1988-02-09

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Association, and pursuant to Standing Order 101,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the twenty-seventh and the twenty-eighth reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-281, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (false news and hate propaganda).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce this Bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada regarding false news and hate propaganda.


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

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-282, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (scabs and essential services).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a Private Member's Bill, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (scabs and essential services). The purpose of the Bill is to prohibit hiring people to replace Crown corporation striking or locked out employees. The Bill is also aimed at maintaining essential services during a Crown corporation strike or lockout.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour to present a petition on behalf of petitioners from Salmon Arm, Eagle Bay, Vernon, Burnaby, and Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, who are of the opinion that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States.
They believe that this deal threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty, since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control

February 9, 1988
Order Paper Questions
foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions of Canada.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first one is from a number of residents of Swift Current, Saskatchewan and concerns Bill C-54 which creates new laws against the production, sale, rental, and distribution of pornography.
The petitioners are concerned that the pressures exerted by various permissive minority groups may cause government to water down and weaken this legislation.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Bill C-54 as is and to pass the Bill without dilution in the belief that it gives recognition to the inherent dignity of individuals, particularly women and young people who are most vulnerable to exploitation in this area.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a number of residents of southwestern Saskatchewan who note that farmers and fishermen for many years have enjoyed the right to block average their income, and that on December 16, 1987 the Minister indicated his intention to eliminate block averaging.
The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers and fishermen as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report on the White Paper on Tax Reform, Stage One.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty under Standing Order 106 to present petitions signed by 175 residents from Eskimo Point, Northwest Territories, and Spence Bay, Northwest Territories.
These petitioners are concerned about possible environmental effects and contributions to nuclear proliferation by proposed plutonium flights over northern Canadian territory.
As a result, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize the dangers of such flights and to say no to the transport of plutonium over northern Canadian territory.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions. One is from residents of Toronto who say that the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement between Canada and the United States will have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural, and political independence.
Therefore, they request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada and that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.
The second petition is from residents of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, who say that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), promised in accordance with bilateral trade negotiations, that Canada's sovereignty would not be compromised.
Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement in a national general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition. It is signed by Canadians who are concerned about the Government's trade deal with the United States.
They believe that it will have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural, and political independence. They believe that the agreement will also have an effect on job loss, especially in many different sectors in Canada and in the various regions of Canada.
Therefore, the undersigned request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada and that this debate result in a national election.
It is signed by many Canadians who are very concerned about the deal.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 153 will be answered today.
February 9, 1988


Mr. Althouse: 1.	Are any agricultural programs being reviewed to determine their acceptability under the criteria agreed to by Canada at the Cairns Group meeting held in Ottawa, May, 1987, and the OECD summit held in Venice, June, 1987 and, if so, which programs?
2.	Do the programs continue to meet the criteria as agreed to at the two meetings and, if not (a) which ones do not (b) what program changes could be made to make the programs fit the new requirements?
3.	During the last fiscal year, was financial assistance provided under the programs which no longer meet the criteria agreed to and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No review of agricultural programs to determine their conformity with the internationally agreed guidelines is being undertaken at the present time. However, the OECD has developed a unit of measure, the Producer Subsidy Equivalent, for comparing amongst countries, the amount of support provided to specific agriculture commodities. Agriculture Canada officials are reviewing the PSE calculations as currently applied by the OECD to Canadian programs.
The initiatives of the Cairns Group and the principles agreed to by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are aimed at making agricultural production more responsive to market forces. These guidelines will have to be taken into account by countries in their domestic policy formulations to the extent they are reflected in the contractual undertakings in the Uruguay Round of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN).
At this stage, it is too early to predict the outcome of these negotiations. Canada and other participating countries have tabled proposals on how to proceed with the negotiations. Only when the scope and content of the MTN become clearer will it be possible to ascertain the full implications for change to existing Canadian policies and programs.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Privilege-Mr. Angus


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On January 28, 1988, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) claimed that the rights of three Members of Parliament had been breached in relation to the privacy of their physical offices. He contended that House of Commons staff had removed software from computers in Members' offices without informing either the Members concerned or their staff what they were doing. I undertook to look into the specific circumstances of this issue and report back to the House. I am now ready to do so.
[ Translation]
There is a pilot project underway at the present time in relation to the installation of personal computers in the offices of Members of the House. There are some 29 participants involved in this pilot project at the present time.

In an effort to proceed as expeditiously as possible with the pilot, interim software was installed in various personal computers in order for the evaluation phase of the project to proceed on schedule. This interim software was intended to be utilized only until the customized software was available.
On December 2, 1987 sufficient copies of the customized software were available for installation and evaluation in nine of the twenty-nine pilot machines, and the substitutions were made. The balance of the pilot project participants were provided with copies of the final version of the software on January 27, 1988.
It would appear that the intention of staff in the OASIS group was simply to ensure that Members' offices were equipped with the most up-to-date software and, in the case of pilot project participants, that they be provided with the same software that will shortly be provided to all Members' offices.
Clearly, however, the extent to which OASIS staff apprised Members' staff of what they were doing was insufficient. In that context, the complaint raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is not without foundation. More important, he underscores an issue that pertains to policies and procedures for servicing and maintaining Members' personal computers so as to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of data stored and manipulated on these machines.
I am satisfied that what has occurred in this case was done innocently. However, the point made by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan that electronic information should be treated no differently from "hard copy" material is well taken. All staff involved in providing electronic equipment or electronic data processing services to Members have been cautioned on the importance, in future, of fully briefing Members' staff and obtaining their prior authorization before

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
any alterations or changes are effected to Members' data bases or data processing equipment or software.
[ Translation]
In addition, a policy statement covering these issues is now being prepared and will be submitted to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services for discussion, as quickly as possible.

This policy statement is to include not only the procedures and practices to be followed by House staff in relation to their access to and maintenance of computer hardware and software in Members' offices, but also the whole question of the safety and security of computerized data stored in Members' offices. This is an issue of vital importance and one which is to be addressed immediately.
In view of these facts, it would be the Chair's contention that there is no necessity to proceed with a question of privilege at this time.
[ Translation]
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus) for having raised this very serious issue and assure him, and all Members of this House, that corrective steps have been put in place to ensure that such an occurrence does not take place again.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to your ruling. I think it is a very important ruling and that it sets out the parameters of the concerns raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). I believe it is important that the committees of the House look into the matter.
I would also hope that in doing so the committees would look at ways of ensuring, when copies are made of Members' disks with names, addresses, and all other information, the privacy of what we have been putting on our disks, that they are kept for Members' use only, and ways of ensuring security in that regard.
Obviously a number of names have been given to us from various sources, some of which are very politically sensitive. We want the guarantee that we will have some security in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention.
I will be very sure that his remarks are passed on within a few minutes to all the appropriate officials.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 8, consideration of the Motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has the floor.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have a few minutes in which to wrap up my remarks.
Yesterday, with regard to this debate on the official languages policy of Canada I was saying that we should be proceeding in a way which builds national consensus. In that context I wish to indicate that my view with regard to the official languages policy of the country is that it is not a policy that should or does confer special privileges on any group but, rather, it is a policy that is designed to remove injustices from Canadian society.
In that connection it is important for people to recognize that the rights which are enunciated in the legislation and which are stated in very broad principles, such as the right to work and the right to service, are limited in their application. I am hoping that that will assuage some of the fears that are being aroused throughout the country in articles about this policy, which are complete and utter distortions of the impact of it.
I also wish to point out that it is better that the debate be carried out more in the nature of a town hall meeting than of a dog fight. It is historic that we have a Conservative Government introducing legislation with regard to official languages policy and that the original sponsor of this legislation, the Liberal Party, is not the only political group in the country that has chosen to approach the notion of official languages in Canada. In this way official languages policy has become a non-partisan question. All three major political Parties have recognized the realities of Canada; they have recognized that we have two major language groups which we call official language groups.
Finally, in the sense that we should have an open and honest debate about this legislation it is critical that the flaws in it be pointed out. I refer to the provisions in the legislation which deal with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. In that respect the Government is acting in a heavy-handed and ham-fisted way. It ought seriously to entertain amendments at committee. There is no reason why the Yukon should be treated as a federal institution. There is no reason why it should not have the legislative capacity to determine its own
February 9, 1988

policy in this area, as is the case with the Northwest Territories. There should also be some clarification with regard to the impact of the clause affecting the courts.
Canada is maturing in its approach to the whole question of official languages. It is good that the House hear all opinions with regard to this subject. That is the only way that we can develop a larger consensus with regard to official languages in Canada and develop greater unity.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Mr. Nickerson:: Madam Speaker, following along the nonpartisan lines adopted by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) I would like to compliment him on digging out the flaws in the Bill we have before us. They are flaws which do not deal with the language issue but rather with constitutional issues as they affect the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. 1 am thankful for the assistance that has been rendered by the Hon. Member in pointing that out. He has pointed out the anachronism that exists in Clause 90 of the Bill. It states that the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories, which was enacted by the Legislature of that Territory, cannot be changed without the consent of the Parliament of Canada. That is completely unacceptable to the people who live in the Northwest Territories. There is no need for such a provision in this day and age.
With respect to the Yukon, it is treated even worse. It is treated as if it is a department of Government.
My question to the Hon. Member is this. Is what he has said the official policy of the NDP? Can we count on the support of the NDP when this Bill gets to committee for the necessary amendments that have to be made if this Bill is to be made acceptable to the people of the North?


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, it is curious to me that the Hon. Member started out by indicating the non-partisan fashion in which he wished to proceed and then asked me what is the position of the New Democratic Party on this matter.
I am sure that my colleagues will see the wisdom of my comments and that they will recognize that this is a federal country. 1 hope they will see that there is no way in which the federal Government should be imposing policies on the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I hope they will see that the notion that there has to be parliamentary concurrence in the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories should be removed from the Bill. That the Yukon should be treated the same as a department of the federal Government is a mistake in policy. It should be treated on the basis of what it is, that is, a legitimate legislature of the country. It should be allowed to develop its own policies.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a direct question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). He has just replied to a question
Official Languages Act
asking him about the policy of the New Democratic Party on this Bill. I wonder if the Hon. Member has noted the comments of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and what he thinks of them, given the fact that in the City of Winnipeg there are each year an increasing number of English-speaking students attending French immersion schools right through to the end of grade nine, including schools in the constituency of Winnipeg-Assiniboine. Would the Hon. Member like to comment on the views expressed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine?


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I must be honest, I have not paid much attention to the comments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).


David Orlikow: They do not deserve much.


Cyril Keeper: I must say that I have noticed that the schools in Winnipeg have increasing numbers of children who are taking instruction in immersion classes. Those in an Englishspeaking community are learning to speak French. When they complete their schooling they will be able to speak French with ease. They will not have to learn French in the way in which I have learned it, struggling word by word. I am happy to see that this is happening.
I know that the amount of French immersion is increasing in Winnipeg. It has reached something in the order of 25 per cent in the City of Edmonton. In the City of Ottawa it is something in the order of 50 per cent. I know that in a small rural village just outside Selkirk, Manitoba, which is a small town, the families were given the option of keeping their children in the village school or sending them to an immersion school. Half the families chose to send their children to the immersion school.
What this indicates is that we are raising a new generation and that some of the attitudes that are expressed today about the French language in Canada will become a thing of the past with this new generation. We are building a new, more tolerant Canadian society, a society in which the prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes of the past will in fact be a thing of the past. For the moment, we are still going through a period of transition. However, there will be a new dawn with the new generation, people who will understand both communities and both language groups.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP have completely missed the point. This Bill has nothing to do with children learning to speak French. In Winnipeg-Assiniboine there is one of the highest entry rates for immersion school because people realize that they will not get jobs in the Government if they do not learn French. However, just because an Anglophone learns French does not mean that he will get the job. He has to take a language diagnostic analysis, and if he does not pass that he is turned down.

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
For many years, I have been asking for amendments to the Fluman Rights Act that would insert the word "languages". Then, when any Anglophone is denied employment or promotion, he will have grounds to file a complaint with the Fluman Rights Commission and will have a proper and thorough examination of why he is being denied employment or promotion. This was recommended by the former language commissioner, Maxwell Yalden. He did not believe in the firing and dead-ending of fully qualified English-speaking Canadians.
I have been working on a case on the Hill here for two years. A uniformed Staff Sergeant here was sent away for language training. He was an Anglophone and was having difficulty learning the French language. The teacher suggested he have a hearing test so he had a hearing test and his doctor told him that he had a problem with one ear and would have great difficulty learning the French language. There was really no point in carrying on. He was sent back to the Hill and was demoted from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant, with a loss of pay.
I do not support discriminatory action like that. French-Canadians are in a different category. There are hiring teams out looking for French-Canadians for jobs in the Government. As well, French-Canadians have special promotional privileges. No other nationality has these privileges and I consider that discriminatory.
This Bill imposes bilingualism on the private sector. I would like to know where, in Penticton, British Columbia, a firm doing business with the federal Government will find fully qualified bilingual persons to handle any customers who want service in French. If the French-Canadian customer does not like the quality of the French that is being spoken by an Anglophone, or if the Anglophone is not writing proper French, the customer can file a complaint with the language czar. I suppose the language czar will warn the firm to start with, but if it cannot correct the situation, the language czar can haul it into Federal Court and prosecute the firm.
I do not support the language czar having dictatorial power and being immune from prosecution. This has not been explained properly to the Canadian people. The press has done a terrible job of explaining the contents of this Bill.
Another thing that deeply disturbs me, and I am sure Canadian taxpayers, is that there has been no figure put on what all this will cost. Will it be $100 million, $1 billion-who knows? That is a legitimate question. We do not have any cost figures.
For years, we condemned Liberal Governments for running blank-cheque Governments. They just shoved through legislation and we did not know what it would cost. I do not support that.
The NDP and the Liberal Party have not explained any of these things to the Canadian people. They are not serving their constituents if they are not pointing out these problem areas. The problems are genuine and we are entitled to answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time allowed for questions and comments has actually expired, but I will allow the Hon. Member a minute to conclude.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to respond, because clearly statements like that should not go without response.
I note that in his closing remarks the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine said that the NDP and the Liberals have not explained. He failed to mention his own Party. He is playing partisan politics with the very sensitive issue of national unity.
The Hon. Member did say that people will not get jobs with the federal Government if they cannot speak French. That is a complete and utter distortion of the legislation before the House. Obviously there is an advantage to being able to speak both languages, but the legislation protects the right of the individual to work in his or her own language. That means, in plain English, that the right of an English-speaking person to work in English is protected.
The Hon. Member raised the case of an individual who, in his opinion, had been discriminated against. That is a legitimate role for a Member of Parliament to play. Members of Parliament should take up individual cases, be ombudsmen and see that justice is done. Members of Parliament should continue in that tradition. However, to distort the legislation poisons the debate. This is the kind of debate in which we need more facts and less distortion.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on the new Official Languages Act, Bill C-72. I think it is important to look at what the Government has tried to do with this Bill. First, we have tried to reflect the principle of equality of status of English and French as embodied in the Constitution Act of 1982. Second, we have endeavoured to improve upon the original Official Languages Act wherever possible. I think it is important that the House understand that both objectives have to be accomplished with the principle of fairness and equity first and foremost in our minds.
No Bill is perfect. We may not have fully achieved our goals. Some of our efforts may have fallen short of the mark. In other cases, we may not have used the most precise language possible in either the French or the English version of the Bill. Nevertheless, the effort has been made. I do not sense that our efforts are being rejected out of hand.
I noticed in debate yesterday that our political opponents, the Liberals and the New Democrats, have been complimentary and supportive of our efforts. I also noticed that members of all Parties have raised questions of interpretation and intent at the same time as they have addressed the principle of the Bill. I submit that that is the purpose of second reading stage.
February 9, 1988

When we debate this Bill, we do so keeping in mind the principle that Canada is a bilingual country. That fact is found not only throughout history but in the Constitution, and particularly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians are fully committed to equality of language within the parameters found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1 refer specifically to Section 16(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states:
English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.
As well. Section 20(1) states:
Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
(a)	there is a significant demand for communications with and services from
that office in such language;
or
(b)	due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with
and services from that office be available in both English and French.
Most Bills introduced in the House fall under the jurisdiction of one particular Minister. This Bill falls under the jurisdiction of three Ministers. The carriage of the Bill is with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who is responsible for the proceedings of Parliament, legislation and administration of justice. The Ministry of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) is responsible for the advancement of English and French. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankow-ski) is responsible for communications with and services to the public, language of work and participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.
In the short time available to me, I would like to refer to those parts of the Act within Treasury Board's responsibility. 1 would like to suggest solutions to some of the problems which have come to my attention, and send a signal that the Government is open to improvement and clarification, whether in second reading debate or committee. We welcome constructive questions and comments for the purpose of clarification in order that the Bill pass second reading and progress to committee stage.
First I will deal with Part IV, "Communications with and Services to the Public". As I suggested, Section 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms spells out the rights of a member of the public. As it happens, the same numbered article, Clause 20 in the Bill, reiterates the right of the public to communicate with the Government and receive available services from federal institutions in accordance with that part.
In Clause 21 reference is made to "significant demand". In other words, where there is significant demand the federal institution has the duty to provide, and so on. The question
Official Languages Act
then arises, what is significant demand? That has been asked in the House and it is a legitimate question.
I do not have a precise definition of "significant demand", but I would presume that in making regulations under Clause 21 the Government would take into account the following considerations. I refer the House specifically to Clause 31(2) which states that in prescribing the regulations which define significant demand:
-the Governor in Council may have regard to
(a)	the number of persons composing the English or French linguistic minority population of the area served by an office or facility, the particular characteristics of that population and the proportion of that population to the total population of that area;
(b)	the volume of communications or services between an office or facility and members of the public using each official language; and
(c)	any other factors that the Governor in Council considers appropriate.
I do not think these are exhaustive but they do give us some idea as to what the Governor in Council would take into account in drafting those regulations.
The Bill goes on to recognize that the travelling public has a right to expect that federal institutions which provide services to those people in particular can communicate in either official language. That provision is found in Clause 22. Why? In order to recognize the bilingual nature of Canada, both nationally and internationally. Most of all, I suggest, it is to make all Canadians feel at home everywhere they travel through this unique and wonderful country.
1 also want to address Clause 23 of the Bill, more particularly subclause (1) which states:
Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate in either official language with, and obtain available services in either official language from, any of its offices or facilities in Canada or elsewhere-
It then goes on to spell out the circumstances, the most important of which concerns the health, safety or security of members of the public. In other words, a member of the public dealing with a federal institution has the right to communicate with that institution in either official language and obtain service from that office in either official language.
Clause 25 regulates persons or organizations whose activities relate to the health, safety or security of members of the public:
-wherever it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances, that members of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from those persons or organizations in relation to those activities in both official languages.
Why? Because we wanted to give federal regulatory agencies a mandate to take the official language needs of the public into account with respect to health, safety or security of the public. Those three things have to be paramount in anything we legislate.
In this part as well there are provisions to ensure that the public is aware that the services are available in both official languages. For example, in the case of federal institutions

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
there must be signs which point out that each official language is given equal prominence. Clause 29 says in part:
-it shall communicate by using such media of communication as will reach members of the public in the official language of their choice in an effective and efficient manner that is consistent with the purposes of this Act.
Let me move on now to Part V. First I would point out Clause 30 of the Act which is all too often overlooked. The primary emphasis in Bill C-72 is service to the public. It is pointed out in Clause 30 that where there is an inconsistency between service to the public and the choice of language of work, the service obligation will prevail. As I said, I think that is sometimes overlooked.
In 1969 the Official Languages Act declared the equality of status of the two official languages and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions. That fact was raised to the level of a constitutional principle by way of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We feel that the language of work regime set out in the Bill takes into consideration the linguistic reality of our country. It recognizes the existence of two types of work environments: first, those in the National Capital Region and the more bilingual parts of our country where both languages are commonly used; and second, where one of those languages predominates. Obviously the obligations of federal institutions are not going to be the same in both cases. I refer to Clause 33 of the Bill which states:
English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.
I now want to look at some of the questions raised by this particular clause. For example, what about the right to work in either official language in accordance with this part? Does that mean this is unlimited? I think the right has to be understood in the context of the Bill which requires federal institutions to provide certain types of services to public servants in both official languages in certain regions and to create work environments conducive to the use of either official language in such regions. Therefore, the employee's right to choice of language of work is linked to these institutional duties.
As well, the Bill provides, and I stated this earlier, that where there is any inconsistency between the duties of the federal institutions to serve the public in both languages and the duties of those institutions in respect of the language of work of their officers and employees, the obligation to serve the public must prevail.
What about the question of supervisors? Does the Bill require all supervisors to be bilingual? In a bilingual institution as large as the federal Public Service there are work units composed entirely of positions requiring the use of only one language. To insist on bilingual supervisors in such units would be useless. On the other hand, the federal government policy will be to require supervisors to have a real bilingual capacity where the work environment requires it.
What about the work instruments that are referred to in Clause 35? Does that include all the technical manuals of the federal Government? The work instruments to which we refer in the Bill are the manuals, guidelines, circular letters, and forms which are regularly and widely used by employees and which are produced on behalf of the institution concerned. For that reason many technical manuals which are only used by a limited number of employees would not fall under this definition. It will be up to Treasury Board to set out the parameters on work instruments through the regulations and guidelines.
What about the participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians? Our objectives are two-fold: first, that English and French-speaking Canadians should have equal opportunities to obtain federal jobs and promotions: and second, that the workforce of the federal Government should reflect the presence of English-speaking and French-speaking populations in Canada while respecting the principle of merit.
All of the comments which I have made with regard to the Bill, and I tried to be specific with regard to the sections under Treasury Board jurisdiction, should be read in conjunction with Clauses 81 and 82 which refer to the regulation-making authority of the Governor in Council and the Treasury Board. We are inviting suggestions as to whether or not this Bill brings together the old Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are inviting suggestions with regard to improvements to the Bill.
One suggestion which may be considered is the requirement that regulations under Clauses 81 and 82 be printed and distributed for a consultative process prior to their issuance and promulgation. In other words, these two sections seek the views of members of the English and French linguistic minority communities and, where appropriate, members of the public. Clause 82 also provides for a review by the permanent committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. This is another improvement which we think could be suggested at committee.
In conclusion, I want to suggest to the House that the Bill may not be perfect, that clarifications may be required, that there may be interpretations which could be requested in committee. We understand that. That is the process through which all Bills go.
1 would like to comment on any suggestion by anyone that this Bill has been held up for an inordinate length of time. From memory I believe that there is on the Order Paper Bill C-30 still at second reading, Bill C-33 which has not had second reading, Bill C-54 which is at second reading, and Bill C-72. In other words, we have progressed in working our way through the Order Paper. Now is an appropriate time to deal with Bill C-72.
In doing so we seek tolerance and understanding in debate, in committee, and in implementation of the Act. Since
February 9, 1988

September 1984 we have made great strides as a Government and a country. We have the Meech Lake Accord and we have federal-provincial relations on a level which has not been seen in the last 18 to 20 years. Even when provinces and the federal Government disagree they do so on a level and plane which Canadians understand. It is not down on the low road. We have a working agreement. The child care effort, the tax reform effort, and all the improvements which have been made through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) demonstrate the ability of the Government to bring the provinces and the federal Government to work together on a regional basis.
This Bill demonstrates the Government's willingness to work together with the founding peoples of this country. I ask that the House and all Members join in the debate, in second reading passage, in committee work, in report stage, and in third reading so that we can send this Act on to the other place as soon as possible.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the Hon. Member. It was very well reasoned, very thoughtful and, by all normal standards, very convincing. Yet I know that the Hon. Minister has difficulties convincing some of his own back-benchers of the merits of this Bill. I fail to understand why he is not capable of convincing a number of them who are present in this Chamber to abandon the backward, ill-informed, and unrealistic position they have on this very important Bill.
This Bill puts forward a basic concept which has not only been accepted but supported in recent decades by Canadians all across the country. This Bill recognizes a cultural and linguistic reality. The Minister has made some very good points in advancing the merits of this Bill which deserve the support of his own back-benchers.
Therefore, I hope that his back-benchers listened carefully and will not come forward with notions of cost as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg did, as though to him dollars are more important than the national fiber and the cultural and linguistic values of the country. That is unacceptable. If Hon. Members prefer to put dollars before Canadian unity, that is their political responsibility, but we on this side of the House will not stand for that nonsense-we will not. That is a backward, asinine concept.
Therefore, why is the Minister not capable, with the well-reasoned position he took a few minutes ago, of convincing some of the backward back-benchers who are sitting behind him today?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I tried to suggest in my remarks that this subject was worthy of a long, hard, and reasoned debate and that we should try to deal with it on the high road. I am not at all surprised that my hon. colleague deals with it on the low road. It comes as no surprise to my colleagues in my Party that the Member would try to divide my Party as his Party has tried to do in the past.


Charles L. Caccia: No, no.
Official Languages Act


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Member shakes his head. We were in the House when the legislation on the rights of Francophones in Manitoba was brought forward with one intent in mind, that being to divide our Party. Quite frankly, the gambit failed miserably. We have had a bellyful of being divided by the Liberal Party on this and similar issues. We have had it.
This Hon. Member makes this comment after the Liberals demonstrated four different positions on international trade in Vancouver. Where does the Hon. Member stand on that issue?


Charles L. Caccia: What about linguistic rights?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On this issue there is no need to worry about our caucus and our back-benchers. That Member is a dissident who used to sit rather close to the Leader of his Party but is now out on the edge and clinging by his fingernails. He has to have his nomination early because he is afraid of it. The earliest nomination in the Liberal Party is sitting right there because he is afraid he is going to lose it. Do not try to divide our Party with a simple tactic like that.


Mr. Domm:: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether it is fair of the Member in the Official Opposition to bring forward this thought without considering whether he would endorse a resolution to the Quebec Government similar to the resolution which his Party put forward to the Manitoba Government. I want him to think about that.
I have a number of concerns dealing with the regulations that will be put in place by orders in council which will permit the Cabinet or Government to implement language in the work place. One of the principal reasons I object to the Bill, and this is a major dilemma, is that we do not know what will be the basis for these orders in council, we do not know the regulations.
The Minister referred to Clause 2(a) and Clause 31 dealing with regulations which refer to such things as population of an area in order to determine where there is significant demand. The Minister referred to what percentage of the total area would cause these regulations to be implemented. In order for me to support this Bill and represent my constituents, I want to know what that population of an area should be, and what the percentage of the total area should be. I could probably consider whether to support Bill C-72 based on that information which the Minister has referred to as important. If that information is important to the Minister in implementing this, it is important to Members of Parliament in knowing what they are approving in principle.
A similar case, which everyone would understand, existed with a former Bill passed in this Parliament under the former Government. It indicated that orders in council could be passed on the recommendations of a metric commissioner to the Cabinet, implementing mandatory metric in various industries. That did not work. Parliament had no input.

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
I suggest that this Bill is flawed because it does not give Parliament the opportunity to look at the requirements allowing orders in council to be passed, implementing mandatory regional workplace bilingualism. That is what the debate is about. Could the Minister respond?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, Clauses 81 and 82 provide for the review on a permanent basis of all regulations and directives. I stated specifically that one consideration may be to provide for those regulations and directives to be reviewed prior to implementation. We are reluctant to pin down numbers in the legislation because it would be difficult to change the Act if there were changes in circumstances.
Debates of this kind are often difficult. Legislative schedules of Government often include other priorities. One may take the case of 5,000 fishermen on the south shore of Nova Scotia who are francophone Acadians. The fisheries officers may well have to be bilingual. However, if all the Acadians were involved in fishing-which I do not know-it may not be as important for people at the agricultural station to be bilingual.
My point is that by leaving it to regulations which are brought about by a consultative process, that are discussed ahead of time and subject to review by a parliamentary committee, we would have the best of both worlds. Clause 31 describes the basic criteria and those regulations should come under Clause 31 and therefore be up for review.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Madam Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to speak today to a Bill that I consider vitally important for the country's linguistic minorities. I am of course referring to the Official Languages Act, that to us-when I say us, 1 mean Acadians, Francophones residing outside Quebec-is particularly important. The Government is to be commended for introducing the Bill at this time, and indeed I want to congratulate the Government for doing so. I also hope that the debate on this Bill will be non-partisan, so that the proposed legislation can be dealt with as quickly as possible.
I said that 1 congratulated the Government, and I also want to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who said yesterday, and I support him wholeheartedly in this:

The renewal of our language policy is intended for all Canadians. It provides for the needs of the majorities by guaranteeing government services for them in their own language. In addition, it recognizes the aspirations of minorities, who have often expressed a desire, and rightly so, to live and prosper using their own language. This Bill reflects the open-mindedness and tolerance of Canadians in matters of language and culture. This generosity of Canadians toward each other is one of the most endearing features of our national identity.
Madam Speaker, 1 think all Members of this House would do well to read this paragraph from the speech made by the Minister of Justice yesterday. It says a great deal about the Bill and about Canadians.
1 am sure the proposed legislation will make a lot of associations and a lot of people happy as well, and I am thinking particularly of the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, which at a press conference last week urged the Government to act on the official languages question. The Government was asked to take concrete action as quickly as possible, since we had waited long enough.
Today, the President of the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, Mr. Yvon Fontaine, must be pleased, since the final words of his press release were:
"We believe the federal Government should take action as soon as possible so that the Official Languages Act can become effective without further delay."
Those were Mr. Fontaine's concluding remarks. Well, his wish has almost come true, since we are now at the second reading stage. Madam Speaker, 1 repeat that I hope we will be able to proceed quickly with the second and third reading stages and that the Bill is adopted as soon as possible.
I also wish to say a few words about an association I know rather well, Canadian Parents for French, who should also be pleased with what is happening here today, especially if they have read, and I am sure they have, the following in the preamble to the Bill, and I quote:
The Government of Canada is committed to cooperating with provincial governments and their institutions to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, to provide services in both English and French, to respect the constitutional guarantees of minority language educational rights and to enhance opportunities for all to learn both English and French;
Of course Canadian Parents for French are delighted, because they have seen it as their role to promote the other official language, in their case French, since most members of this association are English-speaking.
This Bill, as we have said before, is the work of a number of individuals, a number of organizations, associations and even governments. However, 1 do not think taking the credit is an issue here. The important thing is that we have reached this stage. We have reached our goal, or at least we are well on our way to doing so.
To me, as an Acadian, the Bill also fills a gap left by the Meech Lake Accord. Granted, the Accord recognizes Englishspeaking and French-speaking minorities. There was also a commitment to preserve that fundamental characteristic of Canada, but only from the province of Quebec. And this is what 1 would have liked to see in the Meech Lake Accord,
February 9, 1988

Madam Speaker-a commitment by the Canadian Government to promote official languages across the land, rather than the sole province of Quebec making that commitment.
But, you see, even though the Liberal Party proposed an amendment, that was not accepted. The thrust of the Bill now before us is to fill that gap, and I am in fact delighted the Canadian Government accepts the role of promoting that fundamental characteristic of Canada. This is very important, and although I still would have preferred to see that role entrenched in the Meech Lake Accord, I am happy Madam Speaker to see it in the legislation.
Of course the Bill is not perfect, but it is a stage we must go through, and that stage indeed is of great significance to language minorities in Canada. It must be stressed that over these last few years we made very large strides, and I recognize that. Being an Acadian from New Brunswick, Madam Speaker, I am part of that distinct society which had a very stirring history since the very beginnings of Canada's colonization. With our own language, our own culture, our own customs, we are quite distinct. And our language, our culture were not preserved without hardship and difficulty.
If I go back to the 50's when I was in school, those memories now make me smile. Of course such conditions as we had in school at that time would not be accepted today. Let me explain. When I went to school, I had to study arithmetic in English textbooks, also algebra and geometry, and of course The World History. We often had difficulties with mathematics, not because the subject matter was that complicated, but quite simply because we did not understand the language, since everything was received in English. So we had severe difficulties. When I go back and remember the way we were doing the reading and the words we invented because of course we had the wrong accent, the wrong pronunciation, I can tell you that we were making sounds that sometimes were unintelligible. But despite all this, we broke through and we went ahead. How fortunate that this no longer is the case. My children were able to study with French texts and text-books. Of course this is a great step forward, but a lot of ground still has to be covered. Everything has not been done.
This legislation proposes very major changes at the courts level, providing that the individual has a right to be heard and understood in the official language of his or her choice. And this is very important because although a defendant would have the right to be heard in his own language, the presiding judge himself was under no obligation to understand the language chosen. This was a major deficiency which this Bill will remedy. Yet, there is a deficiency in this Bill in view of the fact that the Supreme Court will be excluded. When we deal with this Bill in committee, Madam Speaker, we will have to see whether these provisions could not apply also to the Supreme Court. We know that at least the presiding judge should be able to understand both official languages.
We must also recognize that the amendments to the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages are also very
Official Languages Act
important. His increased powers will make the legislation enforceable. People will be able to go to court, something they could not do until now. I suggest this is also very important.
Madam Speaker, we need to consider this Bill with a nonpartisan, open-minded attitude, and with a will to make progress.
It would be unfortunate if the debate on this Bill would reopen the debate on our official languages everywhere in Canada. I suggest that this debate has already taken place. We should not go back and put everything in question!
We have come a long way and this Bill is the end result of our effort. We should all strive for the success of this Bill by working together in a non-partisan fashion.
Madam Speaker, I am sad to say that when we hear people talk sometimes, one might think of Francophonie or even Anglophonie as a disease. Some people are afraid to accept bilingualism.
To reassure these people who are a little bit afraid, I could tell them not to worry. We do not want to take anything away from anybody, but we want to grant other individuals certain rights.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, this Bill is not perfect. I did not want to cover all the sections. This is a job we will take on when we deal with the Bill in committee. Madam Speaker, I want the House to know that I fully support this Bill and I strongly urge all Hon. Members of the House to do likewise.


Mr. Reid:: The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) comes from a bilingual province and, even though he talks in terms of being an Acadian speaking French, he points out difficulties in making his way through life and reaching the great status that he now holds.
The Hon. Member was probably sitting in the House when the Minister spoke, prior to the Hon. Member having the floor. The Minister pointed out that this Bill was designed, to some degree at least, to help make Canadians all across the country feel at home in whatever part of the country they happen to be in.
Does the Hon. Member think that this Bill will alleviate the problems that he experienced growing up in New Brunswick in his ordinary way of life? Is this Bill not more related to the delivery of services rather than getting down to the level of person to person and people meeting in the street?
When the Hon. Member makes his response, I ask him to consider the most unilingual piece of legislation in the country, that is, Bill 101 in the Province of Quebec, and what deterrent does this have in making people feel at home in different provinces where minorities live and work?

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question which is whether this Bill will help us function better as a nation. If we look at the preamble, I do indeed believe it will help us live better lives as Canadians, whether we are Anglophones or Francophones. For instance, this part of the preamble provides that:
the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;
I believe the preamble makes clear that wherever they happen to be, Canadians will not have to cope with the difficult circumstances we faced as Acadians during the fifties. We are making services available to people, and this can only foster the cause of official languages.
My colleague mentioned Bill 101 in Quebec. I would say "Thou beholdest the mote that is in thy brother's eye but considerest not the beam that is in thine own", and 1 am of course referring, be it reluctantly to the case of MPP Leo Piquette in Alberta, who was denied the right to speak French in the Legislative Assembly. He was not allowed to finish what he had to say, and I am sure no one would get that kind of treatment in Quebec.


Mr. Graham:: I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) that perhaps some people are not so much concerned with the intent of the Bill but rather with the drafting of the Bill and, because of the drafting, the interpretation which may be placed on it. We believe that the law should be written in such a manner that average citizens can understand it. I consider myself in the category of an average citizen.
The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent specifically referred to Clause 15(1), the Duty to ensure understanding without an interpreter. If the Hon. Member has a copy of the Bill, I would like him to refer to it. That clause states:
Every court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that, in any proceedings conducted before it, any judge or other presiding officer is able to understand the official language or languages in which the proceedings are conducted without the assistance of an interpreter.
We can certainly understand where the Bill may be coming from. I believe that the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent is fortunate enough to be able to converse in both languages. I was wondering if he would look at the French translation of that particular clause and point out to me where judges are referred to in Clause 15(1). I am not overly conversant with the French language, but I am at a total loss to see where judges are referred to at all. This raises the point that the drafting of the Bill has left many loopholes and possibly much misunderstanding. Perhaps this is where the concern is, rather than the partisan approach which he suggested may be the reason for the objections to the Bill. Could he conceivably point out for me where it refers to judges?


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand, because Clause 15(1) provides, and I quote:
15. (1) II incombe aux tribunaux autres que la Cour supreme du Canada de veiller, dans toutes les affaires dont ils connaissent, a ce que le president de ('audience ...
And I think that is the term he wants, "le president de 1'audience"
-comprenne, sans l'aide d'un interprete, la langue officielle dans laquelle se
deroule l'affaire et sont rediges les actes de procedure.
1 don't see any problem at all. When rendering the law in another language, one does not do a literal translation. One renders the meaning, and I think it was done quite satisfactorily in this case. I don't see any problem.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset to the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), that I do not quarrel in any way, shape, or form with the principle of two official languages in Canada. I think that all Canadians support that policy.
1 think what Hon. Members are concerned with, and myself in particular, is how that policy is implemented and whether it is implemented in a fair, appropriate, and proper way.
I am sure the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent would not want to promise Francophones in his province, as I would not want to promise Francophones in my provinces, services which they will not receive in the future under this Bill or any other legislation.
I want to review very briefly with him the past experience in the Province of New Brunswick. He knows that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under the new Constitution Act passed in 1982 the courts of New Brunswick were made bilingual. The specific provision under Section 19(2) is that English or French may be used by any person in any pleading or process issuing from any court of New Brunswick.
My impression is that in the City of Saint John, for example, if a Francophone comes before a court he cannot be assured that he will be heard in his language. I wonder if the reverse is true in the City of Edmundston. Perhaps an Anglophone can have difficulty being heard in his language.
What we want to be assured of is that if Parliament passes legislation that indicates to Francophones that they can be heard in their language in court, or that Anglophones can be heard in their language in court, we are ready to implement it.
How has that official policy been implemented in New Brunswick over the last six years? Does that situation exist in New Brunswick today, the instant right to be heard before the courts of New Brunswick as guaranteed by Section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
February 9, 1988

I say to him at the same time that if that is not a reality today he had better have another thought about supporting provisions in Bill C-72 which would purport to do the same sort of thing for other Canadians.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I really do not see what the Hon. Member's problem is. Even in cases outside New Brunswick, whether an Anglophone can be heard in English or a Francophone can be heard in French has no bearing on this Bill, and I fail to see why we should not go ahead with this Bill. It does not affect the Bill at all. I think we have now reached the point where we have to do something. We must draft certain laws. We must give rights to English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Whatever the situation in New Brunswick happens to be, it does not release us from our obligation to proceed. And I believe it is high time we did. We must go ahead, no matter what the situation is elsewhere.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, on December 11, 1987 I stood in my place and resigned as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services. At that time I said, and I repeat it, that I am a Conservative, a strong Conservative, and a strong supporter of my Party, my colleagues, my Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and in general my Government; that I am also unilingual; that 1 represent a riding which is overwhelmingly unilingual Anglophone; and that I fear my constituents' rights are jeopardized by Bill C-72 as it is now written.
Why did I resign? It was certainly not because I do not recognize and respect the duality of Canada and the two official languages. I resigned because of the wording and the way Bill C-72 was written and because it is not fair. If Canadians do not believe that it will change the face of Canada judicially, as has been pointed out, the supervisory capacities in the Public Service, the private sector, and by a dictatorial language tsar who is above the law, then they do not believe that Wayne Gretzky plays hockey or that the NDP Leader from Oshawa is or was Vice-President of Socialists International.
I resigned in the vain hope that the Prime Minister would come forth and withdraw this unfair piece of reverse discrimination from the House, or substantially amend it. The Bill was stopped for a little while. We were to have discussions on it, and we had a couple of meetings in which I and most of us who were there were led to believe that there would be no changes in the Bill.
I was more than appreciative of the Minister, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), when he rose a short time ago and said that perhaps now this is not the case. I certainly hope so.
Prior to this, the Bill had been discussed at meetings of the caucuses of B.C., Saskatchewan, and Ontario, and there were severe reservations about its contents. Hon. Ministers and
Official Languages Act
some people in the House would have you believe, Madam Speaker, that this Bill is about fairness. They would have you believe that it is for unity, and this is untrue. All of us in the House want a united Canada. All of us believe in two official languages, but this Bill is patently unfair. It is not about unity. It is about division. Bilingualism is no longer an emotional issue. It is an accepted fact, but this is a matter of fairness and language should not be a power struggle.
Who really wants this Bill? I would like people to tell me. I am sure it is not the majority of Canadians, not my constituents.
My daughter, who has a Masters in Science, applied just a short time ago to Air Canada for a position. When she filled out the forms she was told that because she was not bilingual there would be no need to have an interview-"You can have the interview if you want it, but our policy is no hiring". I wonder what would happen if Bill C-72 went through in these circumstances.
Bill C-72 is about reverse discrimination. It places linguistics above merit regardless of the claim in Section 38(3) which is totally ambiguous. It makes second-class citizens of Anglophones, the majority of Canadians, the 76 per cent of Canadians who operate in an English milieu. This is Draconian legislation, fitting of Machiavelli himself.
Let me now ask who speaks for English Canada? Well, I do and I entreat my other English-speaking colleagues, who I know sit silently opposing the Bill, who have spoken out in committee and in private, to rise to their feet and voice their opposition and not allow constituents to be treated as second-class citizens.
I particularly challenge the press. I want to see the press take apart this Bill clause by clause, understand every part of it, and explain to their readers and viewers, the Canadian public, the true significance contained therein.
Let us look at the facts. Since the Official Languages Act makes us equal and gives equal access and opportunities, supposedly, to both linguistic groups, what has happened in the Public Service since the Act came into force under a Liberal Government and, in particular, Pierre Elliott Trudeau? Administrations became overstaffed with Francophones by
1984.	This is what happened in 1986. I have in my hand statistics with respect to 26 departments. Statistics do not lie. I will not read them all out, but I will tell Hon. Members what happened with respect to the percentage of Francophones in these departments from 1984 until now.
In 1984, 50 percent of the staff of the Canadian Human Rights Commission was Francophone. That figure has risen to 59 per cent today. At the offices of the Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs the figure went from 83 per cent to 91 per cent. At the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission office the figure went from 65 per cent in

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
1984 to 70 per cent today. The Federal Court went from 53 per cent to 57 per cent. The Law Reform Commission went from 65 per cent to 71 per cent, while the offices of the Chief Electoral Officer went from 84 per cent to 88 per cent. The staff at the Veterans Allowance Board went from 33 per cent Francophone to 87 per cent Francophone. Francophone employees at the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages went from 82 per cent to 85 per cent.
Is this fairness? Would this Bill have repercussions the way it is written on these statistics and more? I ask Hon. Members to think about that. This is what has occurred without the dictatorial powers that we would give the Commissioner of Official Languages above the Government and above the law.
The Official Languages Act states "bilingualism where numbers warrant". This wording is to be changed to a "significant demand". What does this mean? Does it mean that 20 Francophones from outside Quebec can complain once a month to the Official Languages Commissioner, that an airline, an officer, a company is not toeing the mark as the Bill is written and interpreted by the Commissioner? Will it be a case of, "Give me the service or I will take you to court"? There would be no recourse to take a person back to court, none in the least.
I have a letter in my hand which I received from the Commissioner of Official Languages some time ago. In this letter he brings to my attention a complaint which he received to the effect that my office provided unilingual telephone reception during the morning of March 14. Although the Official Languages Act applies only to the institutions of the Government of Canada and not to Members of Parliament he takes it for granted that I would wish to be made aware of complaints received by his office and to concern myself with my staff.
From 1979 until to date I have not received one letter written in French from a constituent of Simcoe South. In 1981 I received 10 letters written in French from inmates of Laval Prison in Quebec in answer to a questionnaire dealing with capital punishment which I issued. In February of 1988 I received a letter from Jacques Marchand, of the French-Canadian Association of Ontario. Not one constituent has ever phoned me and spoken in the French language. Yet this Bill will change the face of these things. I ask everyone to read it carefully.
I now refer to an article written by Frank Howard which appeared in his column "Bureaucrats" on February 2, 1988. He writes about the former director of Chancellery of Canadian Orders and Decorations at Government House. He was reported to have caused a commotion because he drafted a letter to the Queen, so to speak, from Her Excellency, so to speak, with respect to some matter of heraldry. The Governor General, a disciple and an appointed head of state, refused to send the letter in English. The Director found himself to be persona non grata and he now finds himself in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
1 recently sent my householder out in a bilingual format. I noted in it that the average cost of an English only householder is $4,011.23. The bilingual householder cost $7,468.78. I included a questionnaire in the householder to which I received 1,973 replies. I asked the following question:
Do you favour bilingual service for all federal government departments and crown corporations?
(a)	For communities of 5,000 (eg. Toronto, etc.) or more whose mother
tongue is French.
Thirty-three per cent replied yes; 59 per cent replied no; and 8 per cent were undecided.
The second part of the question states:
(b)	For communities with 50 or more who request bilingual service for 12
consecutive months?
Sixteen per cent replied yes; 71 per cent replied no; and 4 per cent were undecided.
The next question I asked in the questionnaire was:
Do you wish to receive my Householder as bilingual in future?
Fourteen per cent replied yes; 82 per cent replied no; and 4 per cent were undecided.
The next question I asked was:
Do you favour compulsory bilingualism for the Province of Ontario?
Eleven per cent replied yes; 85 per cent replied no; and 4 per cent were undecided.
I have in my hand an article which appeared in The Ottawa Citizen on January 27, 1988, written by Keith Spicer, the former Commissioner of Official Languages. He stated:
The new law's more legalistic and coercive approach may put at risk the old gentle, persuasive ombudsman approach to language rights-
That is something which we all accept and champion. He went on to state:
-Quebeckers are linguistically secure with Bill 101 and broadly convinced that the old Official Languages Act has worked; only French-speakers outside Quebec and Ottawa's language administrators really seem eager for a stronger law;
Amen, Madam Speaker.
In 1981 we received the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As has been pointed out time and again by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and by myself, is there anywhere in the Charter which protects you, Madam Speaker, or me from discrimination by reason of language? I will tell Hon. Members that there is not. There is no provision for property rights. There are notwithstanding clauses. We have problems before the House with respect to abortion because of this imperfect document. I am proud to say that I voted against it.
In 1987 we had the Meech Lake Accord. Bill 101 was already in place in the Province of Quebec as a result of our good friend Rene Levesque. For all intents and purposes that made Quebec unilingually French. There are no English signs. When Premier Bourassa said that he would relax that law,
February 9, 1988

Zellers put up some bilingual signs which were fire bombed. Is that fairness? Is this how the Official Languages Act of this country works? Is this how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms works?
If Meech Lake is passed and "significant demand"is instilled into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution then what will happen with Bill 101? Is there any element of English-speaking persons in Canada who want Bill 101 and want to institutionally and individually bilingualize the country the document which we have in front of us? I want a united Canada. I want an Official Languages Act that will work. But I do not think that any free people should ever have a minority language right enforced by the law of the country.
The Meech Lake Accord refers to distinct society. Is Premier Bourassa now waiting for the distinct society provision to take effect in order to legitimize this discriminatory Bill? What a hammer to have in place in conjunction with Bill C-72 as well. The distinct society provision could legitimize unilin-gualism while the rest of us would be struggling for a bilingual country.
Regarding the preamble of Bill C-72, there are two approaches to bilingualism in Canada today. One is that all Canadians have access to the institutions of Canada and essential services yet remain unilingual without jeopardizing their careers. We all support that. The second option is that everyone has the capacity to interchange language in any way, in other words, be fluently bilingual. Until now that has worked as everybody has been saying. It has been enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for the first time, we have legislation through Bill C-72 which will force the abandonment of option one and pull this country inexorably toward institutional bilingualism.
The quote I have in my hand has been given in the House of Commons time after time. I will not go through the Alberta report again. What this quote is saying can and probably will be true if Bill C-72 goes through in its present shape and form.
I would like to quote what the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) has said in his hiring practices. On page three under the objectives it is stated that the suppliers of goods and services of the Department in bilingual regions shall provide such goods and services in both official languages. This would pertain to any corporation in Canada doing business with the federal Government. The manual also indentifies springboard positions that foster the accelerated development of incumbents and staff with high potential candidates, 30 per cent of whom are to be Francophones, not bilingual but Francophones.
The old Act was based on service to the public. Bill C-72 changes all that, giving every public servant the right to work in the language of his or her choice. The Language Commissioner would like us to believe that this will pertain only to the National Capital Region and designated areas. However, we
Official Languages Act
know that in reality, any supervisory position or opportunities thereto in the public service will have bilingualism as a prerequisite because of this Bill, just in case one should have to communicate in both French and English.
Bill C-72 states that the instruments of work must be provided in both official languages. I heard the Minister reply to this by saying that it was nothing to think about. Every piece of software, hardware and equipment for communication in Canada must be bilingual-capable. The DND regulations were just translated a while ago, costing tens of millions of dollars. The cost will be astronomical in the face of the deficit we are fighting so hard.
Both the federal and the Ontario Governments have designated Toronto as a city where French-language services are to be provided. They should be providing it in Italian. How can they justify this course of action when the 1981 Census figures show that the number of residents of Metro Toronto who speak French is only 0.69 of the population? To serve the people in French, 99.3 per cent of the population will pay the millions, and I mean millions of dollars, to have everything done in two languages. Obviously it means jobs, jobs for Francophone people. Unfortunately, that provision will not protect the ethnic people. The ethnic people of the City of Toronto and elsewhere will have to be bilingual as well.
Bill C-72 confuses two important issues. The present Official Languages Act commits the Government to bilingualism, not the country. Bill C-72 commits the country to such a concept.
The Official Languages Commissioner is above the law. He is a tsar. He is answerable only to the Charter of Rights, not to Parliament. He can charge, subpoena and accuse but he himself cannot have that done to him.
Language in the workplace will change the face of this nation. It will mean that the private sector doing business with the Government will have to have bilingual employees in order to serve public servants in the language of their choice. Bill C-72 does this by simply making a bilingual capacity a prerequisite for all government jobs.
Indeed, it is apparent by the thrust of the preamble that an ability to speak in both languages will become a prerequisite for all jobs in Canada. The Bill may not spell that out loud and clear, one may have to search a bit for it, but it is there.
Already the Act denies the right of unilingual Canadians to take any position in the Public Service with a supervisory capacity. It demands that all federally-appointed court judges with the exception of the Supreme Court be bilingual. My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), suggested in his opening remarks that Bill C-72 would not do that, that although the actual legislation refers to all courts, somehow, some way, not all courts would be affected. One of the officers of the Law Society of Canada phoned me, however, to tell me of his grave fears about the whole issue.

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
Canadians want to be bilingual. We should teach French in schools from kindergarten on. The ability to absorb a second language falls drastically from the age of six. This has been proven by Chomsky, the father of linguistics who I studied in anthropology and who is still alive and well at MIT. Put it in the schools, but do not jam it down our throats through a Bill that takes away people's rights. Who wants this Bill? Is this what Canadians really want? Let us be very clear. The bilingualization of all Canadians means a great deal of expense, energy and effort. It is not fair and it is a decision which should not be taken lightly. Without having to resort to a complex and expensive poll, I can tell Hon. Members that the answer is no, my constituents do not want this, westerners do not want it and most maritimers do not want it. Even some people from Quebec do not want it. Certainly I believe that the provinces in general do not want it. 1 wish we could have a secret ballot on this. I wish this Bill would be amended drastically or would be totally withdrawn. 1 challenge Members from all parts of the House to think very carefully on it.


Mr. Malepart:: Madam Speaker, 1 certainly do not share the views just expressed by my colleague, particularly when he claims that Anglophones in Quebec are not allowed to speak and that bilingualism is a fact of life in the rest of Canada.
1 should like the Hon. Member to tell me whether he accepts the fact that a French-speaking MLA, say in Alberta, is not allowed to use his mother tongue, French of course. So how can he tel! us that the rest of Canada is bilingual, but that Quebec is not? I think that is false.
I would like to know his views. Why be so strongly opposed to this Bill which would ensure that federal institutions provide services in both official languages throughout the country but which does not apply to all provincial legislatures?
Can the Hon. Member tell us how come he is so dead set against Quebec's Bill 101 and yet does not say anything about the other provinces, about ML As like those in Alberta who dare not speak French lest they be dragged before the court?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, 1 am not opposed to bilingualism where the numbers warrant it in all federal institutions as the Act spells it out now. Leave it alone: it is not broken, do not fix it.
How would we expect the people of Alberta to ever countenance bilingualism in the Alberta Government on the strength of what has happened in the Province of Quebec with Bill 101, with Meech Lake in limbo and with all the things that have gone on there? I do not recall hearing of any fire-bombings or mailbox-bombings in Alberta. 1 do not recall hearing of a linguistics struggle in Alberta.
1 might point out that the English-speaking population of the Province of Quebec is more than that of many of the western provinces themselves. The problem exists and we know it. However, this Bill will not correct it.
Again, I would like to reiterate for the Hon. Member that I champion bilingualism from kindergarten up in the educational system, not through phoney legislation designed to force francophone participation in Canada. That is what this Bill is, make no mistake about it. It does not force Anglophones into positions. 1 would meet the Hon. Member at any time, and I want it clearly understood that I do not oppose the French language but I certainly oppose this Bill.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment briefly on this speech and to do so in English. I am a Member who challenges the question that has been asked, who speaks for English-Canada?
This has been an extraordinarily divisive speech behind the protestations of support for national unity, support for bilingualism and support for the Official Languages Act of 1969. It makes me as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages think that we really do work there in one of those solitudes that this country has known far too often.
It is quite clear to us, dealing with agencies of the Government and officials who head Departments, that the Official Languages Act points to the changes that are being proposed by this Bill. The Hon. Member recognizes that bilingualism is advancing in various Departments, which is not to say that there are 85 per cent Francophone Canadians in the Official Languages Commissioner's office but rather that 85 per cent of the persons there are capable of working in both languages. When he brings that kind of reality into the question to pander to the fears of some parts of the Canadian population, he is doing something extraordinarily divisive.
1 realize that it is one o'clock. One could say a great deal more, but I, as one Canadian who speaks English far better than French, regret what the Hon. Member has said.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. later this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, 1 called the attention of the House on
February 9, 1988

the unacceptable situation Canada Post rural contract agents must live with. At the time, I described the situation faced by Mr. Ronald Laliberte, from Hawkesbury, in my Glengarry- Prescott-Russell riding, who has been a rural contract agent for the Post Office for over 30 years and who, because of some Canada Post procedure, could find himself without a job in spite of his long and loyal services. For almost two years now,
5,000	rural contract agents are faced with the same dilemma as Mr. Laliberte when they see their contracts extended without any guarantee from Canada Post.
The Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation should make the required decisions by making it possible for rural contract agents to renew their contracts without jeopardizing their jobs. Why should a Canadian citizen who has been a Post Office employee for 30 years have to make a bid each year to keep his job? Mr. Speaker, such an attitude is altogether unacceptable, and the Government of Canada should protect the job of rural contract agents in this country.


ABORTION
[Stage Direction]
SUPREME COURT DECIStON-EFFECT ON UNBORN BABIES
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Section 251 of the Criminal Code leaves all unborn babies defenceless in their mother's womb.
Did you know that four days after conception sex can be determined under a special microscope? Or that 24 to 25 days after conception the heart begins to beat and pump its own blood? Or that 43 days after conception brain waves can be detected? Or that 30 days after conception, foundations of the brain, spinal cord, nerves and sense organs are completely formed?
All of the following occur even before the mother knows she is pregnant: nerves and muscles begin working together; lips become sensitive to touch and the shape of the body is unmistakably human and possesses all the internal organs of an adult. In fact, the stomach produces digestive juices, the liver manufactures red blood cells, and the kidney eliminates uric acid from the body. Even the legs, arms, fingers and toes have already been formed. From this point on the only changes will be in size and sophistication of use of the unborn's parts.
Under Canadian law there is no cut-off date after which abortions may not be performed. It is incumbent upon Parliament to exhibit moral leadership in establishing laws to stop the killing of approximately 100,000 babies in their mothers' wombs each year.


S. O. 21 HOUSING PLIGHT OF HOMELESS-INCREASED GOVERNMENT FUNDING URGED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and in every other Canadian city, there are men and women without shelter. They sleep in the streets, on park benches, in abandoned buildings, and under bridges. The number of people chronically without shelter is still relatively small but nonetheless significant, and the fact it is increasing is alarming.
During 1987, the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, the Canada Council on Social Development produced a comprehensive study of homelessness in Canada. Its recommendations, ranging from a complete review of the Canada Assistance Plan, expanding social programs and developing new ones, to establishing national objectives for increasing the supply of low-cost housing, and viewing housing construction as a vehicle to put people back to work, have the potential to go a long way. What is needed now is a strong commitment by the federal Government and provincial Governments to provide the money and support necessary to implement these recommendations.
The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless has passed, but the problem will persist until we can find the political will to change it. I urge the Government to meet that challenge, and there is no better place to do it than when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brings his Budget forward tomorrow. He could increase the funding allocation for the homeless then.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative northern defence policy of providing optimum protection and sovereign control at a reasonable price is compelling in its good sense and logic. The NDP policy of surrendering the nation to the first Russian soldier to step off his skidoo might appeal to a few. What makes no sense at all is the Liberal policy outlined in Vancouver by their Party Leader (Mr. Turner) on the weekend.
The Liberals would spend billions of dollars on diesel submarines completely incapable of operating under the ice, thereby abandoning any semblance of Canadian Arctic sovereignty to the Americans. Using the same logic, maybe the Liberals would want to replace our tanks with Roman catapults, equip our infantry with longbows, and reintroduce the cavalry.

February 9, 1988


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of unease that I watch the struggle, feel the hostility, and sense the futility on all sides of the disturbances in the Gaza and West Bank. The confrontations have created a dangerously unstable situation which causes serious concern for many people in Canada and around the world.
Since 1945, 150 regional wars have caused 20 million casualties, mostly civilian men, women and children, and forced many people to seek refuge from violence and oppression. While some of these disputes in the Middle East have been settled, the same is not true in the Gaza and West Bank despite many concrete attempts to resolve the situation. Recent events demonstrate the need for direct negotiations towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Valuable time is being lost in the search for a just and lasting peace that recognizes Israel within secure boundaries and responds to the aspirations of the Palestinians.
Restoration of order is a necessary first step. While no army or police force in the world should have to forgo its right to self-defence, it remains true that human rights know no boundaries and must be respected. I urge all parties to refrain from further aggression and to work towards an environment in which a negotiated settlement can be found. The U.S. peace plan may be such a starting point. It is an initiative worth serious consideration. Let this not be another tragedy of lost opportunity.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, during the past two weeks Canadians have been skilfully manipulated by Mahmoud Mohammad, the terrorist convicted in Greece of attacking an Israeli jet in which there was a loss of life. Flanked by his family, this individual told Canadians that he was rehabilitated, and gave a hazy account of the terrorist attack.
It has now been proven that Mr. Mohammad's account of the incident was false. However, there is a major principle at stake here. The principle is what this individual represents. Terrorists have no compassion, pity, or remorse. Their only aim is terror, to be achieved by any means they have at their disposal. Any human being is a potential target for these cowardly people for they only prey on those who cannot defend themselves.
These individuals have been responsible for thousands of innocent deaths throughout the world. They are responsible for the unprecedented security now enforced at all points of departure. Yet this individual is making a mockery of our immigration system. While the Government has passed C-55 and C-84 to control this abuse, the Senate continues to stall its process. 1 call on the other place to act before more criminals enter Canada.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, Mr. Kingsley, claimed that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) arrangements do not constitute a potential conflict of interest.
I would assert that this is not the case. By his actions the Prime Minister is in a natural conflict. As this House knows, we are studying Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Negotiations are ongoing regarding the disclosure of the financial status of local political Party associations and a fuller disclosure of the financial transactions of the central Parties.
Ordinary Canadians deserve to know what is happening with money provided by rebates and tax credits. They wish to know what the federal Parties are doing with this money. The New Democratic Party has always been in favour of open disclosure. Despite our attempts during negotiations with the other Parties, all we have been given in the Bill is a voluntary disclosure of the financial status of local association funds. This is simply not good enough. We must either eliminate this farce, or make the legislation binding and enforceable.
It seems that working Canadians cannot expect the Prime Minister and his Party to be in favour of the disclosure of his Party's financial records when it includes information that is embarrassing to himself. Mr. Speaker, ordinary Canadians, through the tax rebate system and the tax credit system, are paying a lot of money to the PC Fund. We deserve to know and should have legislation to ensure that that information is available to the public.


ABORTION
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the abortion law as breaching the Charter of Rights. However, the court has not said that the Charter gives a woman the right to an abortion. Rather, it
February 9, 1988

has said that, although Section 251 of the Criminal Code breaches the Charter, Parliament does have the power to enact legislation restricting abortion and protecting the unborn child.
As one of my constituents said, we did not elect the Supreme Court to govern Canada. Surely, with due respect to Parliament as a mechanism of Canadian democracy, we could reenact Section 251 of the Criminal Code as well as invoking the provisions of Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide protection to the unborn child pending a permanent solution to this very pressing problem.



Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the natural reaction of the Government when facing a controversial issue like abortion is to sit on the fence and avoid falling into either camp. That is exactly what it is doing now.
Last week the highest court in the land ruled that women have a right to decide on the choices affecting their own reproduction. As a result, the country is in a state of confusion. Abortion is now supposed to be legal but most provinces have done nothing to come to terms with this reality.
The tidal wave has swept across the country and the Conservative Government is refusing to clean up the chaos left behind. I ask the Government to start cleaning up, to start facing today's new reality. Canada is confused and needs direction.
When is the Conservative Government going to stop studying the document and start facing its responsibilities? When are Canadian women across Canada going to have equal access to all services and options regarding reproduction? When is the federal Government going to give the provinces and the people of Canada some leadership on this issue?
I ask the Government at least to recognize that women have more choice today than they did last week and that access to all choices and options concerning reproduction must be guaranteed. It is time that the Government started cleaning up the confusion.
* *
*


IMPORTANCE OF FREE TRADE FOR QUEBEC
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, 800 members of our important business community got together in


S. 0. 21
[Stage Direction]
Quebec City to hear Ambassador Simon Reisman talk about free trade.
The business community of the major 03 area have come to realize that free trade means above all the preservation for the Province of Quebec of an export market in the United States of nearly $18 billion a year. Quebec businessmen see free trade as a tremendous opportunity to reach an additional market of nearly 250 million customers. The manufacturing industry, the service industry, the agricultural industry are winners, and so are Quebecers, together with Premier Bourassa!
When Mr. Reisman was asked about the position adopted by the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, he said, and 1 quote: "Are you referring to the statement he made on Tuesday, or that he made on Wednesday, or to the contradictory statement on Thursday? If we wait until Saturday, he might have something entirely different to say".
* *
*

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, an article which appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir has raised a very important matter for the future of the country, more specifically dealing with young Canadians.
This question is raised at a time when the various governments are considering the rationalization of funds invested in social programs, including higher contributions of workers to various pension funds.
Mr. Speaker, what is the Government doing for our young people? Why such striking disparity between the financial assistance granted to them and that granted to other groups in the community?
Let me quote part of that article: "If, as it is considered, contributions to the Quebec and Canada pension plans have to be increased to more than 10 per cent, it would be disastrous for unskilled workers and especially young people."
The financing of pension plans appreciably reduces their wages which are already low.
Our young people should not be penalized in the interests of other groups in our community. They should be granted the necessary aid to face such social changes.
Unfortunately, it seems that we cannot rely on the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) for the implementation of such programs, thus showing the lack of any real policy for young people within the Conservative Government.

February 9, 1988
Oral Questions
I will not ask directly to the minister what are his intentions because I already know his answer: "The rate of unemployment has decreased, the economy and our young people are doing fine."
With such a reply, what kind of future can our young people who are experiencing problems and youth generally expect?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, 1988 marked the beginning of the twenty-sixth year since the erection of the Berlin Wall, first established in 1961 to seal off the Soviet sector from the rest of Berlin.
The Berlin Wall remains an ugly and hated symbol of the division of Germany and the German people, and is a monument to the distrust and paranoia of the communist regime. While we struggle to deal with the many and vast differences between East and West, the tragedy that is the Berlin Wall should not be allowed to slip into obscurity.
The Wall epitomizes the difference between East and West and defines the reality of the Soviet Bloc, a vast prison from which there is little chance of escape. It has divided a nation and a people, and must be demolished. Not to do so would be a betrayal of the many brave individuals who have lost their lives attempting to scale its treacherous walls.
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Government of Canada to use all available measures to maintain pressure on the Soviet Union until this barricade to freedom is dismantled, never to be erected again.


MEDICAL RECORDS-ABSENCE OF UNIFORM REGULATIONS GOVERNING RETENTION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, at present no federal legislation regulates the length of time medical records must be retained, nor does legislation require doctors or hospitals to release medical records or test results to patients.
When doctors do not release this kind of information to their patients and files are eventually discarded, a patient is left with no records at all.
The need for these records is becoming increasingly evident. Many illnesses take considerable time for diagnosis and medical histories have a bearing on the health of descendants and other family members. Our increasingly mobile population adds to the difficulty of updating medical records.
At present each province and territory has jurisdiction over its own Health Ministry regulations on the issue of the retention of medical records. These run the gamut from no regulations at all in Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, to Prince Edward Island which retains records for 50 years if microfilmed. Other provinces retain them for varying lengths of time, from five years in Quebec to 30 years in Manitoba.
I urge the Government to work with the provinces to develop a consistent policy across the country on this important matter.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it has been about two weeks since the Supreme Court of Canada made its ruling on abortion. It is a controversial decision, but the Supreme Court has ruled and it is now the law of the land.
The Supreme Court has said that whether or not a woman may have an abortion is not a matter for a therapeutic abortion committee, or a provincial Premier, to decide. Any future changes to the law must be made by Parliament, not by the provinces. Has the Prime Minister advised the Premiers that they should not attempt to frustrate the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada?
I should think the Prime Minister would agree with me that it is for Parliament to show some leadership in this matter, so 1 ask when he will bring forth a detailed national policy for abortion so that women in this country from one coast to the other are treated equally?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition because it allows me the opportunity to remind the Right Hon. Leader again of the fact that we on the federal level have indeed been giving very urgent priority to this matter and giving leadership on a national level.
The fact is that the Supreme Court decision has left a void in terms of the law of our land with respect to abortion. That has been acknowledged. We in the federal Government have
February 9, 1988

been in consultation, my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with his provincial counterparts, and I with the provincial Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General of the provinces. We in the federal Government believe that a legislative approach on the federal level is appropriate and are therefore dealing and consulting with our provincial colleagues who have a very significant role in terms of the delivery of medical services.
I conclude by saying that Canada now, I think, as a result of the Supreme Court decision, is the only western industrialized country which does not have legislative rules with respect to abortion. We are considering all of our options in that regard and hope to present them to Parliament, so that we can debate the matter on the floor of this House at the earliest possible date.


John Napier Turner: That is a more positive response than the responses we received earlier when both the Minister of Justice and his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, said they were consulting with their provincial colleagues but, frankly, giving the country the impression that this consultation was a surrendering of jurisdiction or responsibility.


DIFFERENCES IN PROVINCIAL APPROACHES TO PROVISION OF SERVICES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back once again to the Prime Minister. Does he think it is acceptable that in one province a rape victim will not have an abortion paid for under medicare unless she faces death, while in another province all abortions are fully funded?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I won't answer the question directly. I want to say to the-


John Napier Turner: Just answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, I will not answer it directly-


Mr. Kaplan:: That's your job.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -and I will tell the Right Hon. Leader why.
I said yesterday, along with the Minister of Justice today, that we are looking at various options. I mentioned yesterday that there are certain interpretations, for instance, also relating to the Canada Health Act which are not correct.
It is better to consult with the provinces and put forward exactly the types of questions and positions that the right hon. gentleman has put forward, than to speculate on the floor of the House.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the consultation described by the Minister of Health would be leadership and not just an attempt to build up a consensus when it is obvious that various provinces are treating this matter in different ways, to the detriment of equality across the country.


SUPREME COURT DECISION-&quot;NOTWITHSTANDING&quot; CLAUSE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my third question to the Minister of Justice.
I thought the Minister had assured me in this House, eleven days ago, that the Government would not use the "notwithstanding" clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to try to disregard the Supreme Court ruling, but the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe has indicated on television last weekend that the Minister had said to some Members of his caucus that he was still thinking of using the "notwithstanding" clause to bypass the Supreme Court ruling.
The Minister has had two weeks to reflect on that. Will he tell me whether or not he is going to use the "notwithstanding" clause to try to thwart the decision of the Supreme Court?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the advice and counsel that 1 have received from the Official Opposition, and I look forward to hearing their unanimous view as to how to deal with this very serious problem.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-


John Napier Turner: You have heard our view. You are the Government; now tell us your view.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The right hon. gentleman was the Minister of Justice when the present law, which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, was in fact passed in the House. Subsequent Ministers of Justice in previous administrations gave us assurances, not only with respect to this legislation but also in terms of our debate on the constitutional matter, that this provision was quite within the parameters of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I have responded fully and frankly to the right hon. gentleman.


John Napier Turner: Section 33 or not Section
33?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have answered that question, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government. 1 now tell the right hon. gentleman that we are anxious to give leadership, because I believe that this is an issue which the people of Canada do not want partisanship to enter into, but they want a sense of

February 9, 1988
OraI Questions
leadership, cohesion, and co-operation to bring the best possible result in a difficult situation.
I ask the right hon. gentleman to join with me, the Prime Minister, and other members of the Government to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

[ Translation]


THE CABINET
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the circumstances surrounding the resignation from Cabinet of the former Minister of Supply and Services, the Hon. Member for Langelier.
Can the Prime Minister tell us exactly when he was advised that scandals were about to come out involving two of his Ministers, the Hon. Member for Joliette and the Hon. Member for Langelier, during the fall of 1986, and whether it was on November 10 or on some other date? When exactly was the Prime Minister informed about the existence of serious problems involving two of his Ministers and what action did he take at that time? Why did he wait to be publicly embarrassed before taking action?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is false. 1 have already given a clear and specific answer to the House about the information I was given. I acted immediately and quickly in this matter.


INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY CONVEYED TO PRIME MINISTER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, according to reliable reports, Mr. Bernard Roy was told by none other than a Minister of the Crown of imminent problems involving two of his cabinet colleagues.
I want to ask the Prime Minister the following question. Has he, during the last three days, asked Mr. Roy of his office for an explanation as to why the Prime Minister was not apprised of the circumstances, and what has he done to ensure that he is informed of difficult and potentially embarrassing situations in the future? If he has not done that, why not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think colleagues will want to remember the prefatory remark of my hon. friend. He says: "According to reliable reports". He then goes on to quote an article in Le Devoir which reads as follows:

Le Devoir has been able to verify that it was during the week of Monday, November 10, 1986, that Mr. Masse advised the principal assistant of Brian Mulroney that the situation was such that it might also smear the reputation of Ministers Roch La Salle and Michel Cote.
Le Devoir would not have been able to verify that because, during the week of November 10, 1986, Mr. Masse was not in Canada.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Perhaps tomorrow we will have the last budget of this Government before the next elections.


An Hon. Member:: I hope so, I hope so!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, even with the so-called reforms of the Minister of Finance more than 60,000 profitable companies will not pay any taxes at all. My question to the Prime Minister is very simple: would he guarantee right now that the Government will turn the situation around tomorrow?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why we should overhaul a system which has created in excess of 1.1 million new jobs since September 1984 and which has produced the highest rate of economic growth among the seven summit member countries.

Housing starts at 10-year record levels, double digit business investment, and consumer and business confidence at record levels.
In 1987, 474,000 new jobs were created under policies brought forward by this Government. That represents the largest number of jobs ever created in Canada since Statistics Canada began collecting data.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Prime Minister why we want change. First, it is because he promised that there would be fairness, in the 1984 election, and, second, because the tax system in Canada is still unfair. That is why we want change.


REQUEST THAT ALL CORPORATIONS PAY TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that, for example, the Alcan Corporation with profits of $220 million last year will not pay any taxes with this system, that the Power Financial Institution with profits of $132
February 9, 1988

million will pay no taxes, and that Hudson's Bay with profits last year of $50 million will pay no taxes, and considering what the Prime Minister himself promised in the 1984 election, will he now deliver on that promise and make sure that these companies, as well as others, will have to pay a minimum tax when they make profits? Will they pay taxes like other Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a number of important initiatives have been introduced by the Minister of Finance since 1984 to ensure that all Canadians pay a fair share of tax. A large number of tax avoidance measures have been introduced. 1 might point out to my hon. friend that we shut down one of the great scams in the history of Canada introduced by the Liberals, the SRTC, which drained almost $1 billion out of research and development in Canada.
My hon. friend mentions Alcan, Hudson's Bay, and other corporations. I would have to examine to see whether these corporations took losses in the past, whether they made investments, whether these are "loss carried forward" situations.

I know that Alcan is creating thousands of jobs in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we ought to do something against the interests of Alcan even though the company has followed the basic rules applying to Canada?

With regard to the fairness situation, my hon. friend can do a great deal in regard to the importance of fairness that he raises. The Minister of Finance has introduced tax reform which will mean that eight Canadians out of ten will pay less tax, that nine seniors out of ten will pay less tax, and that
875,000	Canadians will pay no tax at all.
He should support the Progressive Conservative Government. There is a fundamental measure of tax fairness.


REQUEST THAT MINIMUM CORPORATE TAX BE INTRODUCED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Prime Minister has at his fingertips additional material on his briefing note that will show that after 1984 his Government increased taxes on the average family by some $1,300 and that when these so-called reforms are put in place the only people who will be paying lower taxes than when the Conservatives were elected in Canada in 1984 will be the richest 2 per cent of Canadians. That is the so-called reform coming from the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister cited a number of companies that perhaps did not make any profits in one year
Oral Questions
and therefore are not paying taxes. We agree that if, in a given year, they do not make profits then they do not pay taxes that year. 1 would have thought that the Prime Minister would do as his friend Ronald Reagan of the United States did. He brought in a minimum tax. When a company makes a profit, it pays taxes, as they do in the United States. Therefore will he bring in tomorrow a Budget that will ensure that the 60,000 companies that will be profitable will not go scot-free but will pay their taxes like other Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan will be delighted with the compliment from the Leader of the NDP. I will phone him right after Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is asking me to be-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Fair, honest.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Talking about projections and predictions, I should remind him that when the Minister of Finance in 1984 introduced his Budget the Leader of the NDP stood up in the House and predicted that our Budgets would mean the loss of
150,000	jobs in Canada. He was dead wrong in his economic projections. There were not 150,000 jobs lost. There were 1.1 million new jobs created. That is how wrong my hon. friend has been.
With regard to tax fairness, obviously we want everyone to pay his or her fair share of tax. However, my hon. friend, and 1 may be wrong, just went down to Montreal. He talked about incentives for medium and small business-la PME a Montreal-and he talked about tax incentives. When a company accumulates tax incentives it takes tax write-offs to create jobs. That is exactly what the Hon. Member was suggesting on the weekend, that they have these kinds of incentives to create employment.
When a company does that, it is not violating fairness if it takes those tax write-offs in a subsequent year. That is part and parcel of programs put forward by the NDP in Manitoba and by the NDP in this House. You cannot have it both ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I believe he will appreciate after 24 hours' reflection that the position announced yesterday by Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley with respect

February 9, 1988
Oral Questions
to an exemption from the Conflict of Interest Code, specifically Clause 24 dealing with political Party funds, has potentially far-reaching implications for all Category A public office holders, both current holders and future holders.
My question to the Prime Minister is the following. Given that Mr. Kingsley is not an officer of Parliament and therefore not accountable to Parliament, but is, rather, a civil servant accountable to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister direct Mr. Kingsley to provide Parliament with a full explanatory briefing setting out the rationale for the position announced by him yesterday? I hope that the Prime Minister will welcome this prudent and reasonable suggestion.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. 1 indicated yesterday and on other occasions that there will be an important piece of legislation introduced soon in the House that will deal with this and important allied matters. At that point in time, clearly, my hon. friend will no doubt want to raise matters of concern to him involving this and other items. At that time I will be happy on behalf of the Government and my colleagues to listen to him and to produce to the extent humanly possible any expert testimony that he might wish.
I think what all Members of Parliament want is an effective piece of legislation, recognizing that there is no substitute for personal integrity. We want an effective piece of legislation that does not needlessly place Members of Parliament in a straitjacket which will preclude them from leading lives. I seek this. I presume my hon. friend seeks the same thing. I will be happy to work with him and officers of the Government to bring this about.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is indeed right. He did say yesterday that legislation is coming and he promised to work with the Opposition. We welcome that. That is not what I am asking about today.
1 am asking about an exemption declared yesterday by Mr. Kingsley without any explanation whatsoever based on the current legislation that now applies. Given that Mr. Kingsley is not an officer of Parliament and therefore not accountable to Parliament, but rather a civil servant accountable to Cabinet and ultimately to the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister direct Mr. Kingsley to explain the rationale behind the judgment brought down yesterday based on the current conflict of interest guidelines, and not based on some future legislation the Prime Minister might introduce in the weeks ahead?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by my hon. friend deals with Mr. Kingsley's opinion. It is one that he delivered. It is clear cut. It deals with the matters raised by Members of the House. My
hon. friend, I suppose, if he wishes to interrogate him or any other public servant, can seek the appropriate instrument to do
so.
In fairness to Mr. Kingsley, because certainly no one would want to impugn his motives, he provided a public document which stands by itself on its own. If my hon. friend has any questions he wishes to ask him, then I suppose he can direct them to the appropriate people.

[ Translation]


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister. According to Le Devoir reporter Michel Vastel, Bernard Roy and the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had a conversation last November about a potential conflict of interest for the Hon. Member for Langelier. As the Prime Minister has said that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was not in Canada during the week of November 10, I would like to ask this question: Has the Prime Minister spoken with his principal secretary about the events of November 1986, and can he now confirm whether or not Mr. Roy and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had a conversation about a possible conflict of interest for the Hon. Member for Langelier some time in November 1986, if not necessarily during the week of November 10?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already replied to this question. I have no further comment. I hope that the Hon. Member will not ask me to comment every speculation or opinion published by Canadian newspapers! He is going fishing. He would like me to cross-examine all the officials of my Government. If you have an accusation to make against a Member of Parliament or a member of my staff, please stand up and have the courage to make a specific accusation. Otherwise, please shut up.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER SPOKE WITH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister is trying to be a bit too cute.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Hon. Members who want to put questions will put them and all of those responding will want to stick to the answers. The Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville.
February 9, 1988


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had since Friday to have a conversation with his Principal Secretary to see whether or not the Minister of Energy brought to the attention of the Principal Secretary the possibility of a conflict of interest concerning one of his Ministers back in November of 1986. What I want to know is whether or not he has spoken with his Principal Secretary. Can he confirm now that such a conversation took place? Yes or no. Do not try to skate around it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most unusual suggestions that 1 have heard. My hon. friend, based on rumour and speculation and unsubstantiated information, is asking me whether 1 will conduct a witch-hunt throughout the Government of Canada today with respect to that rumour, tomorrow with respect to another rumour. Then the next day it will be in regard to another rumour.
if members of the NDP want to indulge in witch-hunts and McCarthyism, they can do it themselves in their own Party. I will not inflict it upon the Public Service of Canada.


AIDS DISEASE-EFFECT ON HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY-EDUCATIONAL POLICY
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the House knows, the Minister recently returned from a national AIDS conference in England. Canadians continue to see the AIDS epidemic increase with alarming results.
Bearing in mind that the greatest purveyors of this disease in North America continue to be the homosexual community, can he tell the House whether or not education is having any significant results when it comes to the lifestyles of the homosexual community and others?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, at the London conference the main agenda item was how we best, as Ministers of Health, could convey to our respective populations the need to take personal decisions for personal health care and specifically the spread of AIDS, and what educational messages might be most appropriate and most effective. The evidence of that was shown. Obviously it varies dramatically from country to country. There are various reasons for that, including demography and different religious, moral and social mores.
What is clear is that at the moment there is no cure. There is no projected period of time for a cure. Education is the best approach at this time. All of us recognize as well that, while
Oral Questions
education is necessary, the evidence of changed behaviour in high-risk groups was not nearly as direct as many of us had hoped for.


DUTY REMISSION PROGRAM FOR TEXTILE AND APPAREL INDUSTRIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industrial Economic Expansion. Yesterday in the House I posed a question to his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, concerning the proposed government development of a duty remission program for the textile and apparel industries. I asked the question in light of the letters that had been issued by the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in the United States asking that any program like that be altered in hostage to the proposed trade agreement.
The Minister of State for Finance said that the Government has no position on this issue. However, 1 have in my possession a letter written by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion which says that, with regard to duty remission programs, the Government has long been on record as favouring these for both the apparel and the textile industries.
In light of the fact that there is now a contradiction between the two Ministers, I ask the Minister if we can be assured that the Government still intends to proceed with a major, comprehensive duty remission program for the textile and apparel industry, and that it will not concede to the kinds of demands that are now being placed as hostage to the trade agreement.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure the Hon. Member that his concerns are premature. Considerable work is going on in this field, and I remind him that the free trade agreement provides for the bringing in of further duty remission programs within the text of the free trade agreement. The nature and the timing of these programs are still under discussion.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON DUTY REMISSION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Minister for International Trade that it is hardly premature when there is a clear statement signed by 10 Senators who will be considering the Government's proposed trade agreement, indicating that they do not intend to proceed unless there are clear answers from the Government indicating that it will not go ahead with the duty remission program.
In light of that circumstance, will the Minister tell us the nature of the discussions that took place between Mr. Yeutter of the U.S. administration and members of this administration concerning the duty remission program? Why will the
February 9, 1988

Oral Questions
Minister not simply say publicly, so that there will be no misunderstanding on the part of U.S. Senators, that the Government fully intends to go ahead with a duty remission program to ensure that the textile and apparel industries will stay competitive and healthy? Why will she not answer that very specific question?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer the question. I spoke to Mr. Yeutter last evening and I made the same reply to him that I have just made in the House. We discussed the fact that this is provided for in the free trade agreement that both he and 1 negotiated. This matter is being addressed within the framework of the free trade agreement. No decision has yet been made. When it has been made, it will be announced.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will know that in the first three years of this Government there were substantial cuts to various regional development programs and subsequently they were replaced with various agencies, but the level of funding never reached the levels that were actually cut. The Prime Minister will be aware that in centres of Central Canada there has been good prosperity, but in the regions of Canada such has not occurred. There is a real imbalance in economic activity in Canada.
Would the Prime Minister indicate that the upcoming Budget will provide an excellent opportunity for the Government to show that it really is concerned about the regional economies of Canada and that the Prime Minister is prepared to commit the Government to take special action to ensure that the regions of Canada reap the economic prosperity we have witnessed in Central Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I view with some concern statements made by the NDP in Montreal the other day indicating that 80 per cent of the jobs created in Canada are created within an 80-mile radius of downtown Toronto. That is dangerous regionalism, trying to put one region against another. I think that is a very, very dangerous development.
We are very pleased with the economic development in Ontario and in southern Ontario. We wish the NDP would stop knocking that and start celebrating job creation across Canada, as opposed to trying to raise regional rivalries. This is what took place with regard to the frigate program in Saint John, New Brunswick.
I want to tell the Leader of the NDP that he should stop smiling about it because the people of Saint John, New Brunswick, and the Maritimes are most displeased with the
capricious nature of the statement made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre in respect of taking away matters from Atlantic Canada.
Apart from the 1,100,000 jobs that were created since we w'ere sworn in, 38,000 jobs were created in January. This brings the total since September of 1984 to 1,158,000. May I tell my hon. friend that the unemployment rate remains at a six-year low of 8.1 per cent. The Quebec unemployment rate last month fell to 9 per cent, its lowest level since September of 1979.
In the regions, the British Columbia unemployment level fell to 10.1 per cent, the lowest level since March of 1982. In fact, in British Columbia, and this will please my hon. friend because it will convey to him the strength of what the Government is trying to do, the unemployment rate has fallen 3.9 percentage points in the last year alone.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I must say that we are pleased with the prosperity the market has provided for Central Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are simply asking that the Prime Minister recognize that there are serious economic difficulties facing the regions. Rather than read the general statistics on the state of the economy, I want to tell the Prime Minister that there arc regions of Canada that have still not experienced virtually any prosperity over the last number of years. These areas lequire some special attention.
Going back to what my Leader said, if the Prime Minister started to tax those 60,000 profitable corporations, he could raise $1 billion to $2 billion and really start to help the regions of Canada as opposed to simply ignoring them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I referred to the dismaying hypocrisy of the NDP. I want to point something out to my hon. friend and perhaps he can explain it to the Canadian people. He just made a pitch on behalf of regional development. I have already pointed out to him the extent to which regional development programs are working.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We want more.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He wants more. Fair ball. With the Expos in the gallery I think that is an appropriate comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would say the same for the Blue Jays, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 9, 1988


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps the NDP can explain this. On December 10, 1987, the NDP voted against the Government's Supplementary Estimates B and C. In so doing the NDP voted against $127 million to fund the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: They voted against $101 million to fund the Western Diversification Office, and $456 million in additional funding for regional industrial expansion.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You are a bunch of hypocrites! You had an opportunity to do something and you did nothing!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Call an election!


Mr. Crosbie:: You struck out, you bum.


Mr. Holtmann:: We love you, Nelson.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Call an election.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Call an election? You phoney!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has proposed that we build a fleet of conventional submarines and scrap the plan to create a nuclear powered submarine fleet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Paul Ravis: Is it realistic to ask our Armed Forces to undertake the responsibility of defending the vast territory of Arctic Canada if they are provided with obsolete equipment, or will this simply lead to further Soviet and American violations of the Canadian North and eventual loss of sovereignty?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is actually more confusion about what the policy of the Liberal Party is after the right hon. gentleman's speech than before. He says no. He shakes his head. I can hear it from over here, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh. oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of National Defence has been asked a question by an Hon. Member of his own Party, which I think suggests the answer. I would ask that the Hon. Minister answer the question quickly.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


IMPORT CONTROLS ON U S. DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture concerning implementation of import controls on U.S. dairy products such as yoghurt and ice cream about which Senator Bentsen complained to Secretary Yeutter in a letter yesterday.
Can the Minister assure Canadian dairy farmers that the import controls are firmly in place and will be operated in such a way as effectively to exclude U.S. dairy products coming into Canada, just as American controls effectively exclude Canadian dairy products going into the U.S?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. I want to remind the House that the Hon. Member put a question on this subject yesterday to my colleague, the Minister for International Trade. My colleague's response was accurate. The Hon. Member should know that we made a commitment to the dairy farmers of Canada, in keeping with the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement, Section 710, that we can move products onto that import/export list consistent with Article 11 of GATT. The Order in Council has already been passed. There is a procedure which one has to follow: Number one, notification of trading partners, which has been done; number two, you negotiate import levels with your trading partners.


CANADIAN POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in his letter Senator Bentsen suggested Canada has violated the free trade agreement and suggested the U.S. may retaliate against Canada for not observing the standstill provision of the agreement, perhaps by not excluding Canada from provisions of the U.S. omnibus trade Bill.
Can the Minister assure Canadian dairy producers that, regardless of the pressure from Senator Bentsen and the U.S. Senate, the Government will not sell out Canadian dairy farmers and allow a flood of cheap surplus dairy commodities into Canada?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, again the short answer is yes. We made it very clear where this Government stood concerning supply management. The action we took is consistent with Article 710 of the trade agreement.

February 9, 1988
Oral Questions
It is also fully and completely consistent with our rights and obligations under Article 11 of GATT.


ABORTION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will know that women in the Province of British Columbia are being denied access to safe therapeutic abortions by a Premier imposing his own extreme anti-choice views on this sensitive issue.


Mr. Mantha:: That is not true.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Will the Prime Minister finally show leadership and communicate directly with his counterpart, Premier Vander Zalm, and tell him to stop displaying such contempt, both for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and for the women of British Columbia whose lives are being seriously threatened by this very dangerous Premier?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, very shortly after the Supreme Court decision came down, was directly in touch with all of his provincial counterparts. Even as we discuss this matter on the floor of the House he is involved in discussions and consultations with the provinces which, as the Hon. Member knows, have a significant constitutional responsibility for delivery of health services.
We are moving in this area. We are dealing with our provincial counterparts across the country. 1 have every confidence that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will deal with this matter not only in the best interests of British Columbians but in the best interests of all Canadians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister himself will not show the kind of leadership he should be showing on this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Thacker:: Where is your leadership?
[ Translation]


INVOCATION OF NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Justice. On Friday, January 29, the Minister stated in the House that he had no intention of invoking the notwithstanding clause with respect to this matter. Is that still the position of the Government today?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as the one 1 gave Friday after the Supreme Court ruling.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will know that his Minister of Indian Affairs recently announced the provision of sizeable aid, some $9.5 million, from the Western Diversification Fund for the establishment of a Japanese owned pulp mill to be located in the Peace River district of northern Alberta. Be that as it may, the timber for use in this mill is to be cut from lands which are subject to the yet unsettled Lubicon Indian land claim.
How can it be reconciled that the Minister takes action of this kind as Minister responsible for the Western Diversification Fund at the same time as he has constitutional trust obligations to protect the interests of Indian bands? Is there not here a very classic case of conflict of interest?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is very directly no. There is a question as to whether the lands for which cutting rights have been received are even within the area claimed. The Hon. Member puts that as a fact in the preamble of his question and that is not necessarily agreed upon.
The Hon. Member knows that cutting rights and provincial jurisdiction flow from that as well. The judgment which he made in his concluding statement does not necessarily follow from the facts, and neither does it follow that the conclusion he drew is correct.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister takes much unto himself when he denies that there is any conflict. I think that is a very large constitutional question.


LUBICON INDIAN BAND LAND CLAIM-REQUEST THAT MEDIATOR BE APPOINTED
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, has the Deputy Prime Minister been made aware that this morning in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs a motion was agreed to by all Parties that the Government of Canada commence, without any further delay, bilateral negotiations with the Lubicon Indian Band and that the Hon. E. Davie Fulton be appointed as a mediator in that dispute?
February 9, 1988

Will the Minister direct his Minister of Indian Affairs to get those negotiations going right away? Will he use the services of this most distinguished Canadian as a mediator in this longstanding and very troublesome dispute which is attracting so much international attention and blotting the good name of Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will recall that there were answers given by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to questions very similar to the one posed by the Hon. Member today. Those answers are on the record.
With regard to what happened in the committee today I will convey that to the Minister, and I am sure his staff will do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the end of Question Period. I have received notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Skeena.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to information which came before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs this morning before which the Hon. E. Davie Fulton appeared as a witness. As was pointed out by the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), all three Parties have now joined in urging bilateral negotiations with Mr. Fulton as the negotiator on the Lubicon claim.
However, during the committee hearing we learned that yesterday the Government of Alberta made a joint announcement with the federal Government through the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) who also handles western diversification. An announcement was made of plans to fund jointly the $500 million pulp mill in Peace River on lands that are, at least in part, those lands in question presently being negotiated with the Lubicon Band.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) just indicated to the House that the lands involved with the Daishowa company are not lands overlying the Lubicon claim. However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare may have inadvertently misled the House in that the Forest Minister for Alberta, Mr. Fjordbotten, has now confirmed that the lands involved, some 11,200 square miles of land, do in fact overlie the Lubicon claim and the lands that are presently being negotiated.
Privilege-Mr. Fulton


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am naturally reluctant to interrupt my hon. friend's dissertation, but I would suggest that this is once again a committee matter which should be dealt with in committee. If my hon. friend has some way of proving that it is something on which the House should use its time, then I suggest he should come to that point of his argument very quickly and we can then listen to the rest of it.


James Ross Fulton: I have no difficulty with that, Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to that very point.
The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Indian Affairs is responsible for the negotiations which are presently high centred in relation to the Lubicon claim. The same Minister is responsible for the Western Diversification Fund, and yesterday he made an announcement of an expenditure of $9.5 million which now removes those very lands that were supposedly being negotiated in good faith.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the only Minister of the federal Crown who holds a specific trust relationship with a specific group of Canadians, that being the first citizens, the first nations of this country. These 11,200 square miles of the Province of Alberta have been transferred without public hearings and without tendering. The Minister who is now funding the Diashowa project, the same Minister who was supposedly dealing in good faith with the Lubicon Band has, in my humble view, involved himself and the good offices of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in a breach of trust. I think it is a very simple and clear-cut case in which the federal Crown has not lived up to its responsibilities to the Lubicon people. This has been carried forward in reports by the Ombudsman of Alberta and various groups including the World Council of Churches and the United Nations.
My friend, the Member for Cochrane-Superior, has several additional points which he would like to make. However, 1 think this is a prima facie case of a Minister of the Crown with specific constitutional responsibilities and specific legislative responsibilities in relation to the first citizens which are not being upheld and have now been specifically violated by an expenditure under another part of a portfolio held by the same Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: It may very well be that the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) could add a great deal to the general issue. I think Hon. Members who have known him for many years would be in agreement with that. However, I am having a great deal of difficulty finding any question of privilege in this, although I think the matter is very serious. I am going to examine carefully the point the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has made. If 1 think I need to hear further argument I will return to the Chamber.
Nothing I say takes away from what I think Hon. Members know is a serious matter, but I am having trouble finding a

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
question of privilege. If, upon examination, I feel it is necessary to come back to the Chamber for further discussion, I shall do so.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that there was an Hon. Member on his feet when the matter was adjourned. I have looked for him and he is not here. I think I should appropriately recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I in no way wanted to intrude upon the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie). 1 look forward to what he has to say as I did on many occasions when he held high office in the City of Toronto.
I have taken part in many debates on constitutional matters. During the course of my public life I have seen some important breakthroughs. I am very proud that I had the honour, when I was the Minister of Justice, to share the responsibility for piloting the original Bill on the Official Languages Act in 1969. Consequently, you can understand my pleasure in being able to rise to take part in this debate on the second reading of Bill C-72, the up-dated version of the Official Languages Act.
Some talk about state sanctioned bilingualism as if it were born with Bill C-72, or with the Meech Lake Accord last year, or with Mr. Trudeau's 1982 Constitutional Act. The fact is that bilingualism began with the British North America Act of 1867, Section 133. Admittedly, that was only a parliamentary and judicial regime applicable only to Ontario and Quebec, to federal and Quebec parliaments and our courts of justice.
By the early 1960s it was still so meek and mild a regime that when I arrived in this place in 1962 the main aspects of bilingualism being discussed on the floor of the House were bilingual family allowance cheques, bilingual menus in the parliamentary restaurant, dollar bills, and in eloquent terms I can still remember the late Real Caouette, Leader of the Social Credit Party, complaining about the lack of bilingualism on TransCanada Airline planes, later Air Canada.
As a Member from Montreal at the time, for the now disappeared riding of St. Lawrence-St. George, I felt as dismayed, indeed as outraged, as my other Quebec colleagues.
Andre Laurendeau wrote in his famous letter of January 20, 1962, that became the starting point for the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission:
[ Translation]
"Issuing bilingual cheques is too little, too late, considering the present aspirations of French Canadians".

He understood well the mood of that age. As a result of that type of persuasion, the persuasion of Liberals around Mr. Pearson, particularly Maurice Lamontagne, Mr. Pearson brought in the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, known familiarly as the Laurendeau-Dunton commission.
From 1964 to 1970 the commission issued six reports which were to revolutionalize Canadian thinking on the subject. The preliminary report called for two equal official languages in Canada. Another report called for the protection of minority language rights across the country. The third report called for the guarantee of the rights of public servants to work in their own language and culture.
The Bill we are discussing today reflects the spirit of Laurendeau-Dunton as it has been revived and nourished by several commissions and committees.

I have the honour of sitting in the House with my old friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and I would like to pay tribute to his work and to the role he has played and continues to play in promoting bilingualism in the Public Service and protecting language minorities in the provinces. I don't want to embarrass him, but it is always a pleasure to praise my colleagues from time to time.
During the past 20 years, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier worked first for the school boards here in Ottawa and subsequently in the House of Commons, but always spurring governments onward, both Liberals and Conservatives.
He did so especially from 1980 to 1984, as Chairman of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. He still does today as a Member of the Standing Joint Committee, and he has had considerable input in some of the concepts and mechanisms contained in Bill C-72.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is a typical example of the Member who believes in a goal, a mission, and who manages to get his message across, despite the slowness of our procedures and the often crushing pressure of the executive on the business of the House.
1 thought the expressions of appreciation that came to him from all sides of the House during the debate on January 25 were well deserved.
February 9, 1988



Let me make three points on the principles of this Bill. In advertising terms, the time is right, the subject is right and the content is right. Some commentators, particularly on the other side of the House, say that we do not need the Bill. They suggest that because there is peace on the language front now we should let sleeping dogs lie rather than arouse the passions of the country or provoke old antagonisms. In other words, why do we not wait for a crisis?
We have done that too often before. We waited too long before bringing in the Bill finally in 1969. We waited too long to patriate our Constitution in 1982. We waited too long to bring Quebec fully into Confederation as we have attempted to do in the Constitutional Accord. Goodness knows that we have not really set our mind on reforming the Senate, something I hope to live long enough to see reformed-I would like to see an elected Senate.
There is a difference between prudence and procrastination. Prudence gets there eventually, procrastination never does. We are fortunate that there is no major linguistic conflict nationally at the present time, even though there are several regional and serious difficulties in language. That is why I believe that now the time is right to proceed to consolidate and enhance the Official Languages Act. Now is the time to weave in the many advances made since 1969 to keep the Act abreast of a changing mood and a positive tolerance in Canada. Therefore, the time is right.
Second, the subject is right. Some may be surprised to hear me speak about this Bill as a constitutional matter. Let me remind them and Members of the House that the Constitution is more than the separation or division of powers. The Constitution now includes our rights and liberties and provides for the equality of the two languages we speak.
The subject of Bill C-72 on the Official Languages Act is right for another reason. We passed a major constitutional Act in 1982 which includes a Charter of Rights enshrining language equality. Section 16 of the Charter states:
English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality
of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the
Parliament and the Government of Canada.
Through Sections 16 to 23 of the Charter a whole new institutional bilingualism regime is built in general terms and enshrined. Those sections cover Parliament, the administration, the courts, minority language system. Now some flesh must be placed on those bones. We cannot proclaim equality and then simply let it happen by accident. We must adjust our laws to accepted constitutional principles. The laws of this country must accord with the Constitution. That is a primary impetus behind bringing this law up to date.
Another major principle will be proclaimed when the Meech Lake Accord becomes the law of the land. According to the Constitutional Accord, English-French duality as a fundamental characteristic of our country will be proclaimed. My Party is in agreement with that. Some of my colleagues have had
Official Languages Act
problems with the second leg of the principle, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. I want to remind everyone in the House that this Party, in its resolution in November, 1986, by a majority of 85 per cent, approved the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, not as a constitutional innovation but merely as a recognition of the fact that Quebec is unique and distinct, having been the only province speaking French in its majority and having a different system of law, different collective psychology and history.
There has never been any hesitation on the question of duality. My Party has been a perennial promoter of that concept since 1867. I have read some historians who say that we even invented it.
Those words in the 1982 Charter and the Meech Lake Accord must now be given flesh, teeth and specific meaning. That is what Bill C-72 does and that is why, once again, my Party is willing to support the Government against the attack of its right flank. It may be overly generous on our part electorally, but we are not about to abandon one of our deepest traditions, the promotion of national unity, identity and equality of our two languages, merely to score some political points on the floor of the House.
I leave to the Government benches their responsibility in bringing their Members into line and ensuring that they do not retard further progress of this Bill.
[ Translation]
Third, the content is right. During the debate on January 25, when the Opposition-our Party-insisted that Bill C-72 be tabled in the House for second reading, some Government backbenchers asked, as if they had just invented the wheel, what the Liberal Party had done about institutional bilingualism between 1969 and 1984, when it was in power. Madam Speaker, ignorance is bliss.
One of the reasons why this Bill is acceptable to us and to a substantial majority of Canadians is that it is in our Party's tradition, which includes the 1969 Act, the experience we acquired from 1969 to 1984, the Parliamentary Resolution of 1973, the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Official Languages, especially from 1980 to 1984 when it was led and chaired by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
Take, for instance, the right of public servants to work in their own language. That right was expressed for the first time by Mr. Pearson, together with the right of public servants occupying a position designated bilingual to receive language training. The right to choose one's language of work is implicit in Section 2 of the 1969 Act. It was the object of a parliamentary resolution in 1973 and the joint committee agreed that it was urgent to amend the legislation because it was ambiguous, as was confirmed by the many court rulings.
Among other things, Madam Speaker, that is what Bill C-72 does. Why is that possible? Because mentalities have evolved and because parliamentary, judicial, administrative

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
and academic bilingualism has progressed at both provincial and federal levels.
Madam Speaker, I regret to say that a monthly publication delivered across western Canada, Western Report, printed these words on its cover: If you cannot read this you cannot work for the federal Government. It appears in both languages.
The magazine, Western Report, is carried throughout our western provinces. It had on its latest front cover a sentence in French which read: "If you can't read this, you can't work for the federal Government". That is simply not true. That it should be written and widely distributed in the current climate of this country, I think, is a shame. The Government knows that is not true and it should be telling Canadians that it is not true. I hope the Secretary of State when he gets to his feet, will say so. The truth is that thousands of Canadians can read those lines in French because of the progress which has been made in the last 20 years.
In every major community in western Canada immersion courses in the French language are becoming more and more popular. In my riding of Vancouver Quadra we have 15 high schools. There are French immersion courses in each. I try to visit every one of those high schools and the students proudly put questions to me in French-probably to test my own French-which demonstrates that in Canada we can feel comfortable using the other language. The students look forward not only to becoming better Canadians by speaking the other language but by becoming part of the human race in a wider civilized scope while enjoying two of the greatest cultures ever brought forward by the mind and ingenuity of mankind. That is why the cover of that magazine is contrary to that spirit.
In fact those who cannot speak French can still work in the federal Government. Sixty per cent of all federal positions in the public service of Canada are designated unilingual English. Only 7 per cent are designated unilingual French. That is the truth. That is what western Canadians should know. That is what English speaking Canadians should know. The Government has the responsibility today to tell them the truth. Sixty per cent of all federal positions are designated unilingual English and only 7 per cent are designated unilingual French.

Madam Speaker, I said more about one aspect of the contents of the legislation, freedom of choice with respect to the language of work in the federal public service. A few years ago I had the same responsibility as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), namely to represent a national capital riding. So again I ask the question: What does Bill C-72 do? The answer is very clear. Basically the Bill consolidates, legalizes, and allows for regulations; exceptionally, it strengthens and extends the legislation of 1969.
What does it consolidate? First, the Official Languages Act of 1969; second, the 1973 resolution of the House of Commons in favour of free choice with respect to language of work and bilingual training; third, the right of the two linguistic groups to participate fully in the operations of the federal administration. It also consolidates the Constitution Act of 1982, whose sections 16 to 23 enshrined institutional bilingualism; the spirit of the Meech Lake Accord is consolidated, particularly concerning the Canadian duality; and finally all the experience acquired since 1969, since the existing Official Languages Act was adopted and in the implementation of the objectives of institutional bilingualism in all sectors: the parliamentary experience, the judicial experience, the administrative experience
What does this Bill do with regard to principles? Let us look at the essential. First and foremost, institutional or state bilingualism, as opposed to individual bilingualism which created for the Government a series of obligations under the 1969 legislation, will become now, due to the incorporation of the effects of Clause 16 of the 1982 Constitutional Act, not only a series of enforceable obligations for the Government, but also a series of rights for Canadian citizens. The supremacy of the Official Languages Act is confirmed and its content adapted to the 1982 Constitutional Reform.
Second, the equality of the official languages is now defined and applied to the federal Public Service, our courts of justice, and the protection of the linguistic minorities within the provinces. The choice as to the language of work, implicitly contained in the 1969 legislation, is now made explicit. So is the principle of full participation by members of our two linguistic communities. The promotion of these measures is now the responsibility of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State. The Commissioner will enjoy extended powers. He will have the authority to get involved in proceedings instituted by individuals before the courts, or he might even institute such proceedings himself.
Third, the legislation will continue to evolve but it will have acquired much more precision and strength. Instead of being expressed by the Government's instructions or voluntary programs, it will be expressed through regulations dealing, for instance, with the language of work, full participation, the definition of a "major request", the function of the Treasury Board and that of the Secretary of State.
These regulations will be of tremendous importance. On occasion they will have as much importance as the Act itself. As parliamentarians, we do not hold the regulating process in high esteem, but the arbitrary process clearly has its drawbacks too. We will have to keep an eye on these regulations, demand their tabling in the House and their discussion in Committee. We will see to that as long as we sit in the Opposition and then again when we are the Government.
February 9, 1988

I had the honour of bringing in the Statutory Instruments Act which ensured that every regulation and every Order in Council promulgated by this executive responsible to this Parliament was published within a period appropriate to the occasion, giving the Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments Committee an opportunity to review those regulations and orders and render reports on them, and to ensure particularly that those orders were within the ambit of the power accorded by Parliament and not exceeding that ambit. Since the regulations under this Bill will have wide-ranging consequences, will fall within the ambit of the law but will render more precise the application of the law, it is important that Members of the House exercise their surveillance and monitoring function with the usual aptitude and persistence.
I said that the time is right, Madam Speaker, the subject is right, and the content is right. I urge all Members of the House to support the Bill, and send it to committee. There may be amendments proposed. As one who has the honour of holding a seat in western Canada, I particularly appeal to those Members who may have some reservations about the Bill to recognize the progress we have made since the early 1960s in recognizing the dual nature of our linguistic heritage, the understanding that that gives to us and the tolerance that it reflects, which make our federal system work.
Canadians from coast to coast and people from around the world will be attending the Calgary Olympics in the next two weeks to share the spirit of national unity, and they will be able to hear those announcements in two languages and read the notices in two languages. They will feel at home in a national celebration in both our languages. People will be able to watch it on television in two languages, and be able to feel at home in a western Canadian city because this is a national occasion.
I urge Members of this House not to yield to any hesitation that they may have, to back up the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), back up the Government, give the Bill a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, and rededicate the spirit of this House to the spirit that we had when we were pioneering in 1969. The unity of the country has been enhanced, the strength of the country has been enhanced, and the spirit and tolerance of our people has been enshrined in the Constitution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) on a point of order.


Mr. Nowlan:: I appreciate the rule that the first speaker in reply to a motion has unlimited time and that there are no questions. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was not the first speaker for his Party. 1 therefore wonder why one is not permitted to ask him questions.
Official Languages Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to thank the Deputy Clerk for providing me with the exact number of the Standing Order.
Standing Order 55(2) will provide the answer to the hon. gentleman. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) have unlimited time, but there is no period of questions or comments following their speeches.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could seek unanimous agreement to pose a question or two to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I see that my friend, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) is also asking for the floor. He may want the same privilege to ask a question. If we extend the courtesy, and it will be an act of courtesy because the rules provide otherwise, the Leader is willing. We will give unanimous consent, but it will have to be understood that we also may give unanimous consent to others. We cannot extend a privilege to one without giving it to someone else.


Mr. Hamelin:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. If there is unanimous consent, I would also like to put some questions to the Leader of the Opposition, just as the Hon. Member is seeking to do.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I still would like your opinion about the time that should be allowed for questions and comments. Will it be as usual-a ten-minute period-or do we have unlimited time for questions and comments? Madam Speaker, before giving my consent, I would appreciate some clarification as to the maximum time available for questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In such a situation, the Chair is totally in the hands of the House, and the House has given unanimous consent. I would take it for granted that Hon. Members would want to continue the debate sometime this afternoon. I am sure that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has other duties which he will want to attend.
Perhaps the normal period of 10 minutes could apply, if I have the consent of everyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the House for the courtesy. I must say that 1 will not argue with the Chair's interpretation of Standing Order 55. I do know that when the Leader of the

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
Opposition or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speak in relation to the first reply on a Bill no such courtesy is extended. However, I have been given the courtesy, so I had better put the question.
I was very glad to be here when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition made his contribution to this Bill. I am also glad that he came to the latter part of his speech, because I have those remarks in his speech of May 20, 1969 as recorded in Hansard on page 8844 when he was the Minister responsible for the introduction of the 1969 Bill.
I do not know if 1 fully appreciated what the Right Hon. Leader said this afternoon in terms of extending the scope of the 1969 Act. When that Bill came in, sold to us, and voted for by me and others following the precept of Bob Stanfield, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister responsible for the Bill, stated:
The principle of this bill is that there should be equality of access to the
federal institutions of government, that every citizen should be able to
communicate with the federal government in either of the two languages ...
It is not compulsory individual bilingualism; it is institutional bilingualism-
I totally agreed with him there, then, and that was how the Bill was sold, as far as I was concerned.
Today, I understood the Minister to have said that the present Bill C-72 goes further. Perhaps the world has changed. There are bilingual signs at the Olympics, separate and apart from Bill C-72. I think the Right Hon. Leader got carried away with some very interesting remarks that he made. We all know that duality has been extended. There are immersion schools. My children have gone to them, and I have tried to learn la langue J'rangaise-beaucoup de cours de franfais par immersion, et cetera.
We are talking about the reality of Bill C-72. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman to square with what he said in 1969, and in part what he said today, about the right of institutional bilingualism.
Clause 15(1) states, in effect, that any judge or presiding officer has to carry on without the benefit of an interpreter, that is, be bilingual. That means individual bilingualism. In referring this to Clause 15(2), the definition of court, when 1 make my speech, 1 will give the Right Hon. leader a count of 59 different tribunals or agencies where, until now, an English or French individual can appear quite properly and communicate or correspond, as he or she should be able to. in either language, but the presiding tribunal is not required to be necessarily bilingual. It has simultaneous translation.
Is this not a very real extension of institutional bilingualism, which we all bought and still buy, to a compulsory need for individual bilingualism?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am glad the Hon. Member knew that the time was limited.


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member reminds me of the late Syl Apps when he was the captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs. He could never bring the puck up the ice until he had circled the net about four or five times to build up speed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He was my hero.


John Napier Turner: I am not saying that the Maple Leafs could not use Syl Apps right now.
The section in the Official Languages Act which the Hon. Member cites has now been embedded in the Constitution, so that the institutional bilingualism he recited is now part of the constitutional fabric of the country.
What has happened in this Bill, as I said, is that it is now enshrining and enacting a practice which has been developed since 1969, recognized by a resolution of the House in 1973, further enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982, and further enhanced by the Meech Lake Accord. The third paragraph of the preamble to the Bill reads:
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada also provides for guarantees
relating to the right of any member of the public to communicate with, and to
receive available services from, any institution of the Parliament or
Government of Canada in either official language;
Obviously there are not only institutional rights; there are individual rights recognized in this Bill and by the Constitution.


Charles-André Hamelin: Madam Speaker, I would like to quote the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). He said that the time is right and that the Bill is right. Maybe for the first time the Opposition is right and its leader is right. It is a good Bill.
[ Translation]
I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on the position he has taken on Bill C-72. I also wish to pay tribute to him and to the other Members of his party who have been working so hard, as was remarked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), to foster Canada's linguistic duality.
I am also very pleased that you have tried to raise this debate above the level of political partisanship.
The question I would like to ask, and especially the suggestion I would like to make, since all party leaders have their problems-you have yours with Meech Lake, which is also an important piece of constitutional legislation, while other party leaders are trying to convince the majority while maintaining the greatest possible measure of tolerance and respect for the individual.
Mr. Leader of the Opposition, are you and the Members of your party prepared to make a commitment to raise this particular debate above partisan issues during the election campaign, bearing in mind the best interests of Canada's linguistic duality and Canada itself?
February 9, 1988


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, this question is far too important. We do not see it as a partisan issue but as a fundamental question that goes to the very roots of our nation.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, we have just a few minutes remaining, but I want to explain to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) why this Bill is not being accepted by Canadians. It is because of the discriminatory aspect of the Official Languages Act of 1969. I have acted on behalf of many English-speaking Canadians who have been denied promotion and employment because of the discriminatory language laws in this country.
I would like to read to him a case which indicates why western Canadian people are not accepting the Bill. This letter was sent from an official in the Patent Office to a Deputy Minister in Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I worked on this case a couple of years ago. The letter indicates that there were many rumours circulating in the Patent Office that the hiring team, who were then seeking examiners, had been instructed to limit their search to Francophones, particularly to unilingual Francophones. It was further alleged that academically qualified Anglophones had been rejected, and the possibility that these rumours could be true appeared to have been supported by the apparent attempt to keep bilingual positions open for those Francophones being hired rather than offering those positions to bilingual examiners presently in unilingual English positions. Is he telling me that English-speaking Canadians are supposed to accept the Bill when this sort of thing is going on?
This morning I referred to a staff sergeant on the Hill who was demoted because he could not learn French fast enough in that he had a hearing defect. He was demoted. He lost his crown and had a loss of pay. Does the Hon. Member think that I am going to accept that and vote for some more of that? I most certainly am not, and that is what I will be explaining to Canadians.
I have been calling for laws to protect the rights of Englishspeaking Canadians. Former Language Commissioner Maxwell Yalden wanted the word "language" inserted in the Human Rights Act, so that if an academically qualified English-speaking Canadian was being denied promotion or a job, he could file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission to have his case properly investigated to see if he was being treated fairly.
Would the Leader of the Opposition support an amendment to the Human Rights Act to have the word "language" included, so that a Francophone or an Anglophone who is being discriminated against in terms of promotion or employment could file a complaint and have his case properly examined?
Official Languages Act


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, the equality rights of Canadians of either language are protected under the Constitution.
I met recently with Mr. Yalden, the new Human Rights Commissioner, and 1 am assured on his record that he will apply the Constitution and the Human Rights Act fairly in any individual case.
I had the honour, at one stage in my life, of representing a neighbouring riding to that of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It happened to be the riding with the largest number of English-speaking public servants in Canada.
I happened to be the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton when I had the honour of presenting the Bill to Parliament. I had the responsibility of explaining it to the Public Service of Canada, of negotiating with C. A. Edwards, the then President of the Public Service Alliance, and of negotiating the terms of the Bill with the four western Attorneys General and persuading them not to take the issue at that time to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I want to say to the hon. gentleman that he has the right and duty to represent his constituents as they present their cases to him, and I respect that. However, I have the feeling in my own experience that this law has been applied as fairly as humanly possible since it was introduced, and that everyone responsible has done his or her best to ensure that the application of the law did not unfairly intervene in a career in the Public Service.
Even after 20 years, as I said earlier in my speech, 60 per cent of designated positions are unilingual English and only 7 per cent are unilingual French. The advantage is still overwhelmingly in favour of the English-speaking population in terms of the Public Service of our country.


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Madam Speaker, let me say that I am pleased to be able to speak today on to the amendments to the Official Languages Act and to talk a little about the official languages policy in the country.
Yesterday and this morning the House was able to hear the views, concerns, obligations, and responsibilities of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) with respect to the courts under the current Act and indeed to some of the proposed changes in the Act. We also heard this morning from the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) regarding language rights and opportunities in respect of services in federal institutions.
My particular role as Secretary of State is somewhat different and has perhaps not received the same kind of attention as have other interested perspectives in respect of this Bill. Clauses 40 to 44 deal with those responsibilities which are given to the Secretary of State. They amount to two. First, there is the responsibility to recognize the use and learning of both official languages. Second, support is to be provided to official language communities across the country.

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
Those two responsibilities given to the Secretary of State under this Bill reflect what we have been doing for the last 18 years. It extends what we have been doing somewhat, but there has been a slow progression of events. It fits in well with the role of the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State has a general responsibility with respect to the sense of belonging and equal participation of all Canadians from all walks of life. That is why it is important that at least a significant part of this Bill be understood within the context of other initiatives that the Government, and in particular the Secretary of State, have been taking with respect to, for example, the new multicultural Bill and the amendments to the Citizenship Act. In all these matters, whether it is the multicultural Bill, changes to the Official Languages Act or changes to the Citizenship Act, we are responding as a Government to three fundamental principles that the Government, and I think all Canadian Governments at their best, stand for. That is to say equality, diversity and community.
Those may be cliches and principles unrelated to practice to some people. However, when we talk about those principles and try to deal with them in legislation we are on very serious business. When we talk in this instance about language and culture we only have to watch television, read newspapers and look around the world to see those countries which have not paid attention to the divisiveness of language and culture. In those countries their problems have been solved by conflict and not by co-operation and consensus.
When we deal with the Bill before us, with the multicultural Bill and our understanding of the Citizenship Act amendments we are responding to the principles of equality, diversity and community. It should never be forgotten that the end result is freedom for individual Canadians and stability for Canadian society as a whole.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, our official languages are a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. They set us apart from most nations in this world.
This linguistic duality gives all Canadian citizens the right to live and develop their potential in either official language.
Madam Speaker, language is a very personal part of ourselves. If we can all learn to respect the language spoken by our fellow citizens, we will have made an important contribution to tolerance and harmony among the various races, creeds and cultures that constitute our country.

We have been in the business of dealing with two official languages for a very long time. It is not merely and only a product of 1969. Earlier, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) talked about the constitutional and legal process which over decades was dealt with in our two official languages. We could go back even further. We could begin in 1867. At another time and another place it would be
interesting to note that there is a 200-year old tradition in the country from the Quebec Act of 1774 to the Constitution Act of 1791 to the British North America Act of 1867. We have been involved in developing, building, creating, fashioning and tolerating two languages for 200 years.
With respect to specific changes in the role of federal institutions as they relate to the two official languages, I think we can mark the beginning of the modern era, if I can put it that way, in 1934 when the Secretary of State, under the prime ministership of R. B. Bennett, introduced into the House a Bill that created a translation service for the federal Government. That was some 54 years ago. In a sense, that was the first practical example of the need to ensure that federal institutions spoke to all Canadians in both official languages.
In 1958, for the first time in the history of the country, a Translation service was brought into the Flouse. We are used to it today. We simply put a small device into our ears and we are able to listen to an automatic, first-class translation of the proceedings. That began only in 1958, I might add, with some price, under the prime ministership of John George Diefen-baker.
In 1969, when the Official Languages Act was adopted, it should not be forgotten that all three political Parties supported that Bill and have done so since that time.
1 have gone through these events because it is important to understand that history did not begin yesterday. These important matters did not begin when we showed up. They have been part of the Canadian understanding of our country as long as we have been around. It is fair to say that since the 1960s the climate with respect to the language question has improved immeasurably.
For the past 20 years we have seen an emerging positive and impressive growth of the use of those two languages. That may be denied by some. But all one has to do is to attend meetings anywhere in the country where people from other parts of the country are brought in. One will find that there is some facility so that people in both languages can understand.
If I had to pick one example to illustrate my points I would like to introduce some statistics, although I hate to use them, with respect to the success enjoyed by immersion courses in schools, institutions and community groups across the country. For the past 10 years enrolment in terms of immersion courses has increased 20 per cent per year. It has grown from 37,000 in 1977 to over 200,000 in 1987. In Alberta, one out of every ten schools is a French immersion school. In Regina, the number of students enrolled in French immersion courses was 60 in 1977. It was 3,000 in 1987.


John Napier Turner: How about Toronto and Vancouver?


David Edward Crombie: My friend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asks about Toronto and Vancouver. There has been amazing growth in those cities as well. I picked these other
February 9, 1988

cities to illustrate my point. In every province and in every major metropolitan area, city and town one will find such statistics. My right hon. friend knows that, as do the great majority of Canadians, certainly those who are interested in these matters.
In fact, there was a study done by Stacy Churchill and Anthony Smith which showed a major shift in Canadian attitudes towards language reform, use and the recognition of the two official languages. That is shown by incredible demands on my own Department with respect to supporting the provision of minority language services. I suppose that if one had to see it anywhere one would see it in the habits and instincts of young Canadians. Their feeling for the linguistic duality of this country is something that previous generations would not have dreamed of.
It is these young Canadians who are learning a second official language who hold a big promise for us. I have had the opportunity in meetings across the country with young people to see that not only do they understand the importance of language for their own community but they understand the importance of extending that to the other official language groups as well. I think that they see the benefit of being able to speak two languages in a world whose borders are coming closer and where travel, politics, education and international trade will welcome those who are able to avail themselves of a natural resource, that is, of the two official languages. I might add, as I have in other places and at other times, that a multitude of heritage languages also exist in Canada.
The Bill as it relates to the Ministry of the Secretary of State is very important. It deals with the encouragement, the recognition, the use and the learning of two official languages. It also deals with the support of official language communities. We do that in deliberate, constructive ways. For example, through agreements since 1980 with provinces and territories, we support educational programs and services for Englishspeaking Quebecers and for Francophones outside the Province of Quebec.
We provide opportunities for all Canadians to learn a second language. The summer language bursary program is particularly popular. It gives students the chance to spend six weeks immersed in their second language. Over 19,000 students applied for 7,250 bursaries last year.
We also support the development of teacher-training programs in universities and colleges across Canada, from Memorial University to all three universities in the Province of British Columbia. As well, the Government assists provinces and territories in developing learning materials. Our commitment to the development of TV Ontario's La Chaine Frangaise is an example of this.
TV Ontario now offers Franco-Ontarians the same kind of educational programming English-speaking students have had for years. It has also developed, with federal assistance, a
Official Languages Act
number of excellent programs on TV Ontario to teach French as a second language.
In short, this Bill stresses the importance of giving Canadians the opportunity to expand their horizons by learning a second language. The Bill responds to the linguistic needs and aspirations of Canadians, make no mistake about that. It is for Canadians who want for themselves and their children the opportunity to be themselves in their own language wherever they live in Canada, Canadians who want for themselves and their children the opportunity to learn a second official language and Canadians who realize that having two official languages gives us access to over half the people on this planet. That puts us in a first-class strategic position in terms of trade advantages, international relations and cultural exchanges.
The Government's approach is a positive one. It is based on incentives, consultations and partnership. Jean Pelletier of the Journal de Montreal, wrote about Bill C-72 a few weeks ago. He said:
Some of the most striking changes are reflected in the preamble of the
Bill... It removes the Act from the realm of mere rules and regulations and
elevates it to the status of a law that-can serve as an inspiration for the dayto-day political life of this country.

The time has come to offer Canadians throughout this country a better chance to develop their potential in their own official language.

I had the opportunity, as all Secretaries of State do, to visit with people across the country, not only with constituents and people I am trying to serve but with members of official language communities, both francophone and anglophone. It was a very impressive opportunity and I wish all Canadians could have that opportunity.

The Government directly helps minority communities to acquire tools and establish institutions, which enables these communities to participate in various aspects of Canadian society in their own language.
We support a number of groups representing Francophone communities across Canada, such as the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, the Association canadienne-franpaise de l'Ontario, French-speaking Canadians in British Columbia, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories, and many other groups I had a chance to meet last year in Winnipeg, Yellowknife and Charlottetown, for instance.
These groups provide for solidarity and community action. They make it possible for communities to express their views and carry out collective projects.
Francophones in Halifax-Dartmouth or in Cape St. George, Newfoundland can get together and set up a community and education centre, jointly financed by the federal-provincial governments.

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
The Federation des jeunes canadiens-fran^ais is organizing a project for community radio across the country. Programming will be developed by the communities themselves. And the Department of the Secretary of State is of course proud to support this project!

I also had the opportunity to meet a group of which 1 did not have much knowledge before. This group consists of small anglophone communities in the Province of Quebec, outside the Island of Montreal. There is, I think, an unintended feeling in other parts of the country that Anglophones live in Montreal only and that, by and large that is whom we hear about.
I had the terrific opportunity to meet with members of an Alliance Quebec as well as regional grassroots organizations including the Committee for Anglophone Social Action of the Gaspe, the Townshippers' Association of the Eastern Townships, the Outaouais Alliance of the Ottawa Valley, the Voice of English Quebec of the Quebec City area and many others. They introduced me, as they would introduce all of us, to a very impressive piece of Canadian history. They have a network of 14 weekly newspapers, some of which have been around, informing, building and helping create communities, for decades.
The Stanstead Journal in Rock Island has existed since 1845. The West Quebec Post in Buckingham has been there since 1895. The Watchman in Lachute has been there since 1877. My impression of these communities is that not only were they appreciating their own history but they knew that they were building their own communities as Quebecers and as Canadians. That impressed me. The reason I mention it in this context is that they support this Bill. They do so because they know that the programs we have been offering and want to continue to offer and expand support those anglophone communities in the Province of Quebec.
I also had the opportunity to deal with another group, nongovernmental. There are a great many voluntary organizations and business organizations which are now and have been for the last couple of years interested in getting support to expand opportunities in Canada's two official languages. Mr. Lloyd McGinnis, past chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has said:
Modern business managers in Canada-recognize that it makes good
business sense to employ communications tools that capitalize on both official
languages.
That is why, on a voluntary basis, the Secretary of State has received requests from bodies and organizations wanting to serve clients in English and in French. Two examples of this are the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. My Department assists 275 voluntary groups in bilingual services at conferences and annual meetings, and more than 60 major associations are being helped with bilingualism development plans.
We support organizations such as Canadian Parents for French. One of the most impressive groups we support is the
Canadian Society of Association Executives with well over 1,200 member associations. On their own initiative, its representatives came to see me in order to establish a program of assistance for private and voluntary groups promoting both official languages. I say these things because that is the reality in Canada and we ought to begin to understand it.
1 know that my time has concluded. I would like to finish with one final remark. The Government is committed not only to strengthening the official languages in Canada, it also understands that in doing so, there is something greater at stake and that is the fundamental proposition, that we must continue to support the development of the community of Canada. We can only do that when we rise to the challenge and recognize that being Canadian means we should continue the tradition of two official languages and move forward.
I hope the House will be able to conclude the debate and we can get it into committee to deal with those matters which are of concern to some people. However, at the end of the day we will have failed the promise of this country if we do not move forward, as the Government would like to with changes to the Official Languages Act that tell Canadians and the world that we have not forgotten the great traditions of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, being also a Member from Ontario as the Minister is, I would like to commend him, first for his speech and second for that part of his speech he chose to deliver in French in this House this afternoon. I suggest this reflects an open mind, and that special effort by the Minister deserves to be emphasized today.


John Napier Turner: Especially since he is a former mayor of Toronto!


Don Boudria: Yes, especially from a former mayor of Toronto, Madam Speaker!
1 pay close attention to the Minister's comments. I may have a slightly different opinion from his in that he is hoping for an early conclusion to the debate, and 1 would welcome an opportunity to make a speech in this House on this matter. I represent in this Parliament the largest number of Francophones outside Quebec of any constituency, and this is why 1 am hoping for such an opportunity. Needless to say, 1 am hoping contrary to the Minister that the debate will last at least one or two more days, so that I also can take part in it and express my support for the Official Languages Bill.
1 suggest, Madam Speaker, that in view of the official languages situation at this stage in Canada, it is important to have Bill C-72, even though the legislation holds nothing new; by that I mean that we need Bill C-72 because we need a vehicle to re-emphasize our commitment to official languages,
February 9, 1988

and of course there are many more reasons why we want Bill C-72. Flon. Members explained them and I also will discuss them when I rise in this debate.
I simply wish to put a specific question to the Minister concerning the Supreme Court. As far as I am concerned, I feel that the clause providing that the presiding member of a panel of judges hearing a party to the proceedings must be able to do so in that party's language. There is one exemption to that rule under the Bill, being the Supreme Court of Canada. I have no idea, Madam Speaker, why they chose to do that. I would like to ask the Minister whether in committee the Government would accept to change that, even if it entails extending the period for the Supreme Court to adapt to that new recommendation.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, first let me assure the Hon. Member that, as always, we listen to his remarks with interest and we are sure he has some wisdom to offer to the House. When I indicated that 1 hoped the debate would be concluded,
I of course meant after all Hon. Members had the opportunity to make their contribution.
The second part of the Hon. Member's question dealt with changes to the Bill which he favours. When the Minister of Justice spoke the other day, I think it is fair to say that he indicated that there needs to be a capacity in each of our courts, and I think the emphasis should be on the word "capacity", and that it excludes the Supreme Court. I think the Minister dealt with that, I am not sure. It may well be that there are other views. I am sure that when it gets into committee any specific changes that Hon. Members are looking for will at least be appropriately considered by the committee.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister concerning the situation of the Anglophone in Quebec. Having lived there for a while, I saw what happened when Bill 101 was brought into force and the effect it had on anglophone Quebecers most of the young Anglophones had to leave the province because they were being discriminated against. Therefore, would the Minister consider a motion of the House asking the Government of Quebec to withdraw Bill 101, as was done in the case of Manitoba?


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I should remind the Hon. Member that Bill 101 is a provincial Bill and at least some aspects of it are before the courts. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to deal with that aspect of it.
However, let me respond to what I think might be the spirit of the question, which is something that I tried to deal with in my own speech. Clauses 40 to 44 are positive ways where we do not try to recapture the past but try to see what we can do to fashion a future. It is always an easy way out for people to bog down because of their understanding of things in the past. I appreciate that because I have been involved with it myself in a number of circumstances. However, in our circumstances today, I hope what Hon. Members will do is to look at the
Official Languages Act
positive things in Bill C-72 that deal with Anglophones in the Province of Quebec, and there are many of them. I have met with those people and their organizations, such as the ones I mentioned in the Gaspe, the Outaouais, in the Comtes de I'Est. They want to be part of a society that respects their heritage, understands them as Quebecers and as Canadians. That is what this Bill does and I commend that to my hon. friend.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, we all concur with the Minister's comments dealing with voluntary French immersion in our schools. In Peterborough we have a line-up to enrol in those schools, and 1 think the voluntary approach is a good one. 1 think it is also a good approach for the private sector which has indicated its interest in obtaining information and advancing this voluntarily in the private sector. The aspects of this Bill which are a little repugnant are those that change from the voluntary to the mandatory.
1 would like to ask the Minister at what point it is the Government's intention to cause a region to become bilingual, thus falling under-the Minister has a question mark in his eyes. We have a language of work in approximately seven regions of this country as defined in our legislation and in the understanding of the Department of Justice. There is the rest of Canada to deal with. This Bill makes it possible, through regulations and Orders in Council, to declare regions bilingual. At what point does a region become bilingual by Order in Council, thus causing this Bill to take effect through mandatory regulations enforced by Orders in Council? We as backbenchers have no idea at what point or with what regulations that will happen.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member understands, as I do, that regulations are important, particularly with respect to a Bill of this nature. It is the regulations that take the words in the Bill and turn them into practical day-to-day living. I was very pleased therefore to hear the Minister of Justice indicate that when the regulations are brought down there will be an opportunity for full public exposure and debate. At that time I am sure the Hon. Member's question will be answered.


Stan Graham: Madam Speaker, the Minister referred to the fact that certain segments of Bill 101 in Quebec are before the courts. Would the Minister comment on the timing of this Bill? One of the things that is probably of concern to some Members is why the federal Government would bring forward Bill C-72 when we have still not been able to resolve the problems and attitudes expressed in Bill 101.
While he is on his feet would the Minister also try to define "significant demand"?


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, "significant demand" will be defined by regulation. As I indicated in response to the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), when the

February 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
regulations come down, significant demand in a particular area will be understood in the full glare of public exposure and public discussion. 1 commend that process to the Hon. Member because I think that is the fair and open way to do it.
With regard to the impact of Bill 101 in the Province of Quebec, as I indicated earlier there are aspects, in particular signage, before the courts and I would not want to comment on them. I would, however, say again to this Hon. Member that anglophone communities in the Province of Quebec support this Bill. People can play around with that fact all they like, but the reality is that if one is interested in supporting not only francophone communities across the country but anglophone communities in Quebec, one should do one's duty and support this Bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Interprovincial trade-Removal of barriers; the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Proposed all-news television channel-Suggested partnership with private sector; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Science and technology- Announced closure of astronomical observatory / Algonquin Park Observatory.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in a very important debate on Bill C-72 which amends and re-enacts the Official Languages Act of 1969. I am honoured to follow the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) who both joined in the debate this afternoon.
When this Bill was originally tabled in the House I had expected that I would be the first speaker on it from our
caucus. However, when the debate was scheduled for Monday of this week I found myself in one of those conflicts which Members of Parliament have occasionally. I had a commitment to travel 250 kilometers north of Thunder Bay to the small community of Armstrong in order to present some Celebration '88 medals and scrolls to people in that community. I did not think it was fair to them to ask for a drastic rearrangement of timetables in order to allow me to come here.
I am grateful to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), for the able way in which she addressed the topic before us yesterday morning. She spoke skilfully from her experience here in the national capital area on the importance of official languages and put it in a variety of contexts which are important to Canadians.
Today 1 want to take up something of the attitudes which have been expressed here in the House and outside the House and to elaborate on the support which 1 think exists in Canada for Bill C-72 for a strengthening of the laws dealing with official bilingualism in this country. I do this all the more because of the report in The Globe and Mail specifically which suggested that the Ministers speaking yesterday in support of Bill C-72 were being heckled by back-benchers in their own caucus, a highly unusual situation and one which certainly arouses one's interest.
1 have asked my colleagues about the strength of this opposition, if you will, in the Conservative caucus to Bill C-72.
1 gather that "heckled" may be over-doing it a little bit, although the questions being posed this afternoon to the Secretary of State suggest the concerns which a variety of back-bench Members feel.
I was distressed earlier today when listening to the Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) on this topic to sense much more than only concern about the way in which the Official Languages Act might impact on individuals in various ways. I was particularly distressed to hear him taking statistics on the advance of bilingualism in various areas of the federal Government as evidence of a dangerous tendency, or at least that is what I inferred from it. He appeared to suggest that these advances in bilingual ability to some very high and impressive proportions in certain areas of the federal Government were a bad thing.
I suspect that what he was thinking in the first order, and trying to suggest to all of us here and those outside listening to the debate, was that these bilingual persons were persons whose first language was French and that these proportions suggested an overwhelming employment in these various areas of government of persons who were francophones as against anglophones in the Canadian population. That would certainly be a concern given the principle of equitable participation if employment in various areas of government ran to three-quarters and more of francophone Canadians. I could understand concern among Anglophones across the country because employment in the Public Service is a desirable form of service
February 9, 1988

to the country and persons whose first language is English want to share in that opportunity to serve.
I think, however, that he failed to recognize the fact that many of the persons who are included in these statistics are persons whose first language is English, who have become bilingual and who, by being bilingual, enhance the service they can give the people of Canada and enhance the abilities of the Public Service to operate in both languages.
In pursuing that I want to make something of a report in Language and Society published by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in April, 1987. There is an article in here by Stacy Churchill and Anthony Smith to which I believe the Secretary of State referred. I would like to pull some sections of this particular article from it for all of us to contemplate because I think that few of us appreciate that attitudes in the country have been changing since the Official Languages Act in 1969 responded to a political challenge, in Quebec particularly but out of Quebec as well. In that response the Official Languages Act has loosed a ferment, if you will, in the Canadian population which has been modifying the culture of the country in ways which I personally regard as desirable.
These two sociologists first consider the ways in which attitudes across the country are sensitive to the bilingual reality, to English and French. They put Quebec beside British Columbia assuming that these might be our polar opposites, one society being first French-speaking and the other being largely English-speaking. They note that an astounding 99 per cent of Quebecers consider the ability to speak both English and French to be very or moderately important in helping a young person get ahead. Fully 93 per cent of Quebecers believe that English and French should be required in school. They note that Quebecers are almost as supportive of the language rights of the English-speaking minority as they are positive about the value of learning English. Eighty-eight per cent of Quebec's Francophones believe that Anglophones in Quebec should be entitled to education for their children in English. Eighty-nine per cent believe that English-speaking residents of Quebec should be able to receive hospital service in English. Support for service in English in the Post Office is 85 per cent and in department stores 82 per cent.
Those are impressive figures in a province in which Conservative back-benchers have been obsessed about Bill 101 as reflecting a reality in Quebec.
What are the attitudes in British Columbia as far as acceptance of English and French in various ways is concerned? This public opinion poll is a Canadian fact survey which the Commissioner of Official Languages commissioned in 1985. It indicates that 69 per cent of the British Columbia population believe that speaking both English and French is important to a young person getting ahead. Seventy-seven per cent think it would be beneficial if all Canadians spoke both
Official Languages Act
English and French, and 59 per cent support the compulsory teaching of both languages in schools. This is in a province where the francophone population in 1981 was not even 2 per cent. Fifty-seven per cent of the population in British Columbia believe that people who live in the province and speak French should be entitled to education for their children in French. Similarly, a majority of 55 per cent of British Columbians believe that hospital services should be available to Francophones in French.
As the authors suggest, what is desirable in exploring this matter of service of official bilingualism is to put it in a human context in terms of services to real people. There is not the kind of fear that Western Report is pandering to or the kind of prejudice that still exists in some minds, but the kind of compassion that I believe characterizes Canadians as they recognize that official bilingualism is a humane response to part of the reality of the Canadian population.
The authors conclude that the national picture is a positive one over-all. The levels of support for service in the language of the provincial minorities is at the 50 per cent level or better on all questions asked, including those which deal with both the public sector and the private sector.
For those outside Quebec, the support is 50 per cent or better on all questions asked about the public sector. What I find quite astonishing is that outside Quebec 40 per cent or more of the Canadian population believe that institutions in the private sector should be prepared to serve Canadians in both official languages. Such an astonishing change in attitude of Canadians leaves no doubt that in the last 20 years a cultural revolution has been under way. Bill C-72 is designed to support and enhance that change in attitude among most Canadians.
The authors recognize that a minority in this poll feel differently. If we want to use the public opinion poll data to create a profile of Canadians least likely to support bilingualism, it would single out an Anglophone, 50 years of age or over, with no past training in French as a second language, no current contact with the French language, living in western Canada. I hesitate over those last words. I am western Canadian myself in origin and I think it is important to recognize that there is this minority feeling across the country, including various parts of Ontario and Atlantic Canada. It is clearly a minority, but one that is decreasing.
Canadians of all ages believe that bilingualism is a useful skill for young people, even if older Canadians do not consider bilingualism valuable for themselves personally. That in itself is evidence of how this country is changing and developing.
Bill C-72 allows us to explore ways in which the Official Languages Act of 1969, which was supported by all Parties in Parliament and enhanced by the Charter in 1982, can be strengthened. This includes explicitly addressing the question of cost in accomplishing this goal. Undoubtedly there is a cost attached, but we should be capable of recognizing that governments make decisions that cost money. The argument

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act
that an expenditure must be carried out is not valid because countries spend money in various ways to enhance the unity and strength of a nation. In terrible circumstances, countries are forced to make expenditures to suppress minorities or maintain forces of occupation.
Rather than being forced to make expenditures in such ugly circumstances, we spend money on the cultivation of both languages, to encourage immersion programs across the country, which have been spectacularly successful. Government expenditures are used to support organizations such as Canadian Parents for French, a group which reflects the change that has taken place in this country.
I suggest that the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in these areas is a good investment, and one that we should continue to make.
Therefore, speaking for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus:

-we remain committed to the cause of generally promoting the official languages in Canadian society, co-operation with the provinces in that respect, particularly assistance to official languages minorities, and the opportunity for all to learn the second official language.

That is the position that the New Democratic Party has taken over the years, and it is one in which we are solid today. We supported the goals of the Official Languages Act of 1969 and we recognize that, considering the developing circumstances in the country today, it is advisable to have an amendment and re-enactment of the Act. We support Bill C-72 in its attempt to address the desire of Canadians to work in the Public Service in the language of their choice as well as to deal with the Government in the language with which they are most familiar and best able to express themselves.
At the press conference following the tabling of the Bill last June there was a very warm pouring out of support for the Bill from various quarters, to which I joined to some extent. There may have been some satisfaction as well as pleasure about the fact that the Conservative Government, which we realize includes Members who are concerned about what official bilingualism represents, was able to introduce a Bill with as good and varied provisions as Bill C-72 has. When I saw it against the current of approbation for the Bill, to express a concern or two, I did not get anywhere with the media, as anyone can see simply by going back and looking at the coverage in the Ottawa Citizen and other newspapers.
Without diminishing any of that support this afternoon, I would like to express those same concerns here and add one or two others. My concern at the time focused primarily on the statements dealing with service in Clause 31 of the Bill and with equitable participation, as the jargon goes, and with the
matter of fairness of employment, if you will, with which Clause 38 deals.
Clause 31(2) provides for the prescribing of circumstances in which there is a significant demand for the purpose of service to the public. This is by no means a simple matter. My concern is primarily that the situation previously was one in which the obligation was on Government to provide service to the official language minority except where the demand was so low or uneven as to be unjustified. As a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, I can tell my colleagues in the House that government action under this section, that is, service to the public by Departments and agencies and Crown corporations, has been advanced only very, very slowly over the years. It is astonishing that in the mid-1980s one still has to bludgeon various Crown corporations, in particular, and to a lesser extent Departments of the Government, to achieve this matter of service to the public.
This is simple humanity. If someone who is unilingual French or who is far more fluent in French than in English approaches Government, it is only simple humanity that the government Department or Crown corporation be prepared to serve him or her in that language. The fact that it has taken so long is quite a commentary on the fact that the Act of 1969 laid on the obligation except where demand was low or uneven.
I put that as the background against which we have now, in a sense, a change in posture. Government will specify what the requirements of significant demand are and the public will have the opportunity to bring legal pressure to bear. It is certainly the tradition to use litigation these days to advance the cause, and official language minorities certainly know a great deal about being forced to use litigation. Frankly, 1 am not at all happy about the possibility that people are going to have to use litigation. That route will be used because of a political failure of the will of Government. That is one of the parts which concerns me.
With respect to Clause 38, the provision is for a Public Service which will tend to reflect the Canadian population that may do the job, although this will even more clearly require will on the part of the Government of the day. The phrase "tend to reflect" is really pretty loose. I would like to see much stronger language, although I would say this is very much in keeping with Bill C-62, the employment equity Bill, which was all too weak as well. I am not all that surprised to have this sort of legislation from this Conservative Government.
These are concerns which I articulated last June and I appreciate the opportunity today to state them again. There are other concerns which I will not have the time to address with respect to the main comments expressed by the Governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Those are points that certainly will be put forward at committee. I believe my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), will certainly want to expand on those points at an early point in the debate. I am sorry I will not have the time
February 9, 1988

myself, unless someone places a question and I can say something about it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member noted his concurrence with Part VI, participation of English speaking and French speaking Canadians, and employment opportunities. The intent of the Bill is, of course, to give equal opportunity to both English and French to participate in this program, according to this Bill. I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain how we can have equal participation in the Bill when the Bill specifically states that it is a requirement, once an area is designated bilingual, that any supervisory or management functions which are to be carried out by those institutions are to be done in both official languages? That is according to Clause 37(l)(a)(iii). I wonder if he would explain how that is going to happen if the person is unilingual.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1
appreciate the question. The matter of equitable participation does not establish a general right for any and all Anglophones to serve in government. I was reminded of a struggle for a Supreme Court position in the United States some years ago. I believe it was a Senator from North Dakota who argued that mediocrity had a right to a place on the Supreme Court of the United States. Simply because he had been described as mediocre was no reason why he should not be appointed to the position.
That incident comes to mind because what we are clearly approaching is the development of a Public Service in Canada which has some new characteristics. It is a Public Service which, at its higher levels, in particular, will be bilingual. It will be a Public Service, the supervisors of which will be capable of dealing with their subordinates in English or in French, depending on which language their subordinates would like to work in. That, I recognize, creates pinches along the way. It creates the challenge to learn the other language, a challenge which faces so many persons in public life.
On the way to doing that, there will be people who think it is all terribly unfair and that it is not a matter of equality. But equitable participation is primarily a matter of ensuring that there is opportunity for minorities, the English language minority in Quebec and the French speaking minority across the country. We want to be sure that as the Public Service develops over time, we move closer to having a reflection of the Canadian population in Government. That is clearly the direction in which public opinion expects Government to move. French immersion classes outside of Quebec are so spectacularly successful these days because parents recognize they need to prepare their children for a time when the Canadian elite, if you will, will be bilingual. That elite in the Public Service of Canada will be capable of working in either language.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, may I say through you to the member of the Opposition, that I fail to see the logic of the Hon. Member's statement that it is fair to Anglophones in Quebec, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, in supplying this position of supervisory or management function, because the
Official Languages Act
unilingual Anglophone in Quebec would have no chance under this legislation, according to Clause 37(l)(a)(iii) which simply states that any supervisory or management functions that are to be carried out in both official languages by that management team.
How does the Hon. Member propose to protect unilingual Anglophones or unilingual Francophones with this legislation in the workplace? How can they improve their position by advancement through management to top positions if they are unilingual? I fail to see the fairness.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) would look at Clause 37, he would note that subclause (1) states:
The Treasury Board may make regulations in respect of federal
institutions,-
The Bill goes on to set forth the goals of our policy. The "may make" is clearly an indication that there will be recognition of rights. Grandfathering has gone on throughout the Public Service for a long time in a straightforward manner, often to the detriment of the policy that was expressed in the Bill of 1969.
I am sure that tender regard for the rights of individuals, and their assertions through one organization or another, will provide protection as we move toward the goal that the majority of Canadians want, whether or not the Hon. Member for Simcoe South thinks that this is all terribly funny. He is in the minority. The minority or the silent majority, as they would like to think of themselves, are the silent majority of the 19th century, those dead and gone.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The Hon. Member is misinterpreting the legislation before us. When the Hon. Member quotes Clause 37(1), "The Treasury Board may make regulations", we are talking about making regulations deeming such things as that other areas in respect of Canada or places outside of Canada shall become bilingual by designation.
There are seven areas in Canada which are now deemed to be bilingual in the workplace, and let us deal with those seven. How does one protect a unilingual Anglophone in the Province of Quebec who wants to be in mid-management when it is a prerequisite under this Bill that that management position be filled with a bilingual person?
While the Hon. Member is answering that question, will he tell me how to protect a Francophone in the rest of Canada who cannot speak fluently class C or a top grade of English, in order that he can advance through the Public Service in Alberta when he is not fluently bilingual? He cannot take a management position, according to this Bill that we are studying today, and the clause referred to by the Hon. Member, with all due respect, does not deal with a designated bilingual place or region in the workplace.

February 9, 1988
Official Languages Act


Abram Ernest Epp: There are two realities here. One is the practice for years past in which many odd things go on for the protection of those who are unilingual. All sorts of odd things have gone on, and I expect all sorts of odd things will go on in the future for the protection of those persons.
Early in 1988, 19 years after the Official Languages Act became law, and long after the anglophone population of Quebec should have faced up to reality, and I assume the Hon. Member is talking about an Anglophone Quebecer, if the Hon. Member asks me how I am going to protect such a person, I am not sure how much I want to do to protect such a person.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Right.


Abram Ernest Epp: A person living in Quebec who is still unilingual after all those years with all the assistance that the federal Government can provide in the way of language study, knowing full well that that is what advancement in the Public Service requires, and knowing this reality for the past two decades, how far does one extend the compassion that the Canadian population generally feels, which I was invoking earlier, when one is on the brink of testing that compassion?
There are challenges to be met. Anglophone Canadians can meet that challenge in the same way as Francophone Canadians. I am sure that all of us have watched with some interest the manner in which the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), who came out of the francophone context, has learned English and how to operate in the House. He deserves a lot of credit for doing that.
Personally, 1 do not think that George Bain's observation some 20 years ago, and I remember the column well in The Globe and Mail about this strange malady suffered by western Canadians, the inability to learn French, is anything but a satirical observation by a commentator who knew which way things were moving in this country, and had to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Charlevoix.
[ Translation]


Charles-André Hamelin: Madam Speaker, I have barely four minutes left but I will undoubtedly have other opportunities to pursue the debate.
From the outset I should like to say that Bill C-72 is one of the major components of the over-all proposition made by this Government in terms of unity and national reconciliation. Since the Meech Lake Accord did acknowledge the existence
of two linguistic communities in this country, it is important to point out the federal Government's commitment not only to acknowledge this linguistic duality but also to promote it throughout Canada.
Briefly now, some of my colleagues seem to be concerned about the difficulties this Bill might create for their fellow citizens.
There is talk of possible discrimination in employment, and some of my colleagues rapidly produced protest letters referring to language discrimination. 1 want to tell my colleagues that for every such letter they have I can produce 1,000. Yes, 1,000 letters about discrimination-alleged or otherwise-against the Canadian francophone minority. One has to be wary of such literature and such statements. It is a ready-made excuse, such an easy way to hide one's lack of experience and qualifications: I was not selected or I was not promoted because I speak French or because 1 speak English. What an easy way out! One has to be careful. I have had people coming up to me and say: I did not get the job because I am Francophone. A check into the matter showed that such was not the case, the person involved simply did not have the qualifications required for senior management.
On this point, the clause of Bill C-72 is very clear:

Clause 38(3) reads:
Merit principle (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating
or derogating from the principle of selection of personnel according to merit.

This section, therefore, will not change anything to the mode of selection based on the merit principle. And that remains a basic criterion.
Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues often refer to Bill 101. Strangely enough, they are representatives from other provinces. The main reason Quebec felt compelled to adopt Bill 101, is because this country, in the past, would not respect the Canadian linguistic duality and had failed to show enough generosity to make us feel fully at home in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately, it is now five o'clock; 1 am sure that the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) will want to continue his remarks at the first opportunity.

It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
February 9, 1988

[DOT] (noo)


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West) moved: that Bill C-273, an Act respecting political rights of public servants, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today, as the only public servant who was elected in the last federal general election, to speak on my Bill C-273 designed to extend political rights to public servants. I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions in the past, the first time being my maiden speech in this place in November, 1984. It gives me some pleasure now to present legislation aimed at redressing what I view as an injustice. I believe firmly that this is an issue which should transcend Party affiliation. It is an area that all Parties and Members have an interest in promoting, and it can demonstrate how well the House can work when an issue that all Canadians see as important is brought before it.
I should like to highlight briefly why I feel that the issue is an important one. The report on equality rights presented to Parliament in 1985 noted the following:
While the neutrality of the Public Service must be preserved as a general
principle, it seems to us that the rights of public servants are, at least in certain
circumstances, unduly curtailed.
In my view that is a classic understatement.
There is a fundamental issue at stake here-whether a group of Canadians has the right to free speech, free assembly, and the right to work peacefully and lawfully for democratic change. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of public servants all across Canada who have participated in the election campaigns of all three Parties have had to look over their shoulders, worrying that big brother working out of the Public Service Commission office would discipline them for stuffing envelopes or painting lawn signs. Drivers, clerks, or technical staff whose work may never touch upon policy cannot join their neighbours in the simplest of election tasks without risk of losing their jobs.
Balanced against the claim that basic rights are being denied is the argument that political activity would jeopardize the neutrality of the Public Service and undermine the effective administration of government policy.
The debate over the political rights of public servants must take into account that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone in Canada freedom of conscience, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. The Charter clearly states that these rights are subject only to such "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
Public Employees Political Rights
Therefore, two obligations exist in this debate. Those of us who defend the right of public servants to political expression must answer legitimate questions raised about the effects of such expression on the effective administration of public policy. Those who would deprive public servants of their democratic rights must show that the limitations are "demonstrably justified".
The objections to allowing public servants the opportunity to enjoy democratic rights are not superficial. Indeed, they go to the core of our beliefs of how a democratic government should function. These objections are rooted in the idea that the expression of Party loyalty or political orientation by public servants would endanger the public perception of neutrality, allow public servants to promote their personal political philosophies in advice to Ministers, and put Party interest above service to the public in the implementation of policy.
However, are we to assume that the only people who have a political philosophy are those who are active members of a political Party? Moreover, just as we are aware that there are active members of political Parties who have no discernible political philosophy aside from self-interest, we know of how profoundly the political philosophies of supposedly neutral public servants have affected the development of public policy in the country.
The fact is that whether or not public servants belong to a political Party or stuff envelopes in an election campaign, their political philosophies will remain intact. Preventing them from speaking or from participating in the political process will not stop them from thinking.
This is not to deny the rights to which both Ministers and the public are entitled in their expectations of service from the bureaucracy. However, neither the public nor cabinet Ministers have the right to the illusion that public servants have no political opinions. Rather, they have a right to have those opinions expressed visibly, so that some sort of accountability may be carried out. There is no protection for the public with a muzzled Public Service, only an increased opportunity for the obtrusive influence of personal and hidden views.
With the open declaration of political affiliation, any public servant with a partisan affiliation will be constrained to behave in an objective manner when dealing with both the public and his or her colleagues, to demonstrate that political bias does not exist.
Nothing in the restoration of political rights to public servants through the Bill removes the burden on the Public Service of behaving in a non-partisan manner in the execution of public duties. There is, of course, nothing unethical in the expression of political opinion. The essential question is whether public servants will act to implement government policy in a non-partisan manner, not whether they have personal views on politics or a political philosophy.
Canadians must be assured that their treatment by public servants will not be coloured by political affiliation, just as

February 9, 1988
Public Employees Political Rights
they must be assured that their treatment is not affected by their sex, their race, their language, or their ethnic origin.
We have laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on these grounds. However, such regulations do not prohibit people from having bigoted or sexist views, for example, because that of course is impossible, but they do prohibit public servants from manifesting any such views in the execution of their public duties. The same logic is applied in this Bill to the expression of political rights by public servants.
I do not think that there is a pressing need in this day and age to deprive hundreds of thousands of Canadians of their political rights, but if we are to impose such important limitations, Parliament cannot do so lightly. The restrictions on basic political liberties of public servants are more severe in Canada than in most western democracies. In the United States, Great Britain, Australia, France, and Sweden, public servants have the right to free political expression. More important, when there are restrictions on political activity, these are spelled out clearly in law as they are in the United States.
In the United Kingdom there is a clear delineation of political rights for different categories of public servants, running from complete freedom for the largest category in jobs of little or no political sensitivity, to severe restrictions, similar to those that we now have in Canada, for a small group of senior public servants. The British model is one which has been suggested as an option for Canada by the 1979 report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle, known as the D'Avignon report. It also served as a model for the Bill before us today.
As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I find that the D'Avignon approach seemed to provide the best balance possible between the competing principles of a neutral Public Service and individual freedom of expression. Coming to the present law, the sad reality for Canadian public servants is that Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act is worded vaguely, so that it has left the definition of political liberties up to the Public Service Commission. The commission has been notoriously fickle in its interpretation of the Act, permitting political activities in some parts of the country while denying them in others.
Various federal Departments governed by the Act interpret it in different ways, and federal agencies not subject to the Act have also varied in their interpretations, some permitting almost complete political freedom to their employees and others imposing severe restrictions.
Section 32 does not deal with the right to public comment on political issues. Limitations on freedom of expression are imposed largely through policy or regulation by government agencies, not by legislation. The Public Service Staff Relations Board has set stringent limits on freedom of expression by public servants, banning criticism of public policy by ail employees. It has done this even when it can be shown that
public comments do not affect the performance of a public servant's job.
If our commitment to free speech and freedom of expression is anything, then it is not divisible. Neither clear cause nor vague fears, can be the only justification for limiting basic democratic rights in a free country. If those rights must be limited then Parliament must make that decision, after a careful and measured assessment of the genuine need and clear dangers behind such action.
This Bill aims to provide basic democratic rights to public servants. It ensures that it is Parliament that will set out which rights will be curtailed and how this will be done. It will be Parliament that guarantees the public's right to a non-partisan delivery of public services. I would like to outline briefly how this Bill endeavours to achieve those objectives.
The Bill classifies public servants into three categories, based roughly on the political sensitivity of the duties performed. These categories reflect very closely the recommendations of the 1979 D'Avignon report. In my view this classification is essential if we are to perform properly the required balancing act between the principles I referred to earlier and to recognize that those employees who engage in activities that arc more politically sensitive cannot enjoy the same range of liberties as those whose positions do not touch upon policy at all.
The reasons for not granting full political rights to employees in the executive and senior management occupational groups seem quite clear. It would be most inappropriate for our senior public servants to work in an election campaign to defeat the Minister to whom they are providing advice at the time. All political activities, aside from voting, making financial contributions to a Party, being a member of a political Party, attending political meetings, and within certain limits expressing opinions on matters of public interest, would be prohibited to employees in this category. In other words, pretty much the status quo would be maintained for category A employees. The Bill creates a second category wherein access to full political rights would be subject to request and decision by the Public Service Commission, depending on the specific responsibilities of the applicant and the political sensitivity of those duties.
The occupational groups in this category, as suggested in the D'Avignon report, are set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. I hope that the composition of this category will be reviewed closely and carefully in committee. Some Members may feel that D'Avignon included too many classifications. I know that the Public Service Commission has expressed the view that not enough were included.
The commission would be obligated to hold public hearings to determine the limits, if any, to the political rights that will be extended to employees in this category. However, it is
February 9, 1988

important to remember that it will be Parliament that will have the final say on the regime to govern these groups.
Those category B occupational groups are ones in which the duties of the position vary so that neither a blanket denial nor complete political freedom can be supported. They contain positions whose incumbents may quite properly be allowed to take an active part in politics and others whose duties are such that political activity would be inappropriate. In this category, for example, are employees in the commerce group whose duties involve awarding government contracts, employees in the purchasing and supply group who are responsible for awarding contracts, and staffing officers in the personnel administration group who are directly involved in the recruiting of new employees. The House will be asked in committee to consider whether political action by members of such groups might be seen to be incompatible with the exercise of their responsibilities.
1 recognize that the creation of this middle category of public servants is not universally supported. 1 also realize that it makes for a complex and initially somewhat cumbersome and time-consuming process. However, I am convinced, largely based on my understanding of the British experience, that it is a system which is intellectually more supportable than simply dividing the Public Service into two categories-senior managers and others. Attractive as that approach is from the point of view of simplicity and certainty, it does not, in my view, provide quite the right balance between the need for a politically neutral Public Service and the rights of individual public servants.
Employees in all remaining occupational groups, which constitute the vast majority of public servants, would be placed in category C. This will entitle them to full political rights without review by the Public Service Commission, other than requiring a leave of absence without pay upon nomination by a political Party to contest an election. The activities of these employees rarely touch upon policy and political questions. Granting them the rights shared by other Canadians would hardly jeopardize the neutrality of our Public Service and the effective administration of government policy.
In my view we have allowed the present unjust system to go on for much too long. We have all paid a price for it. It is difficult to estimate how many public servants, committed to improving all aspects of life in Canada, have been deterred by the present provisions of the Public Service Employment Act.
This Bill is by no means perfect. Indeed, on rereading it after it was printed I noticed a number of imperfections. I am sure that some of them will be pointed out today. I am also sure that a number of them can be dealt with at committee.
The regime as set out in Bill C-273 is one that I would commend to the House. It sends out the clear message that all Canadians may contribute to political life in our country and that the safeguards for a neutral, non-partisan Public Service will remain in place.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congragulate the Hon. Member for
Public Employees Political Rights
Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) for introducing this Bill for discussion in the House, and I hope that the House will agree to refer this Bill to a committee this afternoon if necessary. I want to congratulate him on his initiative, because having personally on several occasions debated the issue of extended rights for Federal public servants, especially the right to participate in the political life of this country, I recognize that his initiative provides us with food for thought. I thank him for his well-reasoned remarks concerning Bill C-273.
It is an interesting Bill fashioned after the D'Avignon report, a report which had been commissioned by the Liberal Government of the time concerning the application of the merit principle in the Public Service of Canada.
The Bill is therefore global. It is interesting to note that the Hon. Member has addressed every possible aspect of this issue and provided also not only for more generous application, but also for the review of the issue by a House committee every four years, a suggestion which I feel is new and which I welcome most positively.
The purpose of this Bill is not new. As I was saying earlier, I had an opportunity, on September the 23rd, 1985, to move in the House a motion calling essentially for the same thing. What is new is that a Government member has introduced a Bill which is fairly complete and in my opinion meets almost all of D'Avignon's expectations. I am aware, just as the Hon. Member for Ottawa West is, that this idea originated in the British Parliament, the so-called mother of Parliaments, and 1 feel the matter is important because there are now 200 000 federal civil servants who rather arbitrarily are openly denied their democratic privileges during an election campaign.
Hon. Members will know that, whenever there is an election campaign, the Public Service Commission sends a letter or notice to public servants in which it says: Section 32 of the Act prohibits your active participation in an election, even though, according to our interpretation, you may hold a membership card, make financial contributions, and even attend political meetings, but you cannot be seen or participate actively in a federal campaign as a supporter of one of the political parties. I find this regrettable because, as someone from the National Capital Region, it is quite clear to me that many public servants want to take part in the democratic process, to act according to their political beliefs and to help the candidate of their choice get elected.
It is a secret for no one, Mr. Speaker, that we all have in our constituencies, whether Ottawa-Vanier, Ottawa West, Ottawa Centre or Ottawa Carleton, public servants who work in our election campaigns and who are very helpful to us. It should be clearly understood that legal proceedings can be taken against a public servant only if a candidate in an election lodges a complaint with the Commission saying that a public servant has worked for the election of another person. I must say that no candidate has ever complained in Canada that a public servant has worked for someone else during an election.

February 9, 1988
Public Employees Political Rights
As we all know that there are public servants who work for candidates in political elections, we should put an end to this hypocritical practice of refusing to admit it openly. As for me, I say so quite openly: There are indeed public servants who work for me during election campaigns. I encourage them to continue to do so, because 1 am convinced that, for the majority of them, it is their democratic and constitutional. 1 find it difficult to believe that another candidate in a federal election would object to the participation of a public servant who, according to Mr. D'Avignon's classification or that proposed in the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), belongs to category C and is not in a position to advise the Government of the day. 1 cannot understand how someone could say that a doctor practising medicine, a veterinarian working at the Experimental Farm, or another public servant, whether he is a bookkeeper, a postal worker or an employee of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, might in any way embarrass the Government by taking part in a democratic electoral process.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, when the Canadian Public Service issues its instructions for an election, it gives a very narrow, and to my mind unfair, interpretation of the Act. It is not the responsibility of the Commission to legislate. It is the responsibility of Parliament, but the employer, the Treasury Board, also has the responsibility to suggest and implement changes to modernize the Act and make it reflect the Canadian reality.
Mr. Speaker, during the 1984 electoral campaign, the Conservatives promised that this matter would be settled and that a parliamentary committee would examine the whole issue of the political participation of public servants. We Liberals said that we supported the idea of having a committee of the House discuss and examine this issue. The New Democrats also agree with us. I don't see the problem. The back-benchers agree and I think the Government must act fairly with all its employees. We must eliminate hypocrisy and settle this issue some day. Let's do it today. It is a Government commitment which is supported by the opposition Parties. I don't see where the problem is.
I would like to repeat it, Madam Speaker, I think that today a federal employee who gets involved in a procedure as central to democracy as the election of a Member of Parliament must not be threatened with proceedings if he or she has been identified in the Hon. Member's Bill as a category C employee, whose involvement would not be subject to any limits. I think that it is a good idea to divide employees into three categories: A, B and C. Obviously, those who work at high levels advise the Government. It would not be realistic to allow them to participate in an election campaign in which the Government that they themselves would have advised would be criticized . As for the Category B employees-as I have already said in a speech on September 23, 1985-it is a question of judgment since some public servants occupy
positions where discretionary decisions are taken and they could be accused of favouritism or partisanship.
As for the category C employees, probably 80,000 to 85,000 public servants, I think they could be freed of all restriction and allowed to participate freely in the democratic process.
To conclude, then. Madam Speaker, so that other Hon. Members may have the opportunity to speak, 1 want to say that since it is an administrative step that has to be taken and the House of Commons agrees to free an important number of public servants, let's do it and send the Bill to the committee so that the question can be examined and the decision be taken before the next election to allow many public servants to participate.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted, on behalf of my constituents of Nepean- Carleton, to rise in the House to share some of my thoughts relative to the Private Member's Bill put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) dealing with the political rights of public servants.
I have spoken on this issue in the House several times before, but today I wish to make special reference to my comments of February 7, 1986, at page 10607 of Hansard. 1 would like to quote my remarks from that time so that Hon. Members will know that I have been consistent in my approach to the matter on which I wish to speak this afternoon. This is what I said:
1 personally favour in style the recommendations which were put forward in the D'Avignon Report. It is a concept which is fairly widely used in the British House of Commons and in the British Parliament, where public servants are in fact tiered. For example, there is a tier of persons who have total political freedoms and an upper tier of those who do not.
I would like to compliment my colleague from Ottawa West for raising this issue. I think he has a very sensitive feel for public servants, having been one himself, a very sensitive feel for the handicap the present regulations place upon public servants and a very sensitive feel for finding a constructive solution to this, a solution which he has proposed in his Bill. As well, in this Private Members' Hour, I want to compliment my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for showing support for this Private Member's Bill, hoping that it will go to a vote this afternoon and from there on to a legislative committee.
There is no question that this item was pivotal in many of the activities associated with the process of the 1984 election. In that process, questions were put to political Parties on their policies, and I shall really only deal with the response given by my Party. The question put was as follows: "Would your Party be prepared to remove the current restrictions on the rights of federal Public Service employees and grant full political rights to employees currently covered by collective agreements?" The response to that was as follows: "The Progressive Conservative
February 9, 1988

Party favours a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants covered by collective agreements. These restrictions are unnecessary and may not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature and whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest. But we are confident that these people could be covered separately without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process." That is the position of my Party and, I presume, the position of the Government.
In the 1984 election public servants operated under a very difficult handicap. A memorandum was issued to all public servants by the Public Service Commission dated February, 1984, under the signature of Edgar Gallant, then Chairman of the Public Service Commission. He outlined the guidelines under which public servants would be expected to operate. To highlight a couple of them let me quote the following: "For greater clarity of this general principle we propose the following guidelines:
First, employees should not personally campaign for or against political parties or candidates in federal, provincial or territorial elections.
Employees should not become involved in the solicitation, collection, distribution or administration of the finances of political parties.
Employees should not assume any official functions.
Employees must not stand for elected office or seek nomination in a federal, provincial or territorial election unless they have first obtained permission from the Public Service Commission to take leave without pay in order to do so."
Those guidelines effectively made political eunuchs out of all public servants. 1 very much regretted that because I spent most of the 1970s in municipal politics where you put together and work with a team of people who help you get elected, provide you with advice on policy matters, and who are generally part of your team. It was disappointing to me as I sought nomination and eventual election to this House that so many people who were part of that team in earlier days felt it necessary not to participate in the federal process and assist someone like myself in seeking higher office. Those people are my friends, neighbours, people I had worked with professionally or touched in other ways and it was really regrettable. However, in that memorandum that I referred to, Mr. Gallant makes this final comment: "Until Parliament gives further manifestations of its will the above constitutes our interpretation of the spirit and scope of the law in regard to the political impartiality of Public Service employees." It is against that background that I am so happy to speak to this Bill before us this afternoon because I find it closely approximates what I supported back on February 7, 1986, and which I believe would be a good way of solving the problem.
Public Employees Political Rights
My colleague suggests in his Bill that public servants be divided into three categories. One category would be those who are responsible for developing policy, policy recommendations and policy advice, and they would be effectively restricted from the political process. The third category, described as category C, would be a person who could participate in depth. Then there is a group in between which would have to go to a judiciary council of some sort to decide whether or not they would have that right.
When you look at this Bill in some detail you will find that it recommends that all public servants have the right to vote, to make financial contributions, to be a member of a political Party, and to attend political meetings. He outlines very thoughtfully as well that no public servant can make a public statement that directly conflicts with the duties of his or her position. That is a very useful item in the Bill. It prevents public servants from commenting on the area in which they work professionally or technically.
The Bill goes on to add in Clause 5 that no category C employee shall engage in an activity during working hours. Those two points, that you are not to comment in any circumstances on your area of professional activity or comment at all during working hours, really safeguard the public in a remarkable way. Those employees who fall into category C are able to work for a candidate, be a candidate, and solicit funds, and hold office.
It is absolutely essential that this Parliament find a solution to enable public servants to participate with good conscience in the political process. I believe this Bill provides that opportunity. The Public Service that ! know is very professional. It includes Departments like Energy, Mines and Resources, Agriculture Canada, and the National Research Council. I am confident they will approach this with a great deal of professionalism. Therefore, I would urge all Hon. Members in the House this afternoon to send this Bill to a legislative committee so that we can move forward with something which is awfully important to a significant number of Canadians.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I welcome Bill C-73 and I congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) for having brought it forward. I thank him also for his support of similar legislation which I have proposed three times now during Private Members' Hour over the last three and a half years.
As the Hon. Member said, a decision by this House to send this Bill to committee today would send a clear message to the Government. As it happens, the Party which forms the Government is a Party of which he is a Member, and I regret that the promises of the Progressive Conservatives in 1984 on this issue have so far been honoured in the breach when there was clearly a consensus about the need for action.
What is important now is that this Bill not be talked out, and 1 plead with Hon. Members not to do so. I will be the only spokesperson for my Party. It is in the hands of Progressive

February 9, 1988
Public Employees Political Rights
Conservative Members. If they have particular concerns and there is not time to voice them in this hour, then they can take them to committee. I know the committee considering this matter will be happy to give a full hearing to people who have concerns about it.
While I have certain differences with the specifics of this Bill, both I and my Party certainly endorse it in principle. We believe it is a basis on which one can work in order to bring forward effective legislation to protect political rights.
I have brought forward two Bills. Bills C-231 and C-277, on this subject. I expect to go forward shortly to the Federal Court of Appeal with a case on political rights which 1 launched in July of 1984. It takes a long time to move these things through the courts, and I am personally disappointed that Parliament has not yet had a chance to take the necessary action and have this matter referred to a committee. I recall, a bit wryly if I may say so, that earlier, when I suggested this matter be sent to committee, the response from government Members was that it is going to happen so quickly it would be a delay and waste of time for the House to send it to committee for further study.
My colleague from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) referred to the promise of the Conservative Party which was quite clear. During the 1984 election campaign the Conservative Party said that the present restrictions on political activity are unnecessary and that the issue could and should be addressed without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants. There is no question about the clarity of the promise that was made in 1984. In fact, it says here that the Conservative Party favours a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants who are covered by collective agreements.
Unfortunately, for the last three and a half years the Conservative Government has abdicated this issue to the Public Service Commission, and I am afraid that the commission has gone far beyond its mandate in terms of its interpretation of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. I will come to that in a minute.
There are many similarities between the Bill before us and Bill C-231 which I proposed. In particular, they both agree on the need to repeal Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. In his Bill, the Member for Ottawa West follows quite closely the D'Avignon report, leaving a restricted group of senior officials who would essentially have few political rights, a middle group who may get political rights if that is approved by the Public Service Commission and by the House of Commons, and a large group, the majority, who would have full rights to participate in political campaigns, to be members of political Parties, to stand for office, et cetera, et cetera.
The Bill I proposed also repeals Section 32. It allows for managerial and confidential employees to be excluded subject to approval by Parliament on each category and then gives full
political rights to all the rest including federal employees in agencies, boards, and commissions who are not covered in the Bill proposed by the Member for Ottawa West. In other words, I had proposed a two-tiered system as opposed to the three-tiered system suggested by my friend from Ottawa West.
My problem with the three-tier proposal is that it is somewhat difficult to implement and that a likely result is that many persons who are not in politically sensitive positions would still wind up without political rights because they would find themselves falling into category B. I note that the Conservative Party's promise in 1984 was that it would extend political rights particularly to persons covered by collective bargaining agreements.
However, in fact most members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service would find themselves, according to the Bill of the Member for Ottawa West, in this grey area. They would be people working in such areas as commerce, program manager, purchasing and supply, law, information services, or personnel management. Likewise, members of the economists, sociologists, and statisticians Union all fall within the ESS category, which would also be in that grey area in category B.
I said earlier that I am disappointed that the Government has dragged its feet when there was clearly room for leadership on this particular issue. There have been elections in almost every province since 1984, and the restrictions which have been enforced by the Public Service Commission have applied to federal government employees who might have wished to become involved in those elections. There have been byelections in several provinces; in the Yukon, Quebec, and Newfoundland, since 1984. The restrictions have applied there as well.
The basic problem of the Government's failure to act has really been a failure to endorse the professionalism of people working in the Public Service. The question is whether people working in Government can act impartially in the way in which we would all hope they would act and remove any personal opinions that they may have. As the Member for Ottawa West pointed out, those personal opinions exist whether or not a person is a member of a political Party. No one suggests that public servants fail in general to act impartially despite what their personal views may be. Yet the Government has failed to recognize that by not acting on the question of political rights.
Likewise, as we have seen in the last two weeks with the decision of the Supreme Court on the Charter of Rights, the Supreme Court is taking a strong position in terms of charter freedoms. The Charter guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of association subject to such restrictions as are justifiable in a free and democratic society.
This is the cornerstone of the case which I have before the Federal Court of Appeal, but until the courts finally rule we have a chilling effect which, as my colleague from Nepean has indicated, is particularly strong on Members in the national
February 9, 1988

capital area because of the concentration of federal government employees in this particular area.
I would remind my colleagues that the Ontario Law Reform Commission held a very effective and extensive set of hearings and studies on the issue of political rights for government employees and came up with a position which is very close to that which was proposed in my Bill and in the Bill which we are debating right now as proposed by the Member for Ottawa West.
I would also remind all Members of Parliament that the Public Service Commission is meant to be an agency of Parliament. In fact, however, the articulation, the way by which that commission reports to Parliament, is extremely weak. There is now a Committee on Government Operations to which that commission is meant to report, but it is not called on to account regularly on its activities. When that committee or its predecessor has been critical of the Public Service Commission for its interpretation of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act, the commission has essentially thumbed its nose at Members of Parliament to whom it is meant to be responsible. I for one, as a Member of Parliament, find that behaviour objectionable and indefensible.
Section 32 of the Act says essentially that public employees should not work for or against a candidate in an election. However, the guidelines issued by the Public Service Commission go far further than that. They state that federal Public Service employees should not undertake activities, assume responsibilities, or make public statements of a politically partisan nature or of a kind which could give rise to the perception that they may not be able to perform their duties as public employees in a politically impartial manner.
As long as Edgar Gallant was the Chairman of the Public Service Commission we knew that his perception was that there was a biased politically partisan public servant under every stone and that the least activity in which they engaged would give, in his view, the perception. In other words, there was no definition of what the perception was all about.
Unfortunately, his successor, Mrs. Huguette Labelle, has taken very much the same position. Although she has acknowledged that the courts and the Federal Court of Appeal have forced the Public Service Commission to climb back on some of its interpretations in law, there has been no effort to circulate that among federal government Departments and federal employees in the active, vigorous, and productive way which was undertaken in February, 1984, when the current guidelines were circulated.
I agree with my colleagues. 1 believe that in five or ten minutes or right now, if you will, we should let this Bill go to committee and allow this matter to have a full airing. If the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) has a Bill, let him bring it forward and send it to the same committee. Let us get action on this issue so that the fundamental rights of public employees are not ignored in the next election as they have been in so many previous elections.
Public Employees Political Rights


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: First of all, Madam Speaker, I should like to congratulate my friend the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) for putting together Bill C-273 concerning the political rights of public employees.
Madam Speaker, we are called upon today to deal with an issue which is not new but which certainly deserves our undivided attention. As a matter of fact, we have been concerned already for quite some time with the problem of the participation of public employees in political activities as well as their involvement in political associations. Since the beginning of this century, when a number of pieces of legislation were implemented to ensure the neutrality and impartiality of the Federal Public Service, this organization has made every effort to maintain a fair balance between the individual rights of its employees and the collective rights of the Canadian public.
Public Service impartiality is an issue of great concern especially to the Ministers who must be quite sure that the advice they are getting is unbiased and not based on partisan considerations. It is also of great concern to the public employees themselves whose faithfulness, obedience or even opportunities for promotion must not be influenced by the result of a federal election. The importance of this impartiality is reflected in the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act which clearly limit the political activities of federal employees, and 1 quote:
No employee shall engage in work for, on behalf of or against a candidate
for election-or engage in work for, on behalf of or against a political party.
In view of the current legislation, public employees cannot participate actively in the political process, which means for instance that they cannot show their support for a candidate or political party. They may however be a candidate in an election, provided they have been authorized to do so by the Public Service Commission. This permission may be denied if their political involvement were likely to conflict with the impartial and neutral exercise of their duties.
For example, it is obvious that a deputy minister has to avoid any kind of partisan politics in the discharge of his responsibilities. Some other public servants simply must be impartial about government policy. This is why Public Service Commission officials have to keep in mind the employment category and level of a public servant asking for leave to run as a candidate in an election.
The commission wants to make sure that the public will never have any doubt as to the possibility of conflict of interests in the case of the employee involved. Of course civil servants can take passive participation in federal or provincial politics by making contributions to a party or exercising their right to vote.

February 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
For a few years now some people have been expressing doubts about the legitimacy of restricting public employees to passive participation, particularly by people claiming specific individual rights.
The issue has become more relevant since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed in 1982. 1 should like to quote the Charter section 2:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of
the press and other media of communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
The Charter refers to the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, and section 3 reads:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of
the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for
membership therein.
However the Charter acknowledges the right to impose reasonable restrictions. So if we accept the principle that public employees must be subject to certain restrictions, these have to be defined.
The Government believes that such restrictions concerning the political activities of public employees should be as few as possible. However, we have to proceed with caution, because it would be unacceptable to compromise the neutrality of the Public Service and to question the principle of a permanent Public Service based on the merit principle, of a Public Service which can serve the Government objectively in the interests of all Canadians.
We have to recognize that, by the very nature of their responsiblities and their work, public servants must maintain some degree of impartiality to protect the integrity of the institution.
Thus, the Government must be assured that its policies will not be openly criticized by its public servants. On the other hand, public servants must remain neutral in the advice they give or the positions they may have to fill. It is indeed for this reason that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daub-ney) divides public servants into three categories in his Bill. The first includes public servants in the executive and senior management groups, who would be granted limited political rights; the second includes public servants of other professional groups, for whom the Public Service Commission would establish the required restrictions, and the third includes all other public servants, who would be granted extensive political rights.
The Commission has already been the subject of studies, such as that carried out by the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle, better known as the D'Avignon Committee. In his report, Mr. D'Avignon mentions the British regulatory system, which is based on a categorization of positions according to the nature
of the duties and the extent to which their incumbents are involved in the process of policy-making and of advising the Government. According to Mr. D'Avignon, this system would be an excellent example to follow for the Canadian Public Service. Employees in a position which is not defined as being of a sensitive nature have full freedom to be politically active, while those who hold a sensitive position are denied the right to play an active role in politics.
It is difficult but not impossible to find a proper balance between exercising the rights of all Canadian citizens and maintaining the principle of neutrality of the Canadian Public Service. While recognizing the risks of giving back their political rights to public servants, we have to ensure that the restrictions imposed on them are not unreasonable.
Madam Speaker, others will have their own opinions on the best way to achieve a proper balance, and I shall listen carefully to their comments during this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Madam Speaker, I know that you are a very busy person and do not have an opportunity to watch very much television. I wonder if, on occasion, you have seen the program called The Great White Northl You may think that today, here in Ottawa, that is exactly what it is, but that is not what 1 am talking about.
The program that I am talking about is the one with a couple of characters named the MacKenzie brothers. Do you not recognize Bob and Doug MacKenzie? Perhaps if I use the phrase "Take off, eh", that may ring a bell.
As you know, on that program they seem to consume quite a bit of alcoholic refreshment known as beer. I do not know whether the beer they are consuming is Labatt, Molson,
February 9, 1988

Carling or O'Keefe, but I do know if Bob and Doug MacKenzie are consuming that beer here in Ottawa, Ontario or Quebec, they are not consuming Moosehead beer.
Moosehead beer may not mean anything to you, but Moosehead beer is made in New Brunswick and can be bought in New Brunswick. It can be bought in Nova Scotia, as the Flon. Parliamentary Secretary knows. I am told that you can even buy it in the United States. In fact, it is the fourth most popular brand of some 400 brands of beer that are imported into the United States. Strangely enough, one cannot buy Moosehead beer here in Ottawa, nor in Quebec. In fact, one cannot buy it anywhere in Canada except in New Brunswick or in Nova Scotia.
You probably do not care, Madam Speaker. If you drink beer at all, you may drink another brand, or you may not drink it at all, and I am sure you probably do not. However, do you not think it is strange and peculiar that we cannot get Moosehead beer here in Ottawa?
The reason we cannot get Moosehead beer in Ontario is because of something called "interprovincial trade barriers". As you know, Madam Speaker, the Government has negotiated a trade agreement with the United States to help reduce the trade barriers between Canada and the United States. As well, we are in the midst of trying to negotiate through the GATT to reduce trade barriers around the world. However, for some reason or other, we still have these trade barriers right here in Canada which affect a great many products, not just Moosehead beer.
There is a vast array of examples of these interprovincial trade barriers. Back in 1985, the Quebec Government ordered the City of Aylmer, Quebec, to rip up a street that was paved with bricks because those bricks were made in Ontario. It ordered the city to replace those bricks with bricks made in Quebec. In addition, I am told New Brunswick has a surplus of fish processing capacity and Newfoundland has a surplus of fish but they cannot get together because of these trade barriers.
Ontario keeps milk produced in Quebec out of the province. Quebec prohibits the export of timber that is not fully processed in Quebec. British Columbia, I am told, has a markup of 50 per cent on British Columbia wine, while it has a mark-up of 110 per cent on Ontario or Quebec wine. Ontario will not even sell Quebec wine or British Columbia wine. As you can see, Madam Speaker, there is a vast array of these trade barriers.
One of the worst trade barriers, I suppose, is the purchasing preferences of provincial Governments, and I might say it is not just provincial Governments. They often give a preference of a 5 per cent or 10 per cent additional price to a supplier in their own province rather than buying it at a cheaper price from a supplier in another province. I am very familiar with that situation because when I served as a hydro commissioner
Adjournment Debate
in Metropolitan Toronto, we gave a 5 per cent purchasing preference to local firms. The reason we did that is because the chairman of the Hydro Commission, an excellent fellow by the name of Jack Christie, who had served for years and years, became a little upset that our local suppliers were discriminated against elsewhere and insisted that we discriminate as well against suppliers from other parts of the country. Therefore, I am very familiar with this kind of trade barrier.
1 am told that 20 per cent of Canadian manufacturers have difficulty selling their goods in other parts of Canada because of these trade barriers. What can we do about all of this? The Government has been trying to do something about it, to its credit. In 1985 the Government set up a task force on interprovincial trade which is co-chaired by the federal Director General of DRIE and the Deputy Minister of Economic Development in the Province of Alberta. That is aimed at attempting to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers.
At the First Ministers Conference held last November in Toronto, and 1 was present at that time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers set up a committee of Ministers to deal with the question of internal trade, and to try to improve the situation. In addition, the federal Government has appointed Mr. Jim Grandy, a former federal bureaucrat, to attempt to reduce the trade barriers in areas like purchasing preferences, and also for beer, wine, and liquor.
We have a lot of committees, Madam Speaker, but what we need now is some action. It would be a shame if we got rid of the trade barriers between Canada and the United States, and got rid of the trade barriers with Canada and other parts of the world, but somehow or other at the same time we had those internal trade barriers.
Tonight, 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that he, the Minister, and the Government will get rid of those interprovincial trade barriers. I am going to ask him to tell us the progress that they have made. I am going to ask him to ensure, to the use the words of the MacKenzie brothers, that we tell the interprovincial trade barriers to "Take off, eh!"
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for
Science and Technology): Madam Speaker, we have taken off in the reduction of barriers to interprovincial trade. I might say to my dear friend that one can buy Moosehead beer in Texas.


Alan Redway: I know that.


Mr. Forrestall:: What Texans drink the world drinks.
Very shortly one will be able to buy Moosehead beer in British Columbia, and here in Ontario. No other Government has been more concerned about the impediments caused to

February 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
trade in Canada by artificial barriers, provincial barriers, than has this Government.
Domestically such barriers remain a great hindrance to trade, and a great hindrance to the development of our competitive capacity. We want to get rid of them once and for all. We must encourage Canadians to become competitive nationally and internationally. One of the ways we do it best is in the reduction and elimination, which is the ideal goal, of many of those barriers. We need Canadians to have as wide an access to their legitimate markets as is possible. Our goal is that those markets be national, and that they be international.
Most of us know that the federal, provincial, and territorial Governments have embarked on a consultative process to undertake collective action with the intent of reducing or eliminating these barriers.
In response to my hon. friend, 1 would like to give him a very brief report on four or five of the steps that have been taken and which show meaningful progress. As I have indicated, there have been a number of meetings that have taken place, as the Hon. Member knows, with the consultative committee that is set up and in place.
As part of the FMC decision a committee of Ministers on internal trade is now in place to work on all of those problems. A short list of priority areas for negotiating reductions in barriers has been developed, starting with government procurement policies and provincial marketing practices for, as the Member delightfully and entertainingly suggested, alcoholic beverages. Negotiators representing federal, provincial and territorial Governments are meeting regularly to negotiate those issues. Other priority areas have been identified. including transportation, professional mobility, and norms and standards.
As we and the provincial Governments pursue our efforts, I cannot over-emphasize that interprovincial barrier reduction is indeed a complex issue. Some may argue that progress has been slow, but we are an active participant together with the provinces and the territories. There will be some action so that we can buy Moosehead beer here in Ontario.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-PROPOSED ALLNEWS TELEVISION CHANNEL-SUGGESTED PARTNERSHIP WITH PRIVATE SECTOR
Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker. I am rising this evening to continue discussion on a question regarding the Government's unwarranted and unprecedented interference with the decision of the CRTC to award the allnews licence to the CBC.
Canadians are concerned about the Government's intervention into the decision of the CRTC; it was a fair and open decision-making procedure. This intervention challenges its authority, its process, its decision making and its autonomy.
The CRTC decision was taken after long deliberations and after weeks of public hearings with support from every province, with the exception of P.E.I., and the three major cable system operators-Rogers, Western Cable Systems, and Telecable Laurentien. The CRTC decision was based upon the CBC's proven ability to best manage such a service. Previous calls for such an all-news service had been made. Only one other applicant showed interest. It was based on merit. The CBC offered the best service and the most complete Canadian content. The licence was won by the CBC because its proposal was far superior.
The CBC had openly indicated its interest in rendering such a service to the Caplan-Sauvageau task force on broadcasting policy which widely consulted Canadians and recommended this service. Some $2.9 million was spent by the task force to come out and say: "We think this is a good idea for Canadians''. Then our Standing Committee on Communications and Culture studied and tabled an extensive report on speciality services and never objected to such a licence. The Chairman never objected to such a licence. The Minister appeared before the committee and never indicated any concern in respect of the CBC, and she was well aware of its proposal. She never challenged the arm's length right of the CBC board to take such a decision. There was an appropriate time and place for the Minister to make a policy statement or quietly inform the CBC that its request was not in her interest or in her view; that would have been an acceptable request. To come in after the fact is totally reprehensible.
The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has said that Cabinet cannot make a final decision on the licence until September 1, when the CBC licence is officially awarded by the CRTC. This causes us all grave concern. Why? It is because of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is reported as having said following the CRTC decision on allnews. 1 will quote what he supposedly said:
There is no way this Government is going to allow that flawed decision to
stand. Instead of hammering us two hours a day, they will be hammering us 24
hours a day.
I believe these statements are prejudicial to a fair Cabinet review.
If the Tory Cabinet decided to succumb to the pressures of the "Back-Benchers Club" or the BBC, it will be a precedent. Never before has Cabinet taken such an action against the CRTC. What credibility and impression will future decisions have? What damage has been done?
How can a government pressure the CBC to find a private sector partner, which it had already tried to do but people were not interested because they did not see enough profit potential in the particular project? How can a government ask the CBC to provide an equivalent service in the French language, which it had already planned to do and a feasibility study was already in progress, after such a service has been awarded? That amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game. I do not believe that this is fair, and the Canadian public does
February 9, 1988

not think that it is fair. What kind of message is the Government sending? Is it telling Canadians that it only believes in fair competition when the winner is who it wants? How does this affect the image of the CRTC? What about its credibility? What about the credibility of the CBC board and arm's length?
It has been suggested that the CBC all-news service will result in unnecessary concentration of news influence. Canadians do not want concentration, particularly in news, but this was just a smoke and mirrors argument to deflect the interference and the pressure by the backroom boys. This service will not be concentration in the market. The CRTC secretariat showed that as of March 31, 1987, there are 602 originating radio stations and 104 originating television stations operating in Canada, all of which are privately owned. The CBC has 16 outlets.
In addition, there are 110 daily newspapers, 1,277 weekly or community newspapers and 14 news services all privately owned. How can this be concentration?
At present, the American CNN provides 24-hour cable news in Canada. By the Government's action it is allowing American concentration and an American monopoly to exist in our specialty services. In an area crucial to the forming of a Canadian perspective reflecting Canadian culture and values and our sovereign approach to international issues, as well as understanding regional diversity and concerns from all parts of Canada, this service, 70 per cent of which was to be produced outside of central Canada, is seriously needed. The CBC with its infrastructure in place was the obvious best choice. What Canadians deserve is the best choice, not the biased choice of the Government. The CBC is targeting for 1 per cent of the audience share, which is clearly enunciated in its proposal. I would not call that concentration.
With respect to French language service, the Minister of Communications on behalf of the Government expressed concerns about the appropriateness of embarking upon a major expansion of news and information program services in one official language. However, one of the conditions of the CBC licence was to complete a feasibility study for such a service.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister's attempt to be noble is rather shallow when she talks about insisting on this French all-news service. To consider an equivalent French language service the Government should have announced funds to fulfil such a mandate. It knows perfectly well that the market is smaller with respect to providing a profit so that there will be a requirement to subsidize from the English side or from the Government. What private sector company will become involved in providing a service when there will be no profit?
If the CBC makes the changes that the Government desires then it will fail to meet the terms of its present mandate. This will probably require the CRTC to call for new applications
Adjournment Debate
and for new hearings to be held. Another year will be lost. This will allow the American CNN to gain more and more of a foothold in the Canadian market.
Is this what Canadians want? I do not think so. The Minister has not articulated any clear vision about the future of Canadian TV other than to tell us that we need to hear each other's stories. The Government of the Prime Minister has certainly interfered in such an opportunity. It is communication through direct dictatorship.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has characterized the position of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) on the CBC's news and information service as a request for a "shotgun wedding" between the corporation and the private sector.
I would like to clarify this matter by repeating here in this House just what the Minister of Communications did say in her letter to the President of the CBC on this subject. I quote:
My colleagues and 1 have identified two major areas of concern arising from
the CRTC decision respecting the CBC news and information service. They
are:
1)	The degree to which the proposed licence might contribute to excessive concentration in the field of news programming. This concern might be addressed by an alternative service embracing both the private and public sectors of the Canadian Broadcasting System.
2)	The appropriateness of embarking upon a major expansion of news and information program services in one official language without simultaneously addressing the requirements of the other official language group.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that co-operation between the private and public sectors is possible.
For example, I would like to remind the hon. Member that the CTRC responded favourably to the TV5 application. It involves a consortium composed of eight Canadian organizations:
Three public broadcasters: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the Societe de Radio-Television du Quebec and the Ontario Educational Communications Authority.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, the minister of Communications has simply stated publicly that the Government has concerns that it will consider when the issue is brought forward in the autumn for formal review.
In view of these concerns, and the possibility of further petitions to the Governor in Council between now and next October, the Government feels it would not be prudent for the CBC to undertake major expenditures or structural reorganization to implement the proposed service at this time.
Some of the largest French-language private broadcasting undertakings include Tele-Metropole Inc., Cogego Inc.,

February 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Television Quatre-Saisons Inc., the National Film Board of Canada and the firm Film Sat Inc. representing Quebec's independent producers.
The Government believes that for the news and information service, the CBC could use the period until October to examine approaches such as a partnership drawing on the skills and resources of the private sector as well as its extensive newsgathering services already deployed.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-ANNOUNCED CLOSURE OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY/ALGONQUIN PARK OBSERVATORY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, some 15 months ago, I brought to the attention of the then Minister of State for Science and Technology the fact that the Government's program for scientific research and development had led to the virtual termination of the world-class astronomical observatory at Algonquin Park. In trying to explain what was happening, the then Minister said:
-what the Prime Minister has indicated in his book, and what I have
repeated many times is that we will spend as much as is necessary to position
Canada and its industries in the new frontier effectively and in every possible
way.
We are now three years into a Conservative Government and what do we see? When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) was the Leader of the Official Opposition, he castigated the Liberal Government by saying, and quite correctly, that among the OECD countries and Japan, Canada had one of the poorest records in efforts and expenditures for scientific research and development. He pointed out that in those years, we were allocating substantially less than 2 per cent of our Gross National Product to scientific research and development and he promised that a Conservative Government would more than double that quickly so that we would spend about 2.5 per cent of our Gross National Product on scientific research and development.
After three years of a Conservative Government, the Prime Minister had to admit at a recent scientific conference that in the last year, we had only devoted 1.3 per cent of our Gross National Product to scientific research and development. Why did that happen? It happened because the Conservative Government is locked into its ideological belief that somehow, if we were to just let the free enterprise system operate, it will do better than any Government effort.
The Government has tried to persuade the private sector to increase dramatically its expenditures. That has not happened. After three years of Conservative Government, we are now doing even worse than we did when the Liberals were in office.
At a recent conference, the Prime Minister promised that the Government would allocate new money, $250 million per year for the next five years, for research in universities. Even if that takes place and if the attempt to persuade the private sector to increase its efforts in the field of scientific research and development were to work, which it has not up until now, and if the Government matches those increases, we will still
have only marginally increased the funding for the granting council.
What has been the result? We can read about it in newspaper accounts of the last few days. Yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press carried a story entitled "Morale weaker at NRC". The story says:
The parking lots at National Research Council laboratories aren't full on
Saturdays any more-
"Morale is certainly not what it used to be at NRC," says Herzberg,-
That is Gerhard Herzberg, one of the few Canadian scientists whose efforts have led to a Nobel Prize.
The union representing most of the scientists, the Professional Institute, issued a statement which was reported in today's Ottawa Citizen. The institute said that federal government laboratories need stable funding and better management and pointed out that the Government should stop budget cuts in federal research establishments and not privatize federal laboratories for purely ideological reasons.
Again, yesterday we learned that the head of the space agency has resigned. Why? Because the Government, after months of argument apparently, cannot even decide where the space agency head office should be. In December of 1987 the Minister said it was critical that the agency head office be in place early this year. Now, obviously because Ministers are still fighting about whether it should be in Ottawa or Montreal, the same Minister says it is no longer critical. A story in today's Citizen says:
Today, the space industry is frustrated and government workers designated
as part of the new agency are in limbo.
Its head, Art Collin, has resigned, saying his job of drafting the required
legislation and finding staff was finished iong ago.
We need to have the Government live up to the commitments the Prime Minister made before the election and do what is needed to make this country prosperous and have its people working in the next 10 to 20 years. We need to raise our efforts in the field of scientific research and development so that we will at least come close to what other western industrialized countries are doing. The time when we could continue complacently to lag far behind those countries has long since passed.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member has asked us during the late show to talk about the subject concerning his question, and he lost no time in making other comments on our science and technology policy.
Since he asked a question concerning the closing down of the Observatory, I shall give him the information I have, and then I shall set a few facts straight. The Hon. Member's statement reflects a blatant lack of understanding about the major
February 9, 1988

initiatives taken by the Federal Government for the progress of science and technology in Canada.
In 1986, the Hon. Member had already raised the question of the closing down of the Algonquin Observatory. However, following the steps taken by the Government, Canadian scientists obtained access to the most sophisticated astrophysi-cal facilities in the world, namely the giant telescope of James Clerk Maxwell in Hawaii. Canadian scientists, from coast to coast, totally support the present situation.
For the time being, no other decision has been made and the facility will stay in operation this winter, and other decisions could be made next Summer.
Contrary to what is mentioned in several reports and questions, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) has played no part in the budget cuts concerning the Algonquin radioastronomical Observatory. The management of the NRC made this decision after consultation with the representatives of the astronomy community in Canada. Therefore, we assume that these people have advised according to what they thought was in the best interest of the Canadian astronomical community under the current conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the following observation. Since the Conservative Party was elected in 1984, ever since we have formed the Government, our policy with regard to science and technology has been a long-term policy and each
Adjournment Debate
of our moves is of extreme importance for the future of the country.
Let us start, if you wish, with the creation of a Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology where people can be heard, where Hon. Members can make suggestions and where Opposition Members can participate in the definition of a strong policy and the building of a larger vision of science and technology.
Let us talk also of the federal-provincial agreements which have been signed. The Cabinet, federal and provincial Ministers work together, because we also promised Canadians that we would introduce new policies after consultation with the provinces and in a spirit of mutual understanding.
We also, Mr. Speaker, authorized new funding. By God, Mr. Speaker, it would take me at least an hour to explain everything the Government has done, because it is not just a question of money, it is also a question of long-term strategy. Each of our moves, each of our policies has a bearing on the future of all Canadians.
Next time, Mr. Speaker, I will be able to expand on this subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, February 10, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers