (c) what are the minimum qualifications and approximate salary ranges fur such personnel?
4.	Are there manpower counsellors specifically designated and available in the various Canada Manpower Centres to deal with the specialized requirements of placing handicapped people in employment (although not dealing exclusively with these matters) and, if so (a) how many counsellors are so designated (b) where are they located (c) what are the minimum qualifications and approximate salary ranges for such personnel?
5.	Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration an active program to work with employers in the private sector to identify and develop jobs for which handicapped people could qualify and, if so, what is the nature of this program and what financial and man-years commitment has the government made to it in each of the past five fiscal years?
6.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration participate in any federal-provincial committees or conferences to specifically consider the employment needs and requirements of the handicapped and, if so (a) what are they (b) how often do they meet (c) what is the nature of their discussions?
7.	Has the Vocational Rehabilitation Program been transferred from the Department of Manpower and Immigration to the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, when was the transfer completed and for what reason?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns



EMPLOYMENT BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CONSTITUENCY OF VICTORIA, 1968-72

Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the constituency of Victoria, B.C., who performed services for the government during 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969 and 1968?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid to each by year?
Return tabled.



ONTARIO-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Ontario and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?
Return tabled.



QUEBEC-LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of Quebec and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?
Return tabled.



EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What is the policy of the government regarding the Emergency Measures Organization?
2.	How many sub-units of EMO are established in Canada?
3.	What are the terms of reference of each EMO unit?
4.	Where are each of the EMO units located?
5.	What was the cost of each of the units during the years 1960-72 inclusive?
6.	Does the government provide any grants to municipalities that have EMO units?
7.	Do municipalities contribute financially to the EMO undertaking in their municipality?
8.	Do municipalities provide assistance by way of buildings and/or service to EMO and where are such provided and what is the value of same?
9.	What was the total cost of EMO to Canadians in each province for each of the years 1960-72 inclusive?
10.	What was the cost of EMO in each of the following cities (a) Montreal (b) Toronto (c) Winnipeg (d) Vancouver (e) Calgary (f) Edmonton (g) London (h) Windsor (i) Ottawa (j) Quebec City (k) Victoria (1) Halifax (m) Saskatoon (n) Regina (o) St. John's?
11.	Does the government propose to continue this program?
12.	What service does EMO provide?
13.	How many Canadians received training through EMO in each of the years 1960-72 inclusive and what kind of training was received and what qualifications were given?
14.	Was any money spent on advertising EMO in the years 1960-72 inclusive and, if so, how much was spent for each of the years?
15.	What courses of training are offered by EMO and who is eligible to take the training?
16.	Is EMO co-ordinated with the Canadian Forces, are any joint exercises held and, if so, on what date and in what location was the last one held?
17.	What is the composition of EMO?

June 6, 1973
Motions for Papers
18.	What are the names of the Directors?
19.	How many people are directly involved in EMO?
20.	How many sub-units are there (a) where are they located (b) who is in charge of each unit (c) how many staff people are at each location (d) what training is carried out at each location (e) what courses are offered?
Return tabled.



EMPLOYMENT IN YUKON TERRITORY

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



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 207, 209, 210, and 212.



CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-COPY OF STUDY OF ETHNIC PRESS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 207-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study made for the government of the ethnic press in Canada, undertaken as part of the Cultural Development Program.
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this study has not yet been completed and it is a document internal to the department's operations. In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: He would prefer to have it transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
CANADIAN ETHNIC STUDIES-COPY OF REPORT Motion No. 209-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the government on Canadian ethnic studies.


Gerald William Baldwin: I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf, Mr. Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the report requested is a document internal to the department's oper-

ations. In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we would like to make it external to the department's operations so would like it to be debated.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CANADIAN ETHNIC STUDIES-COPY OF ALTERNATIVES PAPER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 210-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the policy alternatives paper prepared on the basis of report to the government on Canadian ethnic studies.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this document is of a confidential nature internal to the department's operations. In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we should like it to be less confidential and would like the matter to be debated.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
IACC REPORTS TO DATE Motion No. 212-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any reports so far completed by IACC.


Gerald William Baldwin: I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf, Mr. Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Inter-Agency Co-ordinating Committee fulfils an internal co-ordinating function among government departments and agencies carrying out programs under the multicultural policy. In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: That alone, Mr. Speaker, justifies asking for it to be debated.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 6, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact we are now experiencing the highest amount of inflation we have had in almost 25 years, and given the fact the minister has indicated that he now believes most of the cause of this inflation is demand pull, is the government considering the introduction of any sort of selective credit controls to eliminate some of this excessive purchasing power in the economy?


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


James McPhail Gillies: If the government is not prepared to introduce selective credit controls, is not prepared to accept any sort of over-all wage and price controls and is not prepared to go for higher interest rates, would the minister tell the House whether or not the government is now prepared to live with this rate of inflation for the rest of the year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think I have set forth the position of the government very clearly, that the present rate of inflation results from world commodity prices and agricultural prices which, even adopting the theories advanced by my hon. friend, would not be amenable to wage and price controls. The government's response to the current position is to try to increase the supply of those commodities by lowering tariffs, encouraging agricultural production and increasing the disposable income of all Canadians.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to address to the Prime Minister. In light of the existence of the cabinet document on priorities which the Prime Minister has not rejected, has the government in fact abandoned its fight against inflation, and is price stabilization now well at the foot of the government's priority list?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the Minister of Finance arising out of the announcement that the prime interest rate is likely to go up to 7>/2 per cent from 714 per cent. In view of the fact that kind of action by the chartered banks follows action or advice by the Bank of Canada, or a contraction of the money supply on the part of the Bank of Canada, and in view of the fact that the Bank of Canada would take that
Oral Questions
action only after consultation with and approval by the government or the Minister of Finance, may I ask the minister whether he is ready to accept a further increase in the prime interest rate from 714 to 714 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the so-called announcement to which the hon. gentleman refers is based on a newspaper report this morning which is of a speculative nature. I am not going to deal with hypothetical or speculative questions on the floor of the House.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister a direct question. Is he encouraging or approving of the Bank of Canada contracting the money supply, and is he prepared to allow the prime interest rate to go higher than the present 7.25 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada is allowing the money supply to increase at least at a rate to accommodate the expansion of the economy. At the moment the rate of increase in loans by the chartered banks in the first four months of this year, as the hon. gentleman knows, is expanding at about 28 per cent, well beyond the expansionary rate of the economy, so the words he has used are not applicable to the situation.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister can make any sort of statement or speech he likes, but in view of the fact that interest rates are going up, that mortgage interest rates have followed the increase in their rate and are now up to 9 Vi per cent, in view of all these serious circumstances not only for borrowers but for home buyers, is the minister now prepared to take action together with the Bank of Canada to place a limit on interest rates so they will not go any higher than they are now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I am as conscious as the hon. gentleman of the pain of rising interest rates in this country. He has not got a monopoly on that feeling. But I want to say to him that in view of the current expansion of the economy over the last six months, at a rate of 11.6 per cent in real terms which is the fastest expansion we have ever had in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -in view of the extreme pressure of international interest rates, because despite historical trends our interest rates in the short term are still a point to a point and a half lower than those in the United States and well below those in Europe, if interest rates were not to reflect this economic expansion we would get-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are obviously getting into a debate.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I thought inflation ended two years ago, according to the Prime Minister.

June 6, 1973
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: That is another subject.


An hon. Member:: Pierre said it was over two years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That was before Turner took over.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport concerning Dorval airport, in Montreal, where there are two wings from which one can board an aircraft, the one with gate No. 40, and the other with gate No. 6. Well, it happens that we have to run the whole distance about a mile, between gate No. 40 to reach gate No. 6.
Would the minister consider providing a small bus service, for instance, from one wing to the other, which would facilitate the comings and goings, as is done in New York and in all self-respecting cities?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are considering operating small jets to enable passengers to go from one place to the other.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport tell us whether these small jets will be bilingual like his own department?


AIR CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact the machinists union is striking five cities today, and in view of the statement by Air Canada that if rotating strikes continue it will probably have to close down its operations, may I ask the minister whether the parties are any closer to a settlement, and what is the government doing to assist the parties to arrive at a settlement?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government through the appointment of a mediator, Mr. Gallagher, has been meeting almost constantly with the parties in Montreal. They have narrowed the issues down progressively each day. The situation seemed quite hopeful yesterday. They are meeting again today, right now, and I hope to have a report one way or the other some time later today.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the deteriorating aspects of this situation, has the government presented any concrete

proposals to both parties to help settle this dispute and, if not, does the government contemplate presenting such proposals?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, of course this is a process of collective bargaining between the parties, Air Canada and the machinists. The mediator's role is to endeavour to bring the parties together and achieve a reconciliation of the proposals of both sides in order to obtain a settlement of the dispute. That process is going on at the moment.


REQUEST THAT COMPANY NOT BE ALLOWED TO INCREASE FARES WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH PARLIAMENT AND REVIEW OF OPERATIONS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can he assure the House that the government will not allow Air Canada to increase its rates this year without consulting with parliament and without a full review of the management and operations of Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard that fares are going to be increased. If Air Canada gets in touch with us concerning an increase we will, of course, surely be very reluctant about any move of this kind by Air Canada.


STRIKE BY FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES AT WINNIPEG-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Is his department taking any action to bring together the parties, Air Canada and the employees in Winnipeg who have been on strike for two weeks as a result of the refusal of Air Canada even to consider accepting the unanimous recommendation of the conciliation board?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is taking action. We have a mediator on the scene who is endeavouring to his utmost to bring the parties together and try to arrive at a settlement.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether there has been the same kind of movement toward settlement of that dispute as the minister just reported with regard to the machinists' dispute?


John Carr Munro: I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL 4-H WEEK-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INITIATE SPECIAL PROGRAM TO SUPPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact 1973 is the 60th anniversary of the found-
June 6, 1973

ing of the first rural youth group in Canada, which is now made up of 6,000 4-H Clubs involving 77,000 young Canadians, and in view of the fact that November 10 to November 16 has been named National 4-H Week, would the government of Canada consider initiating a special program of support during that week to commemorate this anniversary?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government would be prepared to encourage youth groups of this kind by whatever means are legally and traditionally possible. The designation of a week is something I do not believe is generally done by the executive unless it is provided for by statute. There are certainly other ways of honouring this group and congratulating it for its very fine work, and I will do something.


PENITENTIARIES
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and has to do with the fact that one of the major complaints I have received in connection with penitentiaries is that there is overcrowding and that this applies right across the country. What is being done to provide temporary places where inmates can be kept? What is being done in order to bring about alleviation of the overcrowding?


An hon. Member:: He is letting them out.


Mr. Hees:: They are escaping.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They are all enjoying themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Have you got a reservation list?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate the overpopulation problem in the penitentiaries-


George Harris Hees: You are opening the doors.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Weekend leaves and trips to Europe.


William Warren Allmand: -we have already set up two new minimum security institutions in the west made up of trailer camps.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, one of those is situated at Drumheller, Alberta just outside the medium security
Oral Questions
institution and the other is being set up at Mission City, British Columbia. In addition, we are presently looking at several buildings that have been used as provincial institutions with a view to taking over these provincial institutions so they can be used as minimum security federal penitentiaries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously interested in this course in escape training that is taking place, but I ask the minister particularly what is being done at Prince Albert? Does the government intend to purchase the common jail there that is practically unoccupied as a means of alleviating the situation? When he is answering that question he might at the same time, having regard to the fact that two of the escaped inmates from Cowansville out for two months were picked up yesterday because of a very serious crime, advise how many crimes away he thinks it will be before he has the rest of them back?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that in Saskatchewan and Alberta we are looking at the possibility of purchasing or leasing certain provincial institutions. However, there are certain disadvantages with respect to the provincial institution in Prince Albert and we have not yet made a decision in that regard. I might point out that the trailer camps being used as minimum security institutions have been used in the past very successfully. They are used as work camps in the mountains and forests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether or not the particular tourist accommodations that he mentioned have proven to be the sieves that the penitentiaries have been under his administration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may wish to answer the question but I do not think a question asked in those terms is in order. The minister might like to rise on a question of privilege or on a point of order, but certainly the question as asked by the right hon. gentleman is clearly out of order.


William Warren Allmand: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, for years now we have had minimum security institutions where there have not been any walls and if the men at those institutions wanted to escape they could. We do not classify these as escapes in the usual way. But the majority of the escapes have not been from the minimum institutions but, unfortunately, from the medium and maximum institutions. I might say that they are no hotels. If the hon. member or any other member wishes to visit them and stay there for a while I will try to arrange it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.

June 6, 1973
Oral Questions SPORTS


SIGNING OF HOWE BROTHERS BY HOUSTON AEROS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a very serious question, perhaps as a supplementary, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of yesterday's announcement of the signing of the Howe brothers by the Houston Aeros Hockey Club and the various implications flowing from these contracts, has the minister yet agreed to a requested meeting with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and, if so, when will this meeting be held?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, most of the implications I have seen in respect of the first part of the question seem to represent a "Hulluva" lot of money for the Howe brothers. I am quite happy for them. As to a meeting with the CAHA, my office received this request only yesterday and a meeting will be set up as soon as possible.


SIGNING OF HOWE BROTHERS BY HOUSTON AEROS HOCKEY CLUB-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PREVENT RETURN TO USE OF C-FORMS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Without holding any brief for the NHL, and offering my congratulations to the Howe brothers, in view of the fact the signing of under-age players violates both the recommendation of the federal task force on sport and the agreement between the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and the NHL, an agreement now threatened by the World Hockey Association, I should like to ask what initiatives the federal government is planning to prevent the return of the primitive pre-agreement practice in which children signed C-forms committing them to long-term peonage at the hands of the international sports industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That has the appearance of a statement rather than a question. In any event, if the minister wishes to reply to the question he ought to do so by way of a statement on motions. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rephrase the question. I had just got to it. I wish to ask most seriously what initiatives the government is planning to prevent the practice that occurred before the CAHA and NHL agreement which caused considerable controversy and many problems in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair had heard the question. My suggestion was that this kind of information should be given in a general way by a statement on motions. If I am wrong, the question could be considered at the time of adjournment.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Following the minister's recent visits to the provincial capitals and his talks with Quebec officials, can he tell the House if there was any reference to the renewal of the Canada-Quebec agreement concerning the development of the Lower St. Lawrence area, the Gaspe peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, and what was his answer?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Not in precisely those terms, Mr. Speaker, and not necessarily a renewal of the existing arrangement, but a new agreement which would certainly continue to include such areas as Gaspe where additional work is clearly necessary.
[ Transla tion]


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, could the minister announce in the near future the policy of the Canadian government about those special programs which will replace the agreements with the provinces?
[ English]


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is required by the statute that such agreements be public documents. If and when one is reached, and I have every confidence it will be reached, then it will be made public.
[ Transla tion]


CIP PLANT IN TEMISCAMING-STUDIES RESPECTING POSSIBLE REOPENING-REQUEST FOR REPORT BY MINISTER
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether during the discussions concerning the Gaspe peninsula, reference was also made to the reopening of the CIP plant in Temiscaming?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As of yesterday when I arrived back in Ottawa late last night I was informed that the Quebec government had now formulated a set of recommendations which I understand has gone to the TEMBEC operators to see whether they in fact can agree with the government of Quebec. Should that occur, then our intervention would follow from that point.
June 6, 1973


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the fact that the United States Federal Aviation Authority has suggested the validity of considering withdrawal of the mandatory screening of airline passengers because of the development of a more effective revised screening system in which all passengers do not have to undergo a scrutiny check, I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to look into this and can he advise whether the implications of this move will have any effect on the passage of Bill C-128?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to obtain confirmation of this piece of news. It has not been confirmed by officials of the Washington government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister advise the House whether in fact a more adequate procedure is being developed and whether he would consider taking this into consideration during the passage of this particular piece of legislation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member does not assume that just because the United States does something we will automatically do it. However, if it makes sense I agree that we should look at it.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Terminal No. 2 in Toronto has been in use for over a month and that I have not found any members of the public or Air Canada who are satisfied with its operation, will the minister set out what he proposes to do about this terminal?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did not build Terminal No. 2 myself. It is there, and I know a lot of people are unhappy about it. We have constituted a working group with Air Canada to see how we can manage it so that the customers are better treated than they are now. I hope this group will be successful in improving the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peel South on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Has the minister made any study of the installation of at least a moving sidewalk so that people
Oral Questions
using the domestic end of the terminal will not have to walk half a mile to three quarters of a mile to and from their planes?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I receive reports from the working group we will see what solutions we can find.


INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSION BY MINISTER WITH PAROLE BOARD LEADING TO INCREASE IN RELEASE OF PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General this question. At what stage are his negotiations with the National Parole Board with regard to revitalizing a more orderly method of emptying some of our penitentiaries, which obviously should take place?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question. There are no negotiations with the Parole Board. Today I introduced a bill in the House to increase the number of members of the Parole Board by ten, in accordance with the statement I made on Friday. We hope that by doing this the board will be able to process parole applications much quicker and in a much more effective way than in the past.


William Arnold Peters: Since there was a curtailment of 25 per cent in paroles last year, obviously discussions must be taking place with the National Parole Board on why that situation developed. I would like to know from the minister whether he has been able to correct this situation and have it return to normal so that an extra 25 per cent of our prison population will be released?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the reason there was quite a cutback in paroles last year was the fact that there was a high rate of violations when people were on parole. As a result, a lot of people out on parole came back into the institutions, and the board reconsidered its policy of granting parole on the basis it had done so in the previous year. However, I agree that there are probably a lot of people in penitentiary who should be out on parole, and we hope that with these new guidelines and new members it will be possible to deal with paroles in a more effective way.

[ Transla tion]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
The labour dispute at the Lauzon shipyard having serious effects on the regional economy, could the minister

June 6, 1973
Oral Questions
say whether he had discussions with the Quebec labour minister, what position he intends to adopt regarding that matter, and whether he intends to make a relevant statement in the near future?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any talks with the Minister of Labour of Quebec, but I am prepared at the earliest opportunity to give further details to the hon. member.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On March 26 the minister assured me he would inquire concerning the reason why Air Canada flight No. 141 from Toronto to Calgary was turned back. On March 28 the minister sent me a letter stating that the engine did not explode or catch fire after takeoff. Subsequent to the receipt of this letter-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: -I concluded my own investigation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question, not for the purpose of revealing to the House the results of his investigation.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: I would now like to ask the minister if he is prepared to issue a new statement, or is he prepared to stand behind his communication of March 28?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to doublecheck the information I gave.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Maybe we will find out that the hon. member is a better inquirer.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister agree with the president of Canadian National Railways that the CNR has no responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I thank hon. members who want to give advice and guidance to the Chair, but I think it is irregular for members to try to guide the Chair in determining whether or not a question is in order. The hon. member for Hastings has the floor, but he should ask his question directly, and not ask the minister to confirm a statement or an opinion expressed by someone outside the House.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister whether he and the government feel the CNR has no responsibility to help remove economic disparities by lowering freight rates?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is purely a hypothetical question. I never heard Mr. MacMillan say that, and if he made a statement I would like to read it myself.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, since I was not allowed to refer to the document I merely asked the minister whether the Department of Transport and the government do not feel that the CNR has a responsibility to help remove economic disparity, and I did not refer to what Mr. MacMillan said.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to read Mr. MacMillan's statement before discussing it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


OPEN QUOTAS ON WHEAT-REQUEST THAT FARMERS RECEIVE SAME PAYMENT THIS YEAR AS NEXT YEAR TO ENSURE DELIVERIES
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact the Wheat Board now has open quotas on wheat and other grain deliveries, would the minister assure, in order to provide the full flow of grain to elevators necessary at this time to meet our commitments, that farmers will receive the same type of payment this year as next year and thus provide them with a guarantee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we had quite an exchange on this subject yesterday. I indicated that I certainly expected the flow of grain to continue, and there is every sign that it will. I certainly cannot tell the hon. member that prices will not be in total, higher in the crop year 1973-74 than they are in the crop year 1972-73. The initial prices are at the same level for both years in the case of wheat.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will the minister provide a supplementary payment for those producers delivering this year to match the same level of payment that will be made next year in order to assure deliveries and avoid the embarrassment of having to buy wheat from other countries?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no possible question of having to buy grain from other countries, and it does a disservice to the Wheat Board and the grain industry to
June 6, 1973

suggest it. In fact, as I indicated yesterday in the House, many farmers are not delivering grain because they are concerned about their income tax payments for 1973, and any additional supplementary payment would cause additional problems in that regard.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the announcement by the minister yesterday of the appointment of Mr. William Teron as President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, would the minister inform the House of the exact manner in which Mr. Teron has divested himself of his financial interests in the following corporations: William Teron and Associates, Etron Limited, Marina City, Kingston, Limited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask a question.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Speaker, that was part of the question. There is quite a list. I will not read all of them but I have one I would like to get into the record- Power Corporation of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister's statement made clear yesterday, Mr. Teron has either divested himself or has undertaken to divest himself of those properties which would give rise to any possible or apparent conflict of interest with his operation as president and the other properties will be managed by trustees. I resent the implication of the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: What about the waterfront park?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and I know that Mr. Teron-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. There are a number of members anxious to ask questions and we will be running short of time. The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: I would like to ask the minister if he would inform the House whether Mr. Teron is still a member of the Liberal party's task force on housing and cities?


An hon. Member:: Answer that.
Oral Questions Mr. Basford: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lisgar. Mr. Hees: That is how he got the job.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statements made yesterday in the committee on agriculture to the effect that the feed grains policy may or may not be discussed with the committee when it is presented, I should like to ask the minister if it is true that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be in Drummondville, Quebec, on June 12 to discuss the feed grain policy with the union of agricultural producers in that province?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said in committee. I am not responsible for what the Minister of National Health and Welfare or any other minister may say or do in taking part in any meetings in Drummondville, Quebec, or any other place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, but there are only three minutes left before the end of the question period. There are about 20 members rising but many of them could save themselves the effort as it is obvious that they will not be recognized. The hon. member has a supplementary and will be recognized.


Jack Burnett Murta: Although the minister may or may not agree with what may be said at that meeting, has he, contrary to what was stated yesterday, made a decision on a feed grain policy, and will the minister be stating government policy at that meeting?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when a decision is made on the feed grain policy it will be announced in the proper fashion.


SOYBEAN FEEDS- REQUEST FOR ACTION TO LOWER AND CONTROL PRICE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and also pertains to feed grains. The price of soybeans and feeds containing this commodity used by farmers for feeding livestock has recently risen faster than the price of gold and beyond any reasonable level. Will the minister please take action to reduce and control the price of this product?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, parliament has not given me that

Oral Questions
authority but I will be happy to discuss the issue with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Has the minister had any representations from the Minister of Agriculture regarding this serious situation?


HARBOURS
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the Minister of Transport and I am sure he will give me a straightforward answer. In view of the urgent need for improvements to the facilities at the port of Churchill, and in view of the delay caused by lack of direction on the part of the minister, would the minister make a statement on motions of the policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is not in order. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question.


Charles Keith Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the House whether it is the intention of his department to use the two million dollars placed in the estimates by the minister for improvement of the port facilities to the benefit of all western Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered a similar question last week, that I had received a report concerning the port of Churchill. I sent it back to the marine administration of my department and I am expecting to have some recommendations very soon. At that moment I will tell the hon. gentleman what we intend to do.


FINANCE
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Having regard to the rapidly increasing rates for shelter and having regard to the fact that this is caused by the increase in mortgage interest rates and the fact that the cost of lumber has gone up by some 300 per cent in the last two years, will the minister now reduce or eliminate the excise tax on construction materials and, if not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the prime factors in the rise in the price of lumber is the fact that price controls were released in the United States over lumber and that affected the Canadian market immeasurably.


CITIZENSHIP
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the minister's outline today of measures designed to make immigrants feel more at home in Canada, and in view of the fact that an alien woman marrying a Canadian citizen can become a Canadian at the end of one year, while the alien husband of a Canadian woman must wait five years to become a Canadian citizen, does the minister intend to introduce legislation this session to wipe out this discrimination against the male sex?


James Hugh Faulkner: Not
this session, Mr. Speaker.
\ Later:]


Winona Grace MacInnis: Can the minister tell the House if and when the government, if it survives, intends to introduce such long overdue legislation?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the problem has nothing to do with survival; it has to do with a rather crowded order paper. As the hon. member knows, there are amendments to the Citizenship Act which 1 and other members would like to make and it will all be done at such time as I can negotiate with the House leader.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the concern expressed earlier this week at a meeting of air stewardesses in Toronto that the new non-uniform for Air Canada stewardesses could lead to great difficulty in times of emergency-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Explain!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -in
terms of maintaining order in times of emergency because of difficulty in telling stewardesses from passengers, would the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth has a supplementary from yesterday.
June 6, 1973


PENITENTIARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to ask a supplementary from yesterday but if it will get me recognition I certainly will. My question is to the Solicitor General. Will the minister table in the House the document he referred to giving directions for the upgrading of the facilities surrounding medium security prisons in Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said there was a document. I said that instructions were given-


An hon. Member:: Somebody stole it.


William Warren Allmand: I will check whether instructions were given by telephone, wire, or special document and see what can be done to answer the hon. member.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of a report prepared by the Canadian Transport Commission which discounted the Arctic oil railway proposals and concluded that they were unrealistic?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the reports of the imminent sale of 71.4 per cent of the shares of Avis Transport of Canada Limited, of which the minister and some members of his family are major shareholders, to a United States purchaser for $2.6 million, would the minister consider postponing the sale until the passage of the foreign takeover bill so that such sale could be judged under the provisions of the act?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of a trust, unfortunately, I have no control over the sale or otherwise. I should point out I have been given to understand that if the sale goes through it will be in conformity with the terms of the act.
Oral Questions HEALTH



REMOVAL OF DRUG SISTOSAN FROM APPROVED LIST-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that sistosan, the anti-haemorrhagic drug developed by Dr. Luigi Pancaro of Sudbury, has been removed from the approved list by the food and drug administration after being in use for 33 years and the doctor has not been given a reason for this, would the minister undertake to issue a statement on why the drug was removed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the drug was removed because it was found ineffective.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Edmonton West and then call orders of the day.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact the drug was on the market from 1934 to 1967, how can the minister say it was ineffective when it was in use for 33 years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously argument, not a supplementary question.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister consider favourably a request that he table on Friday the regulations that will define manufacturing and processing profits as defined within the act and as required by the proposal he is making, with regard to the cut in taxation on corporate profits?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
4500
Ways and Means



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1973

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act laid upon the table on Tuesday, May 29, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971.
John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, May 29, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-192, to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2), be read the first time and printed.


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

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-193, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3) be read the first time and printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, laid upon the Table, Monday, February 19, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-194, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act (No. 2), be read the first time and printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion respecting the Customs Tariff.
John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion respecting Customs Tariff, laid upon the Table, Monday, February 19, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-195, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 2), be read the first time and printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 4318).
That this House,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following Principles for achieving the foregoing:
(1)	that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will be first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;
June 6, 1973
[Stage Direction]
(3)	that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
(4)	that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal Public Service, will be entitled to apply for any job that has been identified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willingness to become bilingual;
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the Public Service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
(9)	that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the Public Service to bilingual positions;
do further approve the Government of Canada, and in particular, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned Principles; and
(ii) do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the Public Service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French Language Units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the Governments of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual character of the National Capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the Public Service by members of both the anglophone and the francophone communities.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the special order made Tuesday, June 5, 1973, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred vote. The question is on the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
[ Translation]
Pursuant to special order made on June 5, 1973, the House will now proceed to the recorded division on the amendment proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Call in the members.
[ English]


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Stanfield) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 24)
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Andre
Arrol
Atkey
Baker
++YEAS
Messrs:
Baldwin
Balfour
Bawden
Beattie
(Hamilton
Mountain)
Beatty
(Wellington-
Grey-DufTerin-
Waterloo)
Bell
Blenkam
Official Languages Messrs:
Carter	Howie	MorganClark	Hueglin	Muir(Rocky Mountain)	Hurlburt	MunroClarke	Jarvis	(Esquimalt-(Vancouver	Kempling	Saanlch)Quadra)	Knowles	MurtaCoates	(Norfolk-	NeilCossitt	Haldimand)	(Moose Jaw)Crouse	Korchinski	NowlanDanforth	Kuntz	OberleDarling	Lambert	O'ConnorDick	(Edmonton West)	O'SullivanDinsdale	LaSalle	PaproskiEllis	Lawrence	PetersEpp	Lundrigan	ReillyFairweather	MacDonald	ReynoldsForrestall	(Egmont)	RitchieFrank	MacDonald (Miss)	RocheGillies	(Kingston and	SchellenbergerGrafftey	the Islands)	SchumacherHales	MacKay	ScottHaliburton	MacLean	StackhouseHargrave	Macquarrie	StanfieldHees	Madill	StevensHigson	Marshall	StewartHollands	Mazankowski	(Marquette)Holmes	McCain	TaylorHomer	McCleave	Thomas(Crowfoot)	McGrath	(Moncton)Homer	McKenzie	Towers(Battleford-	McKinley	WagnerKindersley)	McKinnon	WhittakerHoward	Mitges
NAYS Messrs:	Wise Woolliams-96.Allard	De Bane	HerbertAllmand	Demers	HopkinsAndras	Dionne	HymmenBarnett	Douglas	IsabelleBasford	Drury	JamiesonBeaudoin	Dube	JeromeBechard ,	Dupont	KnightBegin (Miss)	Dupras	KnowlesBenjamin	Duiquet	(WinnipegBlackburn	Ethier	North Centre)Blais	Faulkner	LachanceBlaker	Firth	LaflammeBlouin	Fleming	LajoieBoulanger	Fortin	LalondeBreau	Foster	LambertBrewin	Fox	(Bellechasse)Broadbent	Gauthier	LangBuchanan	(Roberval)	LangloisCaccia	Gauthier	LanlelCafik	(Ottawa East)	LapriseCaouette	Gendron	Leblanc(Charlevoix)	Gilbert	(Lauirier)Caouette	Gillespie	LeBlanc(Temiscamingue)	Gleave	(Westmorland-Caron	Godin	Kent)Chretien	Goyer	LefebvreClermont	Gray	LeggattComtois	Grier	LessardCorbin	Guay	LewisCorriveau	(St. Boniface)	L'HeureuxCote	Guay (Ldvis)	LoiselleCullen	Guilbault	MacdonaldCyr	Haidasz	(Rosedale)Danson	Harding	MacEaehenDavis	Harney	MacGuigan
4502
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1973
Official Languages Messrs:
Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Pelletier	Smith(Vancouver	(Hochelaga)	(Saint-Jean)Kingsway)	Pelletier	StanburyMarceau	(Sherbrooke)	StewartMarchand	Penner	(Okanagan-(Langelier)	Portelance	Kootenay)Marchand	Poulin	Stewart(Kamloops-	Prud'homme	(Cochrane)Cariboo)	Railton	StolleryMather	Reid	SymesMatte	Rodriguez	TrudeauMcRae	Rompkey	TrudelMorin (Mrs.)	Rooney	TurnerMunro	Rose	(London(Hamilton East)	Roy	East)Neale	(Timmins)	Turner(Vancouver	Roy	(Ottawa-East)	(Laval)	Carleton)Nelson	Saltsman	WalkerNesdoly	Sauve (Mrs.)	WatsonNystrom	Sharp	WhelanOlaussen	Smith	WhicherOlivier	(Northumberland-	Yanakis-143.Orlikow	Miramichi)	Ouellet
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if they all run away they will obviously understand nothing.
We have just voted on one amendment. I do not think I am entitled to comment on this vote. However, what I find strange in the resolution of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is its lack of clarification. For instance, I went through the nine points submitted to Parliament. We have just decided that this resolution cannot become law but will still remain a resolution. Paragraph (6) reads as follows, and I quote:
(6) that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
I think that this completely destroys the resolution.
On television last night I heard the remarks of the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). He was saying that this resolution will not in the least improve the situation.
Generally speaking, I agree. For the last few years we have been talking about official languages, bilingualism, equal treatment for French- and English-speaking Canadians and after three of four years of tentative action here and there we hear the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Spicer, say that bilingualism has become a gross farce to the disadvantage of French-Canadians.
I do not intend to fight the assistance which the government wants to grant to our linguistic elements. However, I must quote a statement made by the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as recorded on page 4396 of Hansard of June 4:
-He did not tell-
-meaning the Prime Minister-
-He did not tell the House why it is that at a time when critical

national issues confront us, parliament is being asked by the Prime Minister to masticate material already digested.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member used polite terms to say roughly what the Prime Minister said to the Lapalme boys a few years back.
The discussion of the past few days allows us to repeat what we have been saying for a number of years, that those are only pious wishes expressed in the House. In fact, even during this session we have seen how various departments make light of bilingualism or biculturalism and care little about treating English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians equally.
I have here a letter from the Department of Transport- the minister just left-addressed to:
Champlain Service Emilien Dube Riviere Portneuf Saguenay, Quebec
Mr. Dube does not know a word of English. But he is sent a document which reads as follows:
Transport Transports NEWS-NOUVELLES Canada Canada
It is entirely in English, two full pages, and not a word of French. The Department of Transport and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) sent that news letter to Riviere Portneuf in the Saguenay area to Mr. Dube who does not know a single word of English.


An hon. Member:: It is a mistake!


David Réal Caouette: It is a mistake? Then let us take another department, Mr. Speaker. I have here another letter, and I quote:
Plant Products Division Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C5
May 29, 1973
Mr. Louis Paquin 77 Rue St. Thomas Montmagny, P.Q.
Mr. Paquin does not know a word of English. He received a letter signed by:
R. H. Davidson Feed Unit
It is certainly not "fed" neither in English nor in French.
Mr. Speaker, that is a letter written entirely in English from one of the divisions of the Department of Agriculture, and this occurred after three, four or five trial years.
Mr. Speaker, eleven years ago, when I was requesting from Air Canada more French spoken by its stewardesses, I used to receive the following reply: Yes, this is going to be improved.
When we were elected in 1962, the Parliamentary Rules were written in English and I must pay tribute to the former Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who gave instructions to translate the Parliamentary Rules into French as early as 1962.

June 6, 1973

At present we travel by plane, for instance, between Montreal and Vancouver. It still happens that we cannot get a French answer on the plane. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against a young lady-whether her name is Smith, Lanier, Caouette or Trudeau, I do not mind-but let them give us services in both languages! I would object if a stewardess could not speak English to English-speaking passengers. I am convinced that no English-speaking Canadians would tolerate unilingualism on Air Canada flights, over the CBC or in any other Crown Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, this is not asking too much but we have not yet succeeded in obtaining it and now the government is putting forward a resolution which says that any incumbent of an English unilingual position may elect to undertake French language training and keep his position if he wants to, even though he does not want to become bilingual. This is the whole matter which generates division throughout Canada.
We are spending millions of dollars to tell Englishspeaking Canadians to learn French, and French-speaking Canadians to learn English, although we will never succeed in making an English speaking individual out of a French Canadian nor a French speaking individual out of an English speaking one. This is a point that we must always keep in mind. We will never succeed in doing it.
But we must find a solution that seems acceptable to both groups, a solution allowing English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians to preserve their respective characteristics. I note that for the past three, four or five days the resolution has been criticized by all opposition leaders and by other members. At one point, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) decided to move an amendment aimed at giving the force of law to a useless resolution. This is far from being very bright.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to move an amendment. My friend the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) referred to it last Thursday and I would like to develop those points which we want to explain clearly in this House and outside for the benefit of all Canadians.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the motion be amended by removing, after "the foregoing:1* in the fourth paragraph, the nine principles which are listed, and substituting therefor the following:
(1)	Bilingualism cannot be considered as a basic factor of
qualification.
That is clear. If an English-speaking person is more qualified than a bilingual person in a certain field, he must be given the job even though he is unilingual. In doing so, we respect both the English- and French-speaking people in Canada. This would work both ways. We should not look for difficulties where there are none as we are doing right now.
A moment ago, I referred to airline stewardesses. Mr. Speaker, often times, a unilingual English stewardess gets a job with Air Canada. But a French Canadian stewardess who is not bilingual cannot get a job even in Montreal, even in Rouyn-Noranda, my hometown. Why should one have to speak two languages and the other be accepted though unilingual?
Official Languages
If we had truly parallel administrations for the whole nation we would not have the kind of situation we have at present. Then, as specified in our amendment, and I quote:
(1)	that bilingualism cannot be considered as an essential factor of competence;
(2)	that the knowledge of both official languages is required only for administrative positions where it becomes a criterion of competence, such as telephone operator, hostess, train conductor, receptionist, etc.;
In such cases, the knowledge of both languages may be required.
(3)	that everyone is free to speak the language of his or her choice in Canada;
I find it rather stupid to tell a civil servant: If you want to save your job, learn French. In fact, why should we tell a man of 50: Learn the other language or you might lose your job, you will be transferred or we will make changes which will upset everything. When someone is 50 years old, it is not the right time to tell him: Learn the second language that you must know.
I said it everywhere in Canada: If we want one day both languages to be known throughout Canada, let us start in the first grade to teach both official languages to our children and in less than five years, we will have people who speak French in British Columbia, in Nova Scotia, in Quebec and in Ontario.
Then, it might be done, but nobody should have to learn another language at 50, especially if we must spend hundreds of millions of dollars and tell people: Learn this language, we will help you. Then again, there are more Anglo-Saxons to help than French Canadians who speak French; so English people are given more opportunities to learn French and French people to learn English.
Mr. Speaker, I go on quoting our amendment:
(4)	that, account being taken of geographical and demograph-ical circumstances, everyone in Canada has the right to be served and administered in the official language of his or her choice;
(5)	that unilingualism cannot prevent a civil servant in the Canadian government from being eligible for senior positions; . . .
That means that all present public servants would keep their positions if we applied a really Canadian national policy.
I resume the quotation:
.. . therefore, the government undertakes to set up, organize and implement a parallel administration, one English-speaking, the other French-speaking, in all departments of the federal government;
It is being done at the present time in the CBC, for instance, where there is an English network and a French network. That was established by the government of that time.
We have Air Canada with an English section and a French section. We have a president of our own and the English section also has its own. Do we ever see the English or the French squabbling over senior positions in Air Canada?


An hon. Member:: ... in the CBC.


David Réal Caouette: I said the CBC.


An hon. Member:: No, you said Air Canada.

June 6, 1973
Official Languages


David Réal Caouette: Maybe, but I meant the CBC, where there are two presidents.
Now, we are not asking for the appointment of two ministers, but for two deputy ministers, and parallel administrations in all the Federal government departments. Thus, each department would have two sections: one English and one French. The size of each would depend on the needs. They would not have the same number of employees, of course, as there are fewer French-speaking Canadians than English-speaking Canadians.
Coming back to the amendment, I quote:
... the size of these sections shall be proportional to the requirements of their respective administrative needs, which means that the departments shall not necessarily have the same number of employees;
(b) these departments shall be autonomous entities with equal responsibilities up to the deputy minister level.
It would not matter whether the minister be Frenchspeaking or English-speaking!
I continue the quotation:
.. . both the English-speaking and the French-speaking deputy ministers having similar authority and similar responsibilities;
Had we implemented that principle, we would not receive such letters in the Saguenay area, in Montmagny, or in areas of the province of Quebec where only French is spoken.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (c) reads as follows: promotions in each department shall be based exclusively on merit.
Promotion should be granted to a civil servant not because he speaks French or English, but because of his actual skills.
Those are the points we would like this House to understand so we can finally stop quarrelling all across Canada and hearing the Anglo-Saxons say that French-speaking Canadians demand too much and French-speaking Canadians complain that English take everything.
Mr. Speaker, with parallel administrations, we would certainly have gained much ground. For instance, when you see that $29,000 are now being spent in trying to make someone bilingual with hardly any positive results, that $54,000 or $55,000 are being spent to allow someone to learn the other culture in Canada, you must agree that these things will never be accepted by Canadians as a whole.
Someone will probably ask me: What is it going to cost the government? It will cost national unity. And we will achieve national unity provided the identity of everyone is respected, provided equal opportunity is given every Canadian with a law that allows everyone to be himself.
Mr. Speaker, as to the resolution moved by the right hon. Prime Minister, I did not attend the cabinet meeting, but I was told by a member of the Liberal party that the whole story was fabricated, made up and presented to the government by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Then, if everything is settled in advance, why do we discuss those questions here? If the civil servants are the ones who decide for the government, who say to the

government: We are in charge, and you are going to act in such and such a way, why then should a resolution be submitted to us?
In a debate as this one, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the whole resolution is defeated by the sixth principle and the last paragraph which reads as follows:
(ii) do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the public service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French language units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual character of the national capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the public service by members of both the anglophone and the francophone communities.
This is again total confusion. In one paragraph the objective is to save national unity whereas in another paragraph it is attacked. A third paragraph states: You can remain what you are; if you are not satisfied, do something else.
We are presenting objectively our amendement to the House and we believe that parallel administrations would be no disappointment to anyone ans would be helpful to everyone. We would no longer hear an English civil servant say: Down with French civil servants and vice versa but Canadians would be on the same footing before the law and the same chances would be offered to all Canadians.
That is the amendment we are proposing and I hope the House will study it most carefully.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue) seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting, after the words "the foregoing" in the fourth paragraph, the nine Principles listed therein and substituting therefor the following Principles:
(1)	that bilingualism cannot be considered as an essential factor of competence;
(2)	that the knowledge of both official languages is required only for administrative positions where it becomes a criterion of competence, such as telephone operator, hostess, train conductor, receptionist, etc.;
(3)	that everyone is free to speak the language of his or her choice in Canada;
(4)	that, account being taken of geographical and demograph-ical circumstances, everyone in Canada has the right to be served and administered in the official language of his or her choice;
(5)	that unilingualism cannot prevent a civil servant in the Canadian government from being eligible for senior positions; therefore, the government undertakes to set up, organize and implement a parallel administration, one English-speaking, the other French-speaking, in all departments of the federal government;
(a)	each department shall have two sections, one English, the other French; the size of these sections shall be proportional to the requirements of their respective administrative needs, which means that the departments shall not necessarily have the same number of employees;
(b)	these departments shall be autonomous entities with equal responsibilities up to the deputy minister level, both the English-speaking and the French-speaking deputy ministers having similar authority and similar responsibilities;
June 6, 1973

(c) promotions in each department shall be based exclusively on merit.


Mr. Heath Macguarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we all have certain oratorical cliches. One of mine is that I usually begin participation in debate by saying it is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I do not say that this time. Indeed, I enter this debate with a certain heaviness of heart because I have a feeling that the whole discussion is not likely to be helpful, although I will say, and say with sincerity, that there have been speeches of a very high order and among those I would list that of my leader, that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) and that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). However, there have been other utterances, and I regret to say some of them by the Prime Minister, in this House which have not indicated statesmanship and which have not been conducive to national unity.
I heard the Prime Minister when he spoke on the draft address and I also recall-I wish I did not-his malicious oratory when he spoke of certain people ending up as elevator operators. On this issue, there have been too many irritants and too many occasions when thoughtful silence would have been preferable to the smart utterance. I do not wish to denigrate a public servant and suggest that one utterance should characterize his whole performance, but I think Mr. Spicer's remarks about the Rhodesians might have been far better left unsaid. I heard him also on the radio last Sunday and I thought, when one woman phoned in and said that one of her children had learned French and the other had not, I had detected his approach of zeroing in on the one that had not, rather than of commending her in respect of the one that had. I have been in public life long enough to know it is much easier to catch the attention of the press and the public by the dramatic overstatement. Indeed, if he seeks publicity, the way of the moderate is hard.
While regretting the introduction of this measure at this time, and deploring the extremists on either side of the argument, I certainly plan to support this resolution and thereby renew my commitment to bilingualism, no matter how imperfect and sometimes hurtful has been its implementation so far. There is no immutable law, no certainty which declares that this Dominion shall endure. But it is my determination and my commitment that no intemperate remark of mine, no unwillingness to compromise, no unreadiness to understand others' views and aspirations will make even a tiny contribution to the weakening of the great experiment in nation building which began in my province, and indeed in my constituency in 1864.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If I did not make this clear commitment I think I would be unworthy to represent the cradle of Confederation.
The Prime Minister the other night expressed the view that the existence of two official languages was not primarily because of any historical founding rights. I am inclined to give more weight to history on this matter. The British North America Act, the product of compromise and conciliation of the men of Canada, Nova Scotia, New
Official Languages
Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island did establish a bilingual parliament. This matter was formally settled over a century ago. About that particular document and that particular provision the great Liberal historian Professor Lower, has said:
Similarly, the spirit of the Act, removed all distinction of status between French and English. The Act symbolized an agreement between the races to live and let live and gave a formula for the solution of the antagonisms that had brought the wheels of government to a stop. French speaking Canadians could only point to one or two specific clauses in hard legal support of their 'rights', but their claim would be that there were but 'the evidence of things unseen', the crystallization into law of understandings reached behind the scenes, of the compromises and mutual confidence which alone could have brought forth Confederation.
In Confederation, English and French, after a stormy courtship, took each other for better or worse, and whether the marriage had much prospect of being happy or not, it must, like other marriages create a reasonable degree of equality between the contracting parties.
I love to quote Professor Lower, who was one of the greatest teachers I ever had, and one of the greatest Liberals I ever ran across. The last time I saw him I gave him a little party in Charlottetown, and when he took leave of me he said: "I wish you well, Heath, even though you are a Conservative."
I mention the British North America Act because surely if the parliament of the country is to be bilingual, and to be established as bilingual, it is normal and natural to assume that the administrative bureaucracy through which parliament functions should reflect that bilingualism. Doubtless part of our anguish and frustration today stems from the fact that we are seeking to do in a decade what was essentially neglected for ten.
I listened carefully to the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette). I always listen to him, Mr. Speaker. I honour him as a good federalist. He comes out with some strange ideas at times, and with some practical suggestions too. When he refers to the delay in making bilingualism a fact I am very much in sympathy with him. He mentioned Beauchesne. When I came to this House Beauchesne was available only in English, and God knows it is hard enough to understand even written in your own language. Here I mention that Dr. Beauchesne was not a Scottish Canadian. His book was printed in English from 1922 to 1959, and its publication in French was one of the fine things that did take place under the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er), that and simultaneous translation in this chamber. Until 1959, French speaking members had the right to speak, but not the technical right to be heard by those who did not know their language. And of course, it worked the other way also.
As has been noted in this debate previously, principally by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) who made a most excellent speech, the earlier emotional tensions and divisions in this country were more heavily weighted on the religious rather than the linguistic side. Even the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier could write as late as 1911:
It is becoming more and more manifest to me that it was not reciprocity that was turned down but a Catholic premier.

June 6, 1973
Of tidal Languages
Making allowance for the shock and pain which we are told is felt by all holders of high office on defeat, it is interesting that Laurier felt no repudiation of his ethnic background or linguistic category. Tension, then, was over religion.
But these strains did come very close, down through our history, to being a continuation of what Lord Durham described in 1837 as "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state." Deep cleavages such as those over separate schools, the autonomy bills of 1905, the ne tempere decree, and regulation 17 have been with this country down through the generations, and we are naive to think that the question of disunity is unique to our day and age. Indeed, since we became a country it has always been the test of statesmanship to resist and diminish the centrifugal forces which in Canada, in such a vast country, come into play far too easily. Confederation was not easily attained. We have always underestimated the eminence of the Macdonalds, Cartiers, Browns, McGees, Tuppers and others who were great nation builders. It was not easy for them to bring the country together. Nor is it easy to keep it together. Without goodwill, moderation, reasonableness and conciliation it will not hold together.
Reference has been made more than once to Sir John A. Macdonald, the founder of my party and, I think, the chief founder of the country. He had many virtues and some vices. But while he could be intemperate in some things he was ever temperate, wise and moderate on the issue of relations between the two major groups comprising the dominion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) quoted Sir John the other night in direct reference to the language issue, when Macdonald said:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other; I believe that it would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.
Those are fine, wonderful words. Many years ago Sir John A. Macdonald wrote to a Montreal editor, and I am sure many hon. members are familiar with this quotation:
The trouble is that you British Canadians can never forget that you were once supreme, that John Baptiste was once your hewer of wood and drawer of water. You struggle for ascendency. If a lower Canadian Britisher desires to conquer he must stoop to conquer. He must make friends with the French without sacrificing the principles of his race or lineage. He must respect their nationality. Treat them as a nation and they will act as a free people generally do-generously. Treat them as a faction and they will become factious.
The phraseology is antique but the spirit, the sentiment is there. And of that particular passage again my old mentor, Professor Lower, wrote:
-wise words, the beginning and end of our Canadian puzzle but by few indeed taken to heart.
I give one final quote from Dr. Lower, who must love to be forming part of a Progressive Conservative member's speech! Here, I recall what he said about Macdonald:
-his stand with respect to the race question was consistent throughout his life whatever the cost to himself ... he refused to raise the race cry at a time when he was in low political water.
I am proud that the father of my party in this, the eighty-second anniversay of his death, left such noble sentiments to guide us on this very serious matter. In
these difficult days it is our task, indeed our duty, to ameliorate not exacerbate those things which might divide us, moderate not accentuate the irritants which could weaken the frail fabric of federation, and at times indeed it appears frail. It is my belief that we would be unworthy of our present and our past if we brought to an end the experiment launched with wisdom and foresight by our political ancestors in Charlottetown in 1864. I intend to do my humble bit to help strengthen the dynamic unity of this country.
The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) on Monday praised the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I appreciate and I echo his sentiments. There is a deal of personalizing entering into this debate. Mr. Speaker, I attended my first political meeting at the age of 11, and I have had the privilege of knowing the greats and the near greats of my party over a good many years. I remember all the numerous defeats and the few victories, and it is an honour to know those who are dedicated to a political party because I believe that Lord Bryce is right, that parliamentary democracy cannot function without political parties.
I have never been reluctant to parade my belief in political parties, and in their function. I would like to say I rejoice in the mind and in the manner of the man who is now our leader. Him I have known for 25 years. I was extremely young when I first met him! He came to the leadership of our party pledged to do his utmost for the unity of Canada. He has adhered to that pledge, and no man of all the men who have led our party with honour and distinction, and I am not reluctant to praise them all, no man has been more honourable, more consistent, more faithful in his determination to place country ahead of party, and the unity of the nation ahead of any seeming temporary partisan or political advantage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: One of the great statesmen of an earlier age said that the worst ill which could befall any country would be for it to be divided on political lines paralleling lines of race or lines of religion. He said that that kind of strain no political entity could stand. To those who look only superficially, we might appear to be close to that situation in Canada today, but I say that those who look more deeply than that, know in fact that that is not the case.
One of the things of which I was most proud in the Leader of the Opposition-and I know he will not care for these references I am making-was that after the election on October 30, when it would have been natural and normal that he might have been disappointed in the response to his program and of his people in the province of Quebec, he wasted no time in recriminating, no time in repining, no time in regretting but said straightforwardly, simply and sincerely, "I would not feel content about forming a government with little representation from Quebec". This was a speech that he made in Edmonton, after that near miss on October 30. It is my belief that he will be forming a government and that he will be having representation from Quebec.

June 6, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Indeed, the more I see at close hand our new member from Quebec, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) I say that our setback there was only numerical and it is only temporary. Him, I honour as a man who serves his province, who serves his country with dignity, with presence, with moderation and with wisdom and I would class him, although he may not enjoy this sort of adulation either, as the modern Cartier of this nation. I think when this matter is disposed of and we move on to pressing things of an economic nature, that it is for all of us to set aside our differences, to ameliorate dissention and to make sure that in the development of the concept of bilingualism people are not injured. This, of course, is the great problem, when you take a good idea and apply it people are injured. This has been the problem that has caused anxiety to many, many Canadians.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette). I cannot say his resolution commends itself to me or to my colleagues. It seems to me that to follow the course which he has mapped out, to support the resolution which he has advanced would, for a long time to come, give firmness and fabric to the very thing we do not want in this country, that is the continuation of the two solitudes, an expression that a distinguished Mari-timer and great author used some years ago. I think we should be standing together and we should be governing the country together.
Not all of us will speak the same tongue. I notice that most people in this debate have expressed some of their remarks in English and some in French. I am not so confident of national unity that I would attempt to speak in French! I commend the present Leader of the Opposition who has become bilingual, and I commend members in the Social Credit Party for what they have done in this regard. But, as for their resolution, we do not want to preserve, to jell, the separation of our groups. We want to find ways where meaningfully we can work together to make the country the land of all, regardless of background. This surely was the vision of those who met in Charlottetown and Quebec City; this is what it was about.
I never liked to hear this expression "the patriation of the constitution"; I maintain the expression is "repatriation" because the constitution was made in Canada by Canadians, by people of the dominion and it was only a technicality that caused it to be processed in Britain. It was our achievement, by our great men of the nation, of the dominion. At times like this we have to be on the alert for those things which would divide that unity, which would diminish that entity, which was created by our political forefathers, men of wisdom, men of reason, men of understanding, men of broad vision. We must keep these visions of tolerance and understanding. These are the keynotes, these are what are called for in difficult days. In its application, bilingualism is difficult. People will be inconvenienced and worse, but we must set our eyes upon a high and noble goal and we must work together for it.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) was wondering about the motives of this resolution. I profoundly hope that no one introduced this measure as a device to diminish the effectiveness of my political party.
Official Languages
I profoundly hope that this is not the case but I am in a position to say-and I am not a stripling in the party any more-that any one who had that illusion was totally wrong. Our party is not a newcomer when it comes to concern for national unity. Down through the ages we have held beliefs and initiated practices that put us in the position where we have to take a back seat to no other group. Not that I am boasting that we are better than others or that we have more regard, but we have not been unmindful of those things which unite rather than divide the country.
In conclusion, I am happy to say that we are led by a man, the present Leader of the Opposition, who, while he may be short on charisma is long on character and who will give that kind of leadership in his present role as well as a role which will come his way before long I think, that will cause Canadians of all backgrounds and different languages to be confident that he is a fit and proper repository of their confidence, a man who has the statesmanlike qualities which marked men like Macdonald and Laurier, men of moderation and goodwill who have generally been the people in whom the Canadian people have reposed their confidence for the longest periods.
So, Mr. Speaker, while I have noted and deplored some of the irritating features of this matter, I renew my commitment to the principle of bilingualism. May it be a hopeful factor for building a better Canada; may it be a factor causing all Canadians to feel that this indeed is a land worthy of their confidence, worthy of continuing fidelity. I hope we will not soon again have to be asked to renew our belief in something which most of us made clear only a few years ago. Let us say that now the issue has been settled, let us make bilingualism work with fairness with justice, with efficiency for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues tell me they are all behind me, and I shall feel secure-until I turn round. Being the whip of my party, I have sometimes tried to convince members not to take part in a debate in order to allow quick passage of a bill or resolution. However, in this debate I understand their feelings when they say they wish to speak. Having listened to the debate on this resolution, I feel that there is room and need for some of us who represent western prairie areas to express our feelings and opinions, in view of some of the remarks which have been made in this House.
I want to make my position perfectly clear. I do and will support the Official Languages Act. I do and will support the resolution presently before the House, even, I might add, if my party were of a contrary opinion to the one it presently holds, and they are not of that contrary opinion. Some speakers in this chamber have questioned our sincerity in debating this measure at this time. There is no greater question that this one relating to the unity of our country and its future. Any matter relating to that, whether it be the resolution concerning employment in the public service or the Official Languages Act, ought, without doubt, to be debated in this House when necessary.
4508

June 6, 1973
Official Languages
There are in this House fellow westerners whose opinions I have respected over the years. Included among them is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). I have always admired and respected him in his pursuit of his political career. Let me point out to them why it is necessary to debate this kind of resolution. In the past, authority has been exercised in such a manner that the relevance of this House has been brought into question by members, particularly by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who has complained about the erosion of the powers of parliament. Therefore, I am pleased to see this resolution openly and freely debated in the House. I believe it is a resolution of importance and significance. I know of no place other than parliament where this question can be so effectively debated. Certainly, in this House we consider questions relating to national unity and questions of an economic nature. For a long time my party has espoused or proposed certain changes in our economic system in an attempt to solve those problems that divide our country on economic grounds. I will continue speaking on that subject as well, as I am sure the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) is well aware.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) made an excellent speech today and enunciated the position that ought to be taken by members of parliament of this country and by the people of Canada generally. On our national coat-of-arms, if one cares to call it that, one will see a slogan that, translated, reads "From sea unto sea". Sometimes, in listening to debates in the House, in listening to my constituents and to people from all across Canada, I have felt that one word ought to be added to that motto-toleration. Our motto ought to read, "Toleration from sea unto sea". This nation cannot continue to exist if the two founding races, and the other races which have come to this country,-I use those words in a proper way-cannot learn to work together and function in an atmosphere of toleration. I believe that if one is a student, as I am, of Canadian history, one will find that this nation is unique. That cannot be denied.
I fear for its economic future because of foreign control and ownership of our resources. But Canada has maintained its identity as an independent nation of North America by reason of the operation of certain social and cultural forces. There are varied elements in our population. They are different. I believe that the difference of our cultural development, the difference of outlook, the difference in our social input, if you like, is to be attributed to the influence of the French fact, if one cares to call it that, in Canada. The fact that 7 million people living in one province use a language different from that in common use in North America, the fact that in areas like Saskatchewan there are thousands of French Canadians who are still adept at expressing themselves in French and in English, has, above all else in this country, helped us to maintain ourselves as an independent nation, as a nation together, instead of as a nation swallowed up by the United States of America. I have been talking about cultural matters and not economic matters. The cultural aspect of our country is, as I said, tremendously important in keeping this country together.
This resolution before the House, which I support, clarifies some aspects of bilingualism, as that relates to the

public service. In this connection I wish to read an article written by Mr. Carson. The headline is "Bilingualism in the public service". I shall read this to show why I hold the view I do. It reads in part:
We have undertaken, and will continue to undertake, programs aimed at attracting an increased number of French-speaking Canadians into the public service. We are very mindful of the fact that in the past, French-speaking Canadians have not had an even break when it came to being considered for a job in the public service. The current population of the service in the key occupations-the executive, scientific and profession, administration and foreign service, and technical categories-is 67,661. Of that total, 55,324 or 81.8 per cent are English-speaking and 12,337 or 18.2 per cent are French-speaking.
Given that the population breakdown in the country at large is about 28 per cent French-speaking to 72 per cent English-speaking, I would venture to say that much remains to be done before we can truly say that the public service is representative of the two main linguistic groups in Canada .. .
The overwhelming and traditional anglophone influence in the public service generates enough pressure to actually work against equal opportunity for French-speaking Canadians competing for jobs in the public service. Special recruitment programs help to counteract such pressure. During 1971, for example, 589 university students were recruited under the regular program, 449 of whom were English-speaking and 140 of whom spoke French as their mother tongue but were sufficiently bilingual to work in English, as we have traditionally required. One can see that our regular recruitment programs are not enough to attract and engage a sufficient number of French-speaking Canadians to offset this influence. With the addition of a special recruitment program, the French-speaking university recruitment total was raised to 398- not enough to redress the balance, but a step in the right direction.
The figures used show why the Parliament of Canada needs to deal with the problem respecting bilingualism in the Public Service. I believe that many problems were created because of the manner in which the government tried to implement its program in this regard in the last three or four years. Now, because of the result of the October 30 election, and because this is a minority parliament, the government has asked this House to express itself on a resolution, in an attempt to straighten out or accommodate the situation within the public service. I believe the resolution should be given full support. I commend the leader of my party for his position, other members of my party and other members of the House as well, who, as I do, support the resolution.
If we are to examine the future of this country, we have to recognize that this federal system has reached the position where in the next decade or so it must truly accommodate the fact that this is a bilingual nation, the fact there are two founding races, English and French. There must be tolerance to allow resolutions such as this to be discussed in parliament and by the public in a sound and rational manner in order to allow a continuing growth, not a tearing apart of this dominion of Canada.
I wish to deal with one aspect of this question which may interest members who participate in this debate. Some members have mentioned that unilingual French Canadians have difficulty getting jobs in the Public Service of Canada. I notice that most grievances filed under the Official Languages Act have been from unilingual Canadians of French background. Some hon. members, including a colleague on this side of the House, spoke of English Canadians who have become very angry because a
June 6, 1973

position has been designated as bilingual. They thought the program was all wrong. Therefore, there are these two forces creating tension.
In western Canada there are large settlements of French Canadians whose ancestors were pioneers. For example, in my constituency there are 4,000 to 6,000 individuals whose mother tongue is French. Some of the leaders in their society have a different view toward the Official Languages Act. Originally, they did not think it was very effective. They thought it was merely an attempt to get Quebec to feel part of this nation. Even though the area in which they live has been designated as a bilingual district, they thought the Language Act was a sop to Quebec and they were being left out of the picture. These people have struggled to maintain their group, as have many other groups in the province of Saskatchewan. These people have the only bilingual school that I am aware of in the province of Saskatchewan. They have had to fight constantly in terms of dollars and cents to keep that college in operation. I have never been more proud of a situation than when I attended the graduation ceremonies at College Mathieu three weeks ago. That is an example of a bilingual school teaching the two official languages of this country. Students were able to make their addresses and replies to different toasts and so on in the two official languages. That is an example of the kind of development there ought to be in Canada in terms of the use of another language by both major groups.
I realize that the party across the way has moved an amendment. I will cease my discussion on this matter as I am sure they wish to have more members participate. I will end on this note. The most important aspect of this question is for those of us who believe in tolerance and accommodation to accept that moral obligation. We must express that toleration and accommodation by supporting the principles and the carrying out of the Official Languages Act in a just and judicial manner. We must listen, conciliate and, at times, compromise. We must ensure that that accommodation and tolerance operate to maintain national unity in this country of Canada, which all of us want to see continue to exist.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate on the motion introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with a view to reopening a meaningless debate on bilingualism, I dreaded with some bitterness taking part in it because it seemed abnormal to me that in 1973, after a federal election, we should have to come back to the question of bilingualism in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the main motion which gave rise to this debate and prompted our leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), to move his motion a moment ago, is in my opinion-especially after listening to several speakers in this House-a device used by the great political parties, among others, to save face. That seems to me to be the purport of all the speeches I have heard.
I remember that after the election of October 30, 1972, in which the government had lost an almost unprecedented majority, the right hon. Prime Minister accused the Progressive Conservatives of having made contradictory
Official Languages
statements during the election campaign on the Canadian language problem; he said that at that time threats had been made on both sides and that in the Speech from the Throne, he would propose a resolution on bilingualism to settle this matter.
Now, this resolution was tabled in April and it is under study. The more I read it, Mr. Speaker, the more I find it unacceptable, hard to understand and to support. In fact, this motion does not change anything at all.
We must understand that a law called "Official Languages Act" has already been before Parliament. We must also understand that all the departments, since 1968, are governed by the bilingual policy generally based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act which was adopted by this Parliament and which recognizes an equal status to the two languages in the Civil Service and in Canada.
The departments are also guided by the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and by the policy and directives set up by government.
But, before continuing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the position of the Commissioner of Official Languages was created, as well as inquiry commissions. There was the Coulombe inquiry, within the Treasury Board. There was the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that spent millions of dollars to learn what language people were speaking in Canada. It was discovered that in some regions of the country, people spoke English and that in others, they spoke French.
Since then, one concept is replaced by another: the concept of two nations, the concept of one nation, Francophones versus Anglophones, and we say: The others are to blame.
Within the various departments, within the Public Service, official statistics readily prove that not only is there no progress being made, but that several departments are moving backwards.
I know that many government members or others will say: That is not true. Then I will refer them to Hansard for Wednesday, May 16, 1973. As a result of such findings, our party has been prompted for a number of years to move a positive motion, and we will support it all the way.
Let us take the case of the National Defence Department. The minister will rise in the House and stand up for his department saying that bilingualism there is a fantastic achievement and that they spend thousands of dollars for that purpose. Let us read question No. 482 put on order paper by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) regarding the National Defence Department, and I quote:
2. What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
Here is the answer:
2. On 31 December, 1972, there were (a) 61,960 (76%) unilingual Anglophones (b) 10,422 (13%) unilingual Francophones ...
Let us consider, for instance, the Manpower and Immigration Department and the significance of our motion will be obvious. Some day we will have to bow to facts.
4510

June 6, 1973
Official Languages
I go on quoting:
2. What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
Now, regarding the Department of Manpower and Immigration, despite the Official Languages Act, promises and pious wishes from this and preceding governments, are we to believe that this department does not have such information? It does not know how many of its employees are unilingual English, unilingual French and bilingual. It does not know and I would be curious to hear the minister (Mr. Andras) tell us what he thinks about the bilingualism possibilities, progress of bilingualism and respect for both languages in his department.
The reply is this and I quote:
The information is not available from departmental records.
Yet, in the very same department, $111,000 were invested in 1970-71 for bilingualism, but bilingualism for whom, Mr. Speaker, if no one has not even any information available, if it is not even known who has been following these courses? What was the classification of the employees who took this course?
Do you realize that this department which spent $174,000 to develop bilingualism during fiscal year 1971-72, and which will spend $671,000 during fiscal year 1972-73, does not even know how many of its employees speak only French or English, and how many are bilingual?
To speak plainly, this is a policy worthy of an ostrich. This motion which has been presented to divert people and continue to divide Canadians, will solve nothing. On the contrary. The civil servant whose rights have been encroached upon and who tries to avail himself of this motion will eventually realize that, because it is only a declaration of principles, this motion has no legal value in court.
Mr. Speaker, for the Department of Manpower and Immigration to spend $671,000 on bilingualism without actually knowing the number of civil servants taking these courses is a disgrace.
Let us take for instance the Department of Labour. Maybe we shall finally find a department that works? Same question: Unilingual English-speaking employees:
2. a) 482, 71.4 per cent;
Unilingual French-speaking employees:
b) 1;
This means that bilingualism applied at the expense of French-Canadians through those courses, and this is unilateral. As the hon. member for Temiscamingue stated earlier, the opportunities for becoming bilingual are much greater-at any rate they are disproportionate-for the English-speaking civil servants than for the Frenchspeaking employees.
I could keep on quoting those statistics, but anyone can read. I will conclude with the Department of National Health and Welfare which is not only unable to say how many of its employees are unilingual English-speaking, unilingual French-speaking or bilingual but the answer is, as recorded on page 3821 of Hansard of May 16, and I quote:

2 and 3. Employees may only be considered as officially bilingual on the basis of having successfully completed the Public Service Commission second language proficiency test and met all standards set for their particular work category. Since this test is not compulsory, there may be certain persons who are in fact bilingual and who are not counted as such. However for the purpose of this question, all employees not bilingual, are considered to be unilingual.
These civil servants have certainly had a bright idea when they concocted this answer. And again I quote:
.. . There is at present, no basis for officially identifying unilingual French or unilingual English employees. The information requested in paragraphs 2 and 3 were not available before 1971. Listed below are the data . . .
This is the dead-end you reach with this bilingual policy advocated by the right hon. Prime Minister who is trying to turn French-speaking people into English-speaking people and vice versa whereas it would be so simple to leave everyone as they are and at a much lesser cost.
Mr. Speaker, an article published in Le Devoir of October 19, 1972 read as follows:
The federal government's program for the teaching of a second language has been an almost complete failure during the 1966-71 period.
Regardless of the method used to assess the results, it is obvious that the program was highly ineffective and awfully expensive.
This is borne out by a report. . .


An hon. Member:: Give your references.


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting from Le Devoir of October 19, 1972.
I go on reading:
... a report of 300 pages completed in April 1972 by Mr. Andre Beaudet for the Treasury Board's task force on bilingualism.
"The Language Bureau's operation costs for those five years actually reached a sum of $54 million . . .
-namely $29,000 for each public servant. And for other public servants known as "senior officials" because they run the government, it cost $55,000 for each to become sensitized to the other culture in Toronto. Mr. Speaker, this clearly leads us nowhere.
The purpose of our motion is this: Instead of trying to make an Anglophone out of a Francophone and vice versa, we want Anglophones and Francophones to be at their place in the Public Service, without prejudice to the career or promotion of either because of their language.
It is ridiculous to base competence on the bilingual factor, Mr. Speaker. Competence should be based instead on the knowledge of the individual and his superior or average ability, but not on bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a point of our policy. Yesterday I was discussing this motion with my Liberal colleagues who said: "Parallel services do not make any sense." Mr. Speaker, to answer those who are over-critical it is obvious that a policy of parallel services is difficult to implement, for example, in the Department of External Affairs. When we are dealing with the Chinese, we surely speak their language. Money knows no language, Mr. Speaker. If our department is dealing with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is surely with the department and not with a branch. We are referring to all the
June 6, 1973

federal departments or Crown corporations dealing with the public. We want those departments to be separate, one French-speaking and the other English-speaking. It does not harm anyone and we would be upholding the rights of everyone.
When I hear in the House speeches on national unity, on this magnificient and vast country, Canada, on the importance of speaking the two languages, of course I agree, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member for Temiscamingue stated, we should do so in the early school years, we should give language training in the two languages in the schools, and the federal government could surely play an important role in the financing of this training. But we realize now that when a member of parliament or any citizen has any business to conduct with any department, and obtains a reply in English, that, Mr. Speaker, becomes unacceptable, when we know the costs of bilingualism.
What will it cost to remain oneself? When Frenchspeaking people communicate with the Department of Veterans Affairs, once our motion is agreed to, it is absolutely sure that they will be served in their own language by this department and that they can deal in French at all levels, even if they speak to the deputy-minister.
What will that cost, Mr. Speaker? No more than the present system, under which we flounder and have to work out percentages to know if there is progress or recession, while national unity wavers.
Mr. Speaker, I had a very unfortunate experience a month and a half ago when I went before the Canadian Transport Commission to stand up for some of our students. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is going to say that he is not responsible for the Commission. But sooner or later someone will have to say he is responsible for something as far as the Commission is concerned.
I was unable to meet with anyone at the Canadian Transport Commission who spoke my language. I had to come back to my office and find someone who was bilingual on our floor. This person is fluent in both languages, better than I am. I should like to master both languages but it is a matter of time and I want to keep my own identity. In any case, I went back to the Canadian Transport Commission with this translator. The Commission could not even provide an interpreter. I was ashamed because I was accompanied by ten students and none could speak English, because they had all grown-up in a French-speaking community. And yet these young people were penalized because they spoke French, in the same way as a unilingual Francophone who would like to apply for employment with the civil service.
The fact that the applicant can speak both languages will be used as a proficiency criterion and he will be required to speak English adequately, otherwise preference will be given to a unilingual Anglophone or to a bilingual whose mother tongue is English.
Mr. Speaker, as long as we stand such a discrimination, as long as we are satisfied with pious wishes, as long as we play politics at the expense of French Canadians, we will contribute to dividing the country.
I heard Progressive Conservative members say that the Prime Minister's motion was meaningless and then they introduced a motion suggesting that this meaningless
Official Languages
measure be written into law. Mr. Speaker, this is their kind of logic.
The Liberals who find it funny are no better. They present a motion which, they say, will solve all problems, but about which the Progressive Conservatives say: If it is that good, write it into law, and then they are against it because they do not want it to become law.
For five days now we have been wasting our time. Pretentious speeches have been made but it remains that discrimination still exists within departments and Crown corporations. The fact is that if some progress has been made in the House with regard to bilingualism, it is because some men have stood up; as long as men, in this government or in the following ones, do not really stand up-it is not a matter of taking anything away from people but of seeing to it that these linguistic rights are truly respected-we will get nowhere.
This is why we are advocating the respect of cultural entities in Canada, the respect of languages and of every citizen within the Civil service. We are advocating a policy whereby, at any time of the night or day, any Canadian citizen, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, can communicate with his government, with a department-


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order please. The hon. Minister of Transport on a point of order.


Jean Marchand: I merely wish to point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), that if he did not meet any French Canadians when he went to the Transport Commission, it was not because there were not any. I have here a list of the Commissioners. There is Mr. Guy Roberge, a very good French-Canadian, who is vicepresident; Mr. Laval Fortier, also a French-Canadian commissioner and Mr. Talbot also, formerly with National Harbours. The hon. member was really unlucky not to meet any because there are some.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his information, but if he knows his department so well, we will be able to speak of it to him.
To question No. 473 published in the Hansard, which reads in part as follows;
What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
The following answer was given:
(a) English unilingual, 12,360, 80 per cent; (b) French unilingual, 1,558, 12 per cent.
To the fourth part of the question which reads in part as follows:
. . . what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?
The answer is, and I quote:
4. Total budget allocated for development of bilingualism is available only for the following years: 1969-70, $92,280; 1970-71, $59,100; 1971-72, $324,754; 1972-73, $976,900.

June 6, 1973
Official Languages
Surely that time, I went to the Canadian Transport Commission, and I was not lucky, Mr. Speaker, for I would have liked to see at least the result of an investment of almost $1 million for bilingualism, which I was not able to do. It would have been much easier for the Canadian Transport Commission to have a French-speaking section so that there would not have been any kind of problem.
Mr. Speaker, this seems extremely important to me. A lot of things might be said about this motion, but let us think seriously about it.
In an article by Claude Ryan in the paper Le Devoir, on June 1, 1973-it is sometimes a good thing to draw inspiration from people who observe the situation from outside and some people might be surprised to hear that members of the Social Credit Party read Le Devoir-one can read about the present policy of the government, and I quote:
this policy, when considered without any partisanship, represents a strategic withdrawal more than anything else . ..
Not only does the government reserve for itself the exclusive use of a capital document which belongs to all hon. members, but it asks the House to vote on the future of bilingualism without stating itself its own approach to concrete problems which exist in this area . . .
As long as this reality will not be more clearly admitted, we will likely waste-as has been the case for seven years-millions of dollars in programs of linguistic dusting which will always have restricted results . ..
Mr. Speaker, since they came to this House the Credit-ists have fought for the respect of French. When you consider that during one hundred years the Standing Orders in this House were in English only, that is a real shame. And I am ashamed of those Quebec members who represented us here and never dared to stand up and demand a translation.
Mr. Speaker, it is not out of bitterness that we demand equal rights for both languages. It is strictly because it seems abnormal to us to have to fight for the respect of a language. It seems to be a natural and legitimate right and we should not be fighting for something so essential, so vital and so human.
All Canadian citizens have the right to be served in their mother tongue. All Canadian citizens under the Canadian Bill of Rights are equal before the law, but they are not treated equally-in spite of the fact that the bilingualism policy is costing millions of dollars-when they approach departments or Crown corporations.
How many more years will we have to wait before we realize that the bilingualism policy will always have to be brought up again, that it does not really serve the interests of both languages? The cost of making a public servant who is 35 or 40 bilingual is $29,000, and even then the results are patchy, some are often so hard-headed that it cannot be done. Mr. Speaker, even if we spend $55,000 to teach the other culture to a public servant, when that public servant reaches 50, he will not be able to transmit his knowledge to his replacement. We will have to start all over again.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see that when public servants are hired now, they are judged according to their linguistic knowledge, and preference is given to those who are bilingual, so that French-speaking unilinguals-the majority in Quebec-hardly has a chance

to get a job in those departments, so that we will always go around in circles and continue to divide Canadians among themselves.
Mr. Speaker, the motion we introduced today is a valid one: it is positive and also suggests a solution to that problem.
We do not want to take anything from the Englishspeaking Canadians but we would like them to recognize the same rights to French-speaking Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is only at that cost that every Canadian citizen will really feel at home in his country. When I am in Toronto I expect to have to speak English. When a Torontonian comes to Victoriaville, my home town, he expects to have to speak French, but when the Torontonian or someone from Victoriaville calls upon a department they expect to be served in their mother tongue. And, Mr. Speaker, the easiest way to satisfy that legitimate right of those two Canadians who are equal before the law would be to give the French-speaking Canadian unit and the English one an English unit, so that both would be treated on an equal basis.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am eager to see this Parliament put an end to its division over matters of languages when such matters are already established facts-and that we discuss serious problems.
Bilingualism, Mr. Speaker, is obviously a serious and very important problem. This is why we are moving a positive and constructive motion to solve this problem. But, we will not do it by speaking for days and days about languages, by moving motions that mean absolutely nothing and have no value legally.
I would like the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) to indicate to me what would be the use of such a motion. Let us suppose that there is an obvious injustice within a department, that an appeal is lodged as provided for in the Public Service Commission Act and that this civil servant wants to protect himself, will he be able to use that motion to defend himself? No, and the hon. minister must admit it. This is true, as the game we are playing here settles absolutely nothing. It is nothing more than small vengeance by the right hon. Prime Minister against Higher Canada and, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean anything.
In any event, I sincerely hope that all my colleagues in the House will read this motion, consider it in depth and pass judgment on its merits. If we do it in a non partisan objective manner, I believe, Mr. Speaker that all Canadians will derive something positive from this debate. It would have been useful for once, to speak about languages, because we would then have had the assurance that every Canadian will be served in his own language, without depriving anybody of anything, but in respecting the equal rights of everyone.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that once again, as in the capital punishment debate, the government has, by threat, conjoling or otherwise, ensured that a certain number of members will be denied the right to express their ideas on a matter which, rightly or wrongly, is of great concern to a number of
June 6, 1973

people. I will, therefore, try to keep my remarks at a minimum. I am sure hon. members on the other side will appreciate that, in any event.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he should know there are no special rules in respect of a time limit on speeches in this debate. There is no special arrangement by which the hon. member would be limited to speaking only five minutes instead of 30 minutes or 40 minutes. That is not the situation.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I realize I am allowed 40 minutes, Mr. Speaker, but if I take that long I will be speaking from now until the vote is called, thereby being the last member to speak on this subject, and I would not like to be in that position. As a member who voted against second reading of the Official Languages Act, may I say I have no reason to regret that vote. I am only sorry that my fears concerning that legislation are being realized. The proof of that fact is that we are now engaged in this debate, less than four years after the proclamation of that legislation.
Speaking as a representative from western Canada, I would say there is no objection to, or resentment of, those persons of French origin in this country. In point of fact, western Canada was settled by people from every part of the world. We have learned to live with and judge one another for what we are, and by that I mean what we can do, what the value of our word is and the interest we take in our communities and neighbourhoods.
The fundamental fear of the bilingual program as administered by this government is simple; it is that the public service at the senior or executive level will be completely dominated by people, whether they be anglophone or francophone, from the Ottawa Valley, Quebec and northern New Brunswick. It has long been the belief in western Canada, and rightly so in my submission, that policy and administrative changes by any government are for the most part initiated by senior public servants. If artificial language requirements prevent westerners from occupying senior or executive public service positions, the apparent misunderstanding of our problems will continue and, in fact, grow.
Let us consider what is happening. Wheat has been sold by so-called experts too cheaply and too far in advance. The world price is now over $3 a bushel but we are still filling contracts at about $1.78 a bushel. A subsidy paid in the form of acreage payments is a subsidy to consumers of bread, because we are forced by a government decision to sell wheat on the Canadian market at about $1 below the international market price. Western farmers suffer low prices at a time when the international price is high. Last year the final, realized price was the lowest in the last 10 years, namely $1.59. When the last Conservative administration made an acreage payment, it was over and above the world price of wheat.
Let us consider the feed grain problem. The western farmer does not mind the government paying feed freight assistance, but he does object to his feed grain being sold at a price 12 cents a bushel less than world prices. Western cattlemen are concerned because their representations were not listened to when the government reduced tariffs on United States cattle coming into this country, thus
Official Languages
lowering the price of their cattle by $1.50 per hundred pounds. At the same time, the government did not ask the United States to reciprocate by allowing our cattle to move just as freely into their market.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: There is also the question of energy. We hear rumours or comments by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that perhaps we should have a two-price system in order to lower the price of natural gas to Ontario and Quebec, and sell it at a higher price to the rest of the continental market. There is similar talk concerning oil. Reference has also been made to the fact that perhaps we should cut off or sharply reduce our exports of our surplus gas and oil in order to keep the price low in central Canada. The hon. Senator Maurice Lamontagne in a speech in the Senate said:
Let's make a deal with the U.S.-trade our resources for markets for our manufactured goods.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: In other words, he suggested that we sell western Canada's wealth to maintain employment in eastern Canada. This is not too different from what Premier Lougheed and representatives of the other western provinces are complaining about today. Mr. Lougheed says that it is ludicrous and a farce to export jobs from the agricultural heartland of Canada to concentrate more people in the same crowded parts of Canada. He suggests that this makes no sense at all. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), Leader of the NDP, has said the same thing at various times with regard to the auto pact. Now, we are promised a western conference on transportation and economic opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


An hon. Member:: You are making the wrong speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I do not like to do this, but I must point out that we are not involved in a throne speech debate or in some other debate. We are involved in a very specific motion concerning bilingualism. I wish the hon. member would return to the subject matter of the resolution.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am attempting to point out examples of what happens when you do not have representation in the public service from a certain area to make the views of that area known. The result is policy being formulated by a government which does not have any idea what is going on in a particular area. I suggest that if we continue to administer the bilingualism program in the way it has been administered in the past four years, these problems will continue to crop up. I am trying to point out what happens when we do not have the proper input from people who do not live in the golden triangle. That is the reason for these examples. I suggest that, politically, we in the west have endeavoured to put the point across. However, there is another part of the process, the public service, which is probably more important than the political aspect because

June 6, 1973
Official Languages
that is where policy is formulated. The result is that we end up with half-baked policies based on lack of knowledge of the area concerned.
Transportation is a very important element in the problems of Western Canada. The Prime Minister has recognized this and is willing to go to Calgary to talk about it. In 1967, it was pointed out to the government that agreed charges were bad, that captive shippers could never be proven and that public interest was difficult to prove. Having said all this, perhaps members can understand why fears and alienation will grow. Westerners have always felt that the government controlled their destiny to a greater extent than that of the people in any other part of Canada. We have seen the example of the government of Quebec opting out of very important programs. The government of Quebec appears to have arrived at a situation in which it has much more influence over the residents of that province than any other province has over its residents. Westerners have not opted out of anything. We are willing to participate but we want the opportunity to do so. This is why we are so concerned about the inability to have adequate representation at the senior level of the public service.
One could even say that this situation is the reason for the feeling that the west is continually being used by central Canada, because people from our area have a more difficult time getting to the top in Crown corporations, in the armed services and in the public service. In speaking of the armed services, I may say that we have four destroyers laid up now because the government says it cannot get people to man them. This statement is made at a time when there is supposed to be much unemployment in this country. One would think, in view of the pay scales of the armed forces, many people would be willing to take a secure and fulfilling job, but such people do not seem to be available. I wonder whether the bilingual program has anything to do with that.
Finally, in view of the Prime Minister's role in bringing about this debate at this time, I can only agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) when he characterized an eating establishment in his area called "Sneaky Pete's" as being named after the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks before the amendment by the Leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Caouette) is put to the vote, because it is extremely important that all the members of this House know exactly what is its true significance.
Mr. Speaker, I am of course not questioning the intentions of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he put forward his motion on April 13. As I have said time and time again, it is the means to achieve the good intentions with which we do not agree, especially since we have the means not only to solve the language problem but also the constitutional problem.

This will never be repeated often enough: The problem for French-speaking Canadians is not a problem of languages but a problem of participation. Since French Canadians want at all cost to feel truly at home in this country they want to participate in the preparation of laws and in the administration and management of the country. It is simple enough.
Even if we succeeded in turning the public service into a totally bilingual body, if a fair and reasonable proportion of French-speaking people are not employed we shall have settled nothing; in fact, we shall even have accelerated the division process in this country because when Frenchspeaking Canadians will realize that they are being served in both languages but are only participating for 2, 3, or 4 per cent in the administration, they will be definitely convinced that the situation is hopeless. This is what we are trying to prevent.
In various fields this party has always been at the forefront and several years later our predictions turn out to be true. This has been happening for years, but when we are faced with the problem now before us we can no longer afford to say that this problem will be settled, that we are pioneers and that we shall settle it in 5, 10 or 20 years. Our proposal is so urgent that if we do not implement it almost immediately, I wonder where Canada is headed for.
All hon. members who have our unity at heart should most seriously consider the final settlement of this problem in Canada, to settle not a problem of language but a problem of participation.
If our objective were to enable each individual to achieve fulfilment, if it was admitted-not by paying lip service or by pious wishes-that Canada can subsist only through the active and effective participation of the francophone and anglophone communities, we would achieve something.
I am sure all my English-speaking colleagues recognize very well that Canada would not be Canada without the francophone element. Therefore it is in the interest of all my colleagues, be they from any Canadian province, to give francophones in this country the place they are entitled to. We are not asking more than that; we do not want to persecute anyone. On the contrary, we fully agree on the fact that all present public servants should keep not only the rights but the privileges they have acquired.
We agree to that. All we want is to enable now francophones to participate also on the administration level and it is by doing that that indirectly, as I said a while ago, we shall solve not only an administrative and language problem but also-and that is what is extremely important to me-a basic problem, namely that of a permanent harmony between the English and the French communities in this country.
It is in such a context that we have always examined that problem and we know objectively that it would become a secondary problem the moment the participation principle would be accepted.
That is why in paragraph 5 which is the major section of the amendment, one must see things as they are. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, is there a member in this House who could be
June 6, 1973

against such an amendment. In fact, we merely move, and I quote:
(5) that unilingualism cannot prevent a civil servant in the Canadian government from being eligible for senior positions;
Apparently then, we entirely agree with most civil servants.
I continue the quotation: therefore, the government undertakes ...
Once again, we are soft-pedalling and we would like to consider actually whether it would be possible-
... to set up, organize and implement a parallel administration, one English-speaking, the other French-speaking, in all departments of the federal government;
There would be no duplication of services nor overcrowding of the Public Service, since as explained in paragraphs (a)(b)(c) of the clause 5 of our amendment, both sections shall be proportional to the requirements of their respective administrative needs.
We entirely agree, Mr. Speaker, that in a given department in order to provide all services to our French-speaking people, we could need only 200 French-speaking employees as opposed to 1,200, 1,500 or 2,000 Englishspeaking. It could happen, depending on the services to be provided by a department.
This is then a matter of actual equality, and not of mathematical equality. This is a matter of equality according to human principles and the constitution.
Let us face it. Since we made that proposal, we have heard certain arguments from people who feared, for example, the cost of that duplication. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the cost of such a system would probably be less than the actual cost of bilingualism, since, as it is stated in the Coulombe report, to make a public servant bilingual it costs $29,000 and to give him an insight into the other culture it costs $55,000; one knows that even if today an unilingual public servant became bilingual following those courses and the consequent expenses incurred by the government, that employee would not systematically and miraculously pass that on to others. It will be a perpetual new start and that is what we are against.
If we determine exactly what services should be provided to the French-speaking and English-speaking population of this country, and if we also determine the number of civil servants needed for each section, we are sure then of one thing: we are putting an end to the injustices that have been going on for years. And nobody would ever be dissatisfied, because those who wanted to be served in French would only have to contact the French department and those who wanted to be served in English would only have to contact the English department. Nothing could be simpler. It is like Columbus' egg. And like all simple things, it is not easy to accept. It seems too simple, because for years it has been unduly complicated, bilingualism has been overstressed at the expense of participation by the people.
Mr. Speaker, we can already foresee that if we had two departments, a French one and an English one, there would be a healthy competition that would enable all civil servants of either section to choose freely to become bilingual, not through any legal constraint but owing to the force of circumstances. This is one of the most essential
Official Languages
freedoms; it should really be left to the free will of everyone who wants to be bilingual. Everyone recognizes this need.
Mr. Speaker, some might think that I, for example, am not bilingual. Of course, I am not perfectly bilingual, but I should say that I have tried to prove that the old story I have been hearing since childhood is not quite true. As a matter of fact, I was told over and over again that to get ahead, to be successful in any field, you had to be bilingual. That was the old story I used to hear when I was young, particularly in the province of Quebec.
Well, I have attempted to show that it was possible to be a Canadian while speaking French. Unfortunately today I have to bear the consequences of the principle I have tried to demonstrate and I am really anxious to be bilingual myself. But, Mr. Speaker, it is in that context that we see the problem. As I have said before, we are not motivated by emotion or spite but we are sure that we can offer a concrete solution which could at least be considered and furthermore which could really save Canada if we were to set up a system by which all French-speaking people in this country could participate in the management of the nation. That would depend only on their qualifications and therefore, there would not be anymore injustice. Is that not all what we want?
There already has been references to the "just society". It has been said already that we want for this country understanding, unity, and harmony. But why? To do that, Mr. Speaker, why do we not take the required steps? Why these further attempts with good intentions? Why are we frustrating the French-speaking Canadians by telling them that it is very difficult to change the civil service because it has been in existence for so many years-that is why people refer to it as an English-speaking establishment-and we must proceed slowly. They tried to implement certain changes after having passed the Official Language Act, but they realized that politically it was not good, and then they said: Let us back up a little bit, let us please the civil servants and then afterwards we shall see!
Mr. Speaker, once more, we do not take a pessimistic approach to the right hon. Prime Minister's intentions and these nine principles, these nine steps he wants to take to achieve his goal; it is not a matter of being pessimistic but we want to stop thinking in terms of wishes, pious hopes and even miracles. As a matter of fact, I read that if someone wants to obtain a bilingual position, he simply has to indicate his willingness to become bilingual.
We do not believe very easily in this gift of tongues. We do know that although this has already happened in the Cenacle for the Apostles, but we do not believe that to-day, a public servant may become bilingual just because he wishes to. That is too much!
That is the reason why, without trying to interfere with anybody's rights and privileges, we could do justice to French-speaking Canadians, and to English-speaking Canadians everywhere in this country, by merely adopting our amendment.
Mr. Speaker, when we mentioned this part of our political platform to our own party-I remember quite well, having presented it myself-our delegates from British

June 6, 1973
Official Languages
Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba told me: We are not only in agreement with this proposition, we are behind it 200%, which means that we may be the only political party with sympathizers in all parts of Canada and, whether in British Columbia, Newfoundland or Quebec, our message is always the same, thereby assuring all Canadians of the prospect of self-reliance and self-development, while maintaining their true identity.
Therefore, this is not a last minute amendment that we are proposing now but an amendment which has been thought out and which has already been proposed to our delegates from every part of this country who have adopted it right away. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we should like the government and all the hon. members to merely support it. Then they could rightfully claim the glory and honour of having not only settled the constitutional problem, but also the problem of Canada as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being five forty-five o'clock, pursuant to special order made on Tuesday, June 5, 1973, it is my duty to interrupt the debate and to put forth every question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House.
Concerning the amendment, the Chair wishes to point out to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who had suggested the name of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) as seconder of his motion, that the hon. member for Champlain had already taken part in the debate on the main motion; the Chair decided to substitute the name of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).
The question is now on the amendment to the main motion.
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Messrs:
Rose
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Saltsman
Sauv6 (Mrs.)
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Sharp
Skoreyko
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stackhouse
Stanbury
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Okanagan-
Kootenay)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery
Symes
Taylor
Thomas
(Moncton)
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London
East)
Turner
(Ottawa-
Carleton)
Wagner
Walker
Watson
Whelan
Whicher
Whittaker
Wise
Yanakis-226.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion. Is it the wish of the House that we proceed with this division without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Trudeau) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 26)
++YEAS
Messrs:
Alexander
Allmand
Andras
Andre
Arrol
Atkey
Baker
Baldwin
Balfour
Barnett
Basford
Bawden
Beatty
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo) Bechard B6gin (Miss) Bell
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blais
Blaker
Blenkam
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Brewln
Broadbent
Buchanan
Caccla
Cafik
Caron
Carter
Chretien
Clark
(Rocky Mou Clarke
(Vancouver
Quadra)
Clermont
Coates
Comtols
Corbin
Corriveau
C6te
Crouse
Cullen
Cyr
Danforth
Hanson
Darling
Davis
De Ban6
Demers
Dick
Dinsdale
Douglas
Drury
Dub6
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Epp
Ethier
Fairweather
Faulkner
Firth
Fleming
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Frank
Gauthier
(Ottawa East) Gendron Gilbert Gillespie Gillies Gleave Goyer Grafftey Gray Grier Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis) Guilbault Haidasz Hales
Haliburton
Harding
Hargrave
Harney
Hees
Herbert
Higson
Holmes
Hopkins
Howard
Howie
Hueglin
Hurlburt
Hymmen
Official Languages
Messrs:
Isabelle	Madill	ReillyJamieson	Marceau	ReynoldsJarvis	Marchand	RocheJerome	(Langelier)	RodriguezKempling	Marchand	RompkeyKnight	(Kamloops-	RooneyKnowles	Cariboo)	Rose(Winnipeg	Marshall	RoyNorth Centre)	Mather	(Timmins)Knowles	Mazankowski	Roy(Norfolk-	McCain	(Laval)Haldimand)	McCleave	SaltsmanKuntz	McGrath	Sauv6 (Mrs.)Lachance	McKinley	SchellenbergerLaflamme	McKinnon	ScottLajoie	McRae	SharpLalonde	Mitges	SmithLambert	Morgan	(N orthumberland-(Edmonton West)	Morin (Mrs.)	Miramichi)Lang	Muir	SmithLanglois	Munro	(Saint-Jean)Laniel	(Esquimalt-	StackhouseLa Salle	Saanich)	StanburyLawrence	Munro	StanfieldLeblanc	(Hamilton East)	Stevens(Laurier)	Murta	StewartLeBlanc	Neale	(Okanagan-(Westmorland-	(Vancouver	Kootenay)Kent)	East)	StewartLefebvre	Nelson	(Cochrane)Leggatt	Nesdoly	StolleryLessard	Nowlan	SymesLewis	Nystrom	ThomasLUeureux	O'Connor	(Moncton)Loiselle	Olaussen	TowersLundrigan	Olivier	TrudeauMacDonald	Orlikow	Trudel(Egmont)	O'Sullivan	TurnerMacdonald	Ouellet	(London(Rosedale)	Paproski	East)MacDonald (Miss)	Pelletier	Turner(Kingston and	(Hochelaga)	(Ottawathe Islands)	Pelletier	Carleton)MacEachen	(Sherbrooke)	WagnerMacGuigian	Penner	WalkerMaclnnis (Mrs.)	Peters	Watson(Vancouver	Portelance	WhelanKings way)	Poulin	WhicherMackasey	Prud'homme	WhittakerMacKay	Railton	WiseMacLean	Reid	Yanakis-214.Macquarrie	NAYS	Messrs:	Alkenbrack	RorchinsKi	StewartCossitt	Masniuk	(Marquette)Diefenbaker	McKenzie	Taylor-16.Hollands	Neil	Horner	(Moose Jaw)	(Crowfoot)	Oberle	Homer	Ritchie	(Battleford-	Schumacher	Kindersley)	Skoreyko	It being twenty minutes alter	six o'clock, the Houseadjourned, without question put,	pursuant to Standing
Order.

Thursday, June 7, 1973