1988-02-08

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this legislative measure to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the information appearing on the label of a prepackaged product is in both official languages.
To this day Consumer Packaging and Labelling Regulations 417 refer to implementation standards. As we know, however, a regulation may be amended at any time without the agreement of the House. That being so, with a view to ensuring the protection of one of the elements of Canada's linguistic duality, I thought it would be necessary to incorporate the regulations in a legislative measure.


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

Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions signed by residents from
as far away as Spence Bay, Gjoa Haven, Eskimo Point and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories as well as from Toronto and St. Catharines, Ontario. The petitioners express their concern about the proposed plutonium flights over the Canadian north.
Owing to the potential serious environmental effects and the contribution to nuclear proliferation, the petitioners 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. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from people from Vancouver, Richmond, Delta, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Powell River, Saanich, Duncan, New Westminster, Langley and Summerland, British Columbia.
It is the perception of the petitioners that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe that the trade deal negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canada and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore they are calling upon Parliament to dissolve now to enable the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by residents of my constituency from the towns of Imperial, Craik, Aylesbury, Chamberlain, Stony Beach and Pense. These petitions were circulated at the local legion. They protest the manufacture and the distribution of the film entitled The Kid Who Couldn't Miss.

February 8, 1988
Order Paper Questions PROPOSED FREE TRADE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present, a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106, from constituents of mine from the City of Brantford and also from residents living just outside of Brantford in the Town of Waterford. They protest the trade deal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and call upon the Government to dissolve the House and go to the people for a mandate in view of the fact that the Government did not have a mandate for this type of deal in the first place.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by western Canadians who express their concern that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had actually campaigned against such a deal.
In their petition the people say that the Government's trade arrangement threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement through a national general election.

MO)


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling Government Orders, 1 would like to advise the House that I have received an application of privilege dealing with an alleged contempt of this House as a consequence of a word used in a preamble by another Hon. Member in Question Period on Friday. 1 propose to hear this at three o'clock.
I also wish to indicate to all Hon. Members that, whatever the outcome of that particular application is, and I shall listen carefully to all sides, I would hope that Hon. Members would
be constrained and very proper in preambles in Question Period today. All Hon. Members can realize that a statement, whether made out of over-enthusiasm or sometimes carelessness, or even although absolutely accurate in the context which causes a severe reaction on the other side, is tantamount to moving toward disorder.
I want it clearly understood that I will be asking for and expecting the co-operation of all Hon. Members. I will hear the honourable application at three o'clock.


The Hon. Parliamentary  Secretary.Mr. Hawkes@: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your words, and the reality that you have given me until three o'clock to get my research in order. That will assist the House, because I think it will be succinct, brief, and compelling, and the extra two or three hours to prepare that will be very helpful.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, I would ask the Hon. Member to extend the courtesy to the Hon. Member who is also involved in this, and I would expect that that be done.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: 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.
He said: I am pleased to rise today to begin the second reading debate on Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. This Bill marks an important milestone in the development of our country.

We have designed the legislation to take into account the fundamental elements of our language policy as it has evolved over the past 120 years, and to allow us to meet the changing needs of Canadian society. I am confident that this Bill is an accurate reflection of Canada's present day linguistic reality.
As indicated in its purpose clause, the primary objectives of this Bill are to ensure respect and equality of status for both official languages in federal institutions, notably with regard to the provision of services to the public; to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities; to foster the advancement of both languages within Canadian society; and to set out the powers, the duties, and the functions of federal institutions with respect to official languages.
February 8, 1988

These objectives represent both continuity and evolution. They are consistent with the language provisions which were written into our Constitution by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867, and later supplemented by both the Official Languages Act of 1969 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982. This Bill is a comprehensive legal document embracing all federal Government activities and provides all Canadians with concrete means by which they can affirm and protect their language rights.
The reform of the official languages policy had to be undertaken. Parliament has a duty to bring the provisions of the Official Languages Act of 1969 into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill is also an important element in our efforts to effect national reconciliation. This step forward in the area of official languages complements the 1987 Constitutional Accord. Both are crucial to our national identity. Together, they reflect the government's commitment to preserve a fundamental characteristic of Canada, to promote the status and use of both official languages at all levels, and to enhance the vitality of Canada's official language minorities.

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.
I would now like to review some of the changes that we propose to make. With respect to the administration of justice at the federal level, we affirm equal access to the courts for all Canadians in either official language, and we specify what this entails.
The courts that are covered are the same ones as under the 1969 Act and under Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that is, courts and court-like adjudicative or quasi-judicial bodies which are created by federal law, but do not include provincial courts with federally appointed judges.
Therefore, this Bill applies to federal judicial bodies such as the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, the Human Rights Tribunal, and so on. Of course, this does not mean that all federal judges have to be bilingual.
The Bill itself clearly imposes a duty on federal courts, as federal institutions, to arrange their affairs so that cases are heard in English, or in French, or in both languages, as the case may be, depending on who the parties are, by judges who are capable of functioning in English, in French, or in both languages, respectively.
Official Languages Act
To assist them in undertaking these responsibilities, the courts may make rules requiring proper notice. This has already been the practice for several years now in the Federal Court, the Tax Court, and a number of adjudicative tribunals.
Bill C-72 preserves judicial powers, privileges and immunities. Nothing takes away from a judge's right, as a "person" under Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to choose to use either English or French in court proceedings.
Clauses 15 through 18 are meant to respond to the situation revealed by the case law-where an English-speaking person in Quebec as in the MacDonald case was unable to obtain a traffic ticket in English; where French-speaking persons outside Quebec were unable to get a ticket in French such as the Bilodeau case; or appear before judges who understood directly the case that they were pleading, such as the Societe des Acadiens case. Again, however, these provisions are restricted to proceedings before Federal Courts.
When cases so require, these courts will have to assign judges who will understand directly, without relying on an interpreter, the official language in which the proceedings before them are being conducted. Of course, simultaneous interpretation will continue to be used by the courts. In addition, the federal Government will be required to use the official language chosen by the other parties in civil proceedings.

Concerning provincial courts exercising criminal jurisdiction, we will continue to co-operate with the provinces to implement the provisions of the Criminal Code regarding language of trial in all parts of the country.
The Government is already participating in a joint federal-provincial program to assist in the provision of language training for judges and in setting up bilingual court services. The purpose of these legislative and administrative measures is to ensure equal access for all Canadians to their judicial system.

Clause 87 amends the Criminal Code to spell out the rights that flow from an accused person's right to trial before a judge or judge and jury who speak the accused person's language. Some of these rights are essentially transferred from the 1969 Official Languages Act which, for example, gave the right to witnesses to use either language not only before federal courts but also before courts exercising criminal jurisdiction. The rest of the rights confirms the practice that has grown up in the provinces where Part XIV. 1 of the Criminal Code has been put in force, that is to say, use of interpreters and prosecutors who speak the accused's language, and so on.
I have indicated on different occasions that we have made substantial and significant progress on a voluntary basis in respect of introduction in a variety of provinces. As a Member

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
from Saskatchewan I should like to point out that recently my province entered into an arrangement in respect of the provision of trials for an accused in criminal proceedings in the French language as well as in the English language.
This would ensure that the language of trial provisions come into force by 1990. Since 1978, the Minister of Justice of Canada has had the power to proclaim these provisions in force in any province, following consultations in which no agreement has been reached with the provinces concerned, once two years have elapsed.
In January 1986 my predecessor, the then Minister of Justice, who is now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), put the provinces on notice publicly that he intended to consult them with a view to bringing the provisions of Part XIV. 1 into force across Canada as soon as possible. I reiterated that commitment to the Canadian Bar Association upon assuming the responsibilities of Minister of Justice.
Legal challenges to the province by province implementation have been mounted, some successfully, against the constitutionality of the scheme on the basis that it offended the equality rights provisions of the Charter. The January 1, 1990 date gives ample notice for bringing these 1978 provisions of the code fully into force and fully into compliance with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Bill also reinforces the right of Canadians to use the official language of their choice in communicating with and receiving services from federal institutions. We are honouring the Charter by establishing constitutionally sound criteria for federal institutions regarding communications with the public and the provision of services. The new Act and the regulations under it will clearly determine, in accordance with the terms of the Charter, those offices at which there is significant demand for services in both languages and those offices whose nature makes it reasonable to provide such services.
Another important feature of the Bill relates to the languages of work in federal institutions. For the first time a federal law will spell out the right of officers and employees to use either official language while working for the institutions of Parliament and the Government of Canada. These institutions will be required to ensure that widely used work environments in the national capital and in prescribed regions are conducive to the effective use of both official languages. Elsewhere, the treatment given to the language of work must be comparable between regions where English predominates and regions where French predominates. When institutions carry out their language of work obligations, the right of members of the public to service in their language of choice will of course be respected.
In addition, I should note that it is not sufficient to foster the use of English or French within federal institutions without ensuring participation. The federal Government recognizes this requirement in its Bill. The Government is committed to seeing that English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, without regard to their ethnic origin or first
language learned, have equal access to employment in federal institutions, and that the composition of the workforce of federal institutions tends to reflect in an equitable manner the presence of both English-speaking and French-speaking communities in Canada, taking into account the nature of the various institutions.

My colleague, the President of Treasury Board, has responsibility for the general direction and co-ordination of the policies and programs relating to the implementation of the parts of this bill concerning communications and services, language of work and full participation. Under the provisions of this bill, he will also be required to submit an annual report to Parliament on the progress achieved.

Bill C-72 reaffirms another important initiative of the Government-the enhancement of the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities of Canada and the advancement of the status and use of the official languages generally in Canadian society.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), who is present this morning, will play a major role in the implementation of this commitment. He will be responsible for co-ordinating federal efforts in this area and for co-operation with the provinces, as well as with the private and voluntary sectors. He will also ensure that his programs relating to official languages are maintained or developed. When the Bill was tabled, the Secretary of State announced that a further $25 million would be allocated over three years to improve the provision of key services at all levels of government.
The Bill specifies that the Commissioner of Official Languages will continue to ensure that the spirit and letter of the law are upheld. The Commissioner will be given more effective instruments to achieve that goal, including a timely and efficient process for handling complaints.
Indeed, it would not have sufficed to set out the rights and obligations I have mentioned in the absence of mechanisms to ensure that the law is enforced. The new Official Languages Act will therefore provide for judicial recourse after a complaint to the Commissioner. Any complainant who feels that his or her language rights have been violated or denied by a federal institution may apply to the Federal Court for such remedy as the court finds just and appropriate in the circumstances. The Commissioner of Official Languages will also be able to exercise this recourse to the court.
This outlines the three principles which have guided our reform of Canada's official languages policy and legislation and sums up the major changes. I am confident that the objectives which form the basis of this Bill will respond effectively to the needs of all Canadians and reflect the Government's commitment to equity in official language matters for all Canadians. Bill C-72 facilitates the full
February 8, 1988

participation of all Canadians in the institutions of Government. It reflects Canada's present linguistic reality in a manner which is consistent with both the Constitution and the fundamental principles of tolerance and fairness.
I believe this is a good Bill. I certainly commend it to the House for consideration and passage. This Bill is about fairness. This Bill is about equity of treatment of our fellow Canadians. This Bill is about the way in which we treat minorities in our country, and I think all of us seek to advance these principles in a tangible way. What we want in legislation is legislation that is not only sensitive but is fair to every Canadian regardless of which official language they speak.
This Bill after much consideration and deliberation attains what 1 consider to be an appropriate yet delicate balance in Canada which will serve as the threshold and the basis upon which we can move forward to reach the potential we have. I am heartened by the fact that there was very substantial and widespread consultation leading up to this legislation. The response to the Bill has, by and large, been superlative praise for the provisions of the legislation because it can now be said that the Bill does attain the elements of fairness and reasonableness which I think have to pervade everything we do concerning this matter. 1 do not consider this to be a trivial or laughing matter at all-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am not laughing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a very important consideration with respect to which all of us in this House have a responsibility to assess and to make sure that the Bill does reflect those principles which all of us hold dear, namely, a united Canada, one which is based upon the fundamental principle of fairness.
I stand committed, the Government stands committed, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stands committed to these very important principles.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that we share the Minister's view that the Bill must be generous, must be open and must provide Canada with a more up-to-date and more equitable framework for official languages.
Mr. Speaker, I am of course delighted to be taking part in this debate on Bill C-72, because it is the culmination of almost 16 years of parliamentary experience here in the Parliament of Canada and of over 12 years experience before that in education. I have always thought it would be nice to come to the House some day and say to whatever Government would be there: I think we have made progress, we have accomplished something. To us, this Bill is a charter, a road map, as it were, that will guide us in the years to come, and I am sure it will be a beneficial experience for all Canadians. I am pleased, the Liberals are pleased and the House is pleased,
Official Languages Act
and I feel the Government is to be commended for this initiative.
As 1 said earlier, we want the future to be equitable and fair, more generous and more respectful of that fundamental characteristic of Canada which is its English-French linguistic duality.
Bill C-72 fulfils the 1982 constitutional commitment and recognizes the formal commitments in the Meech Lake Accord, the legal version of which was tabled in the House and approved on October 26 last year.
This Bill is therefore in line with Canadian constitutional commitments. It defines federal objectives within the framework of new and updated legislation. The Liberals felt it was imperative to proceed as soon as possible with thorough consideration of Bill C-72 which, as we all know, has been on the Order Paper since June 25 last year.
I will not repeat the endless series of complaints, criticisms and requests for action that have been addressed to the Conservative Government for the past three and a half years. A glance at the Index of Hansard should be self-explanatory. There have been any number of questions and answers, debates and interventions. There is enough to fill a book on the vicissitudes of the language question.

This Bill has been long awaited by various Parties concerned with the issue of official languages, among others the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and representatives of many official language minority groups.
The Official Languages Act of 1969 has become outdated. A number of problems have surfaced as a result of applying legislation on a daily basis for 19 years. Court rulings have weakened the scope of some of the statute's provisions. The constitutional context has evolved since 1969, particularly in light of the adoption of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its Sections 16 to 20 respecting language rights.
The Meech Lake Accord, signed by all provincial Premiers, states clearly that our fundamental characteristic is our language duality-English and French-and that all must strive to preserve this essential characteristic.
Attitudes have changed toward languages, Mr. Speaker. Our increased awareness, respect and generosity toward official language groups have been helpful. Language training programs at all levels and in all regions of our country have shown that there exists in Canada a greater understanding and acceptance of our language duality. There is a willingness to accept and appreciate la difference, be it immersion courses at the elementary level, core programming in the other language in secondary schools or language training programs in the workplace. There has developed in Canada over the last 20 years a new era of understanding.

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
There exists after all these years a generous Canadian commitment to making this country great and united. We are working toward bonding our people in respect and love rather than separating them in fear and hate.
Provisions for two official languages do not undermine the preservation and enhancement of languages other than English and French. It follows that the multicultural heritage of many Canadians is strengthened by collective respect and support for our two official languages.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the culmination of many years of hard work, reflection and personal experience. It is not the work of a single person or group, any more than it reflects the policy of a single Party in this House.
Bill C-72 is the outcome of a process that has kept pace with the development of this country, starting with the British North America Act and going on to include the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, the Official Languages Act 1969, the Parliamentary Resolution of June 1973, the Pepin-Robarts Commission, the Constitution Act, 1982 and most recently, the Meech Lake Accord. The situation has evolved over time, and it has been quite an experience for many of us, a rewarding and certainly an interesting experience.
Over the years Canada developed rapidly, following the industrial revolution. Urban development, reforms in education, the socio-culturai revolution and political leadership in the provinces, both federal and provincial, all these factors were instrumental in producing a strong push for change, and this could happen because of the understanding and generosity Canadians have shown with respect to our official languages.
In 1963, a Liberal Government headed by Mr. Pearson created the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the terms of reference of which, as I think should be recalled, read in part:
"to inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada. "
Mr. Speaker, those terms of reference were issued in 1967 to a Royal Inquiry, and it will be remembered that this country was going through difficult times in the area of recognizing official minority language rights.
That may have been the true turning point as far as official languages were concerned, and it led us in 1969 to the proclamation of the Official Languages Act, later to the entrenchment of official languages in the 1982 Constitutional Act in 1982, and finally to the Meech Lake-Langevin Agreement recognizing the language duality as a fundamental characteristic of this country.
Further to the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, the Liberal Government enacted in 1969, over the opposition of some Conservative Members on second
reading, the Official Languages Act. That Act gives English and French equal status, rights and privileges as official languages of Parliament and the Government of Canada.
Finally, in 1982, language rights were enshrined in the Constitution through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sections 16 to 24. From that point on language rights take precedence over any Acts or Regulations of the Canadian Government or provincial legislatures.
Since 1982, language rights are protected from political whims. Nonetheless, concrete steps must be taken both at the national and provincial levels to implement the broad constitutional principles. The everyday life of minority groups often has become difficult. They sometimes have gone through a very difficult stretch.
History tells us the issue of official languages requires more than political will. It also requires that aggressive administrative measures be put in place in order to ensure that the political will is converted into facts.
The 1969 legislation has served us well, but it has become outdated and it should be rejunevated and given a new impetus, because we need a modernized tool. To begin with, it should be made consistent with the new constitutional and social reality in Canada. Then the weaknesses which have to come to light after 18 years of enforcement should be corrected. For example, its primacy over other legislation has been questioned in many decisions rendered by the courts; its executory nature should be confirmed; the language of work concept should be clarified to allow the Public Service to become more efficient. Madam Speaker, I will come back to this later.
Communications with and provision of federal services to the public require clear and specific guidelines. The Canadian public is entitled to communicate in the language of their choice with federal institutions and to obtain services in that language. Under Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), we find an important criterion which is not defined in the Charter but is stated as follows:
Any member of the public-has the right to communicate with and to receive available services from the government of Canada in English or French and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where-there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such a language; or 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.
The two important terms are "significant demand" and "the nature of the office". Both terms are not defined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Bill proposes that detailed criteria for "signifiant demand" be set by the Governor in Council. Concerning offices that because of their nature should communicate and provide services in both official languages, some are listed in the legislation and others will be designated by the Governor in Council.
February 8, 1988

I think that those clauses are fine and give the Cabinet the power to act in the national interest. If the decisions and designations are delayed, the Canadians will know that it is the Government and not the legislation that is to blame.
Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Act has to be renewed. The time has come to restate outright the political will of this Parliament with respect to official languages. Even though attitudes have evolved, as attested by the fact that in the Meech Lake Agreement all provinces have recognized that the linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic of Canada, it is nevertheless a fact that that evolution has not proceeded at the same pace everywhere.
The 1987 Official Languages Act is important precisely to consolidate our constitutionnal gains and to try to overcome resisters. We must give official language minorities the means to assert themselves, sometimes in spite of provincial and territorial governments.
For example, New-Brunswick has voluntarily made binding the constitutionnal clauses of 1982, but not the other provinces. As for Ontario, it has adopted Bill 8 on French services which will extend services offered to French-speaking Ontarians. At the same time, Alberta is opposed to the right to address the legislature in French, as was shown by the Piquette case.
The Piquette case is especially surpising, Madam Speaker, as Alberta had just signed the Meech Lake Accord. We would have expected more open-mindedness on the part of the Alberta Government, which should in a generous gesture toward its minority have seized the opportunity to broaden the use of French in the legislature, but this did not happen.
There is still a lot to do to ensure justice. The recent ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal denies the right of the accused to have his trial before a judge or a judge and jury who speak his mother tongue. Bill C-72 will allow us to amend Part XIV.I of the Criminal Code, which deals with the language used in a trial, to develop a complete code of linguistic rights in criminal law and ensure the application of national standards within a prescribed period.
Madam Speaker, I remember a debate which took place in this House ten years ago when we were considering Bill C-42, whose purpose was precisely to amend Part XIV.I of the Criminal Code. It was suggested during the debate that the provinces needed some time before proclaiming the legislation and providing actual access before the courts to a judge and jury who spoke the language of the accused. It did not happen everywhere, as many provinces have not yet proclaimed that particular piece of legislation. However, Bill C-72 prescribes a specific date, 1990, which means that the provinces will now have to meet this requirement.
Concerning the administration of justice in federal courts, the Act will continue to ensure the right of everyone to use French or English for all matters brought before the federal courts. Subsection 15(1) of Bill C-72 requires every court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, and I emphasize the
Official Languages Act
words "other than the Supreme Court of Canada", to ensure, and I quote:
-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.
Sub-section 15(2) provides for a phasing-in of this requirement to understand both official languages and sets a time limit of five years after the Act comes into force.
Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court therefore escapes entirely the requirements of Section 15. We have to wonder why the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, should be excluded from the requirements of bilingualism.
The Bill does not require that all judges of other courts be bilingual. It does require the presiding officer at a hearing to be bilingual. With respect to the Supreme Court, for all practical purposes it would mean that the Chief Justice is bilingual. Is that expecting too much?
It seems to me that if Canadians now expect their leaders to be bilingual-Governor General, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and so on-are we asking for too much when we suggest that the Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice ought to be able to follow the arguments of anglophones and francophones alike without the services of an interpreter? Madam Speaker, we will ask for explanations in committee, and we will consider the possibility of moving amendments.
The 1987 linguistic situation in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick as compared with that of Alberta underscores how differently mentalities evolve. We have, on one side, Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario which have been generous and open to their minorities and, on the other, we witness less generous gestures such as those I just mentioned with reference to the Piquette case.
Still most people readily agree there has been great progress despite resistance fron certain quarters. The new legislation is a must if we want to continue forging ahead in terms of Canada's official languages, while at the same time contributing to bringing opponents on side and filling the gaps in the 1969 statute.

The question is sometimes asked, why this new law and why now? This revised law, Bill C-72, is much more than a cosmetic job. It is a major face-lift, major reconstructive surgery. The official languages framework will not just look better, it will feel a lot better too. It will feel a heck of a lot better than the old law. That is the main reason the Government, after 20 years of experience, after consulting thoroughly, and after inheriting a dossier which I know was well advanced, has had the courage to present this House with what I consider is a good Bill. Why this new law and why now? The best answer is found in a recent article by Mr. Stuart Beaty published in Language and Society. Mr. Beaty is an adviser for special projects in the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. He writes and I quote:

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
Proposals to amend the Act itself have also been presented with some regularity over the years by Members of Parliament, by all three Commissioners and by Parliament's own Joint Committee on Official Languages, which submitted 19 recommendations on this subject in 1983.
There have been differences of emphasis in each set of proposals, but there has also been a considerable consensus among them about the deficiencies of the present Act and the best ways of overcoming them. While there have been surprisingly few legal actions brought under the Act in the last 18 years, its day-by-day application had nonetheless brought to light a hard core of issues which need to be resolved.
1)	the law's relation to the fundamental political and linguistic nature of the country: its constitutional context in short;
2)	the implications of this national commitment where other sectors of Canadian society are concerned;
3)	its primacy over other federal legislation;
4)	the executory nature of the Act and the need to set out more clearly how it is to be enforced;
5)	clarification of how bilingual services are to be adjusted according to regional and other differences; this means, for instance, substituting a more workable concept for the "federal bilingual districts" which were never proclaimed;
6)	building into the Act itself the language of work and full participation objectives found in the 1973 Parliamentary Resolution;
7)	Clarifying the role of the main federal actors, including the Commissioner, in ensuring prompt and effective application of the Act.
[ Translation]
Bill C-72 is quite different from the 1969 legislation. The new measure contains a ten-point preamble which clearly defines the link between the constitutional progress achieved until now and the spirit of generosity and reform from which inspiration can be drawn when interpreting the law. We will have to be more generous and more equitable once Bill C-72 has been enacted. According to the Interpretation Act, Madam Speaker, a preamble is part and parcel of the legislation and provides an explanation concerning its purpose and scope. Through an interpretation clause, therefore, the legislator wants to make sure that the constitutional provisions and the law are at one. Is that better than having it included in the legislation? The question might best be put to legal experts, but one thing for sure is that it goes to show how important we legislators want this law to be, for it is rare indeed that an interpretation preamble is found in a public statute.
In its preamble, Bill C-72 refers to Clauses 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Federal Government's commitments to the protection and promotion of bilingualism and the protection of official linguistic minorities. In this sense, the Bill goes beyond the Constitutional Accord of 1987 which only recognized the Federal Government's obligation to preserve the linguistic duality.
As the House knows, Madam Speaker, I would have preferred the Accord to state that the federal government is also obliged to promote linguistic duality, but that did not happen.

As I said a few moments ago, Bill C-72 is more than a cosmetic make-up job; it is a major face-lift. In the section on the purpose of the Act we find a strong commitment to ensure respect for English and for French as the official languages of
Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions which are defined in the Act.
Furthermore, we find that the Act will support the development of English and French minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society. The Act sets out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions with respect to the official languages of Canada.

The purpose of Bill C-72 is to strengthen the Official Languages Act by ensuring equal status to French and English, by supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and by clearly stating the powers, duties and functions of Federal institutions with respect to the official languages of Canada. It is unfortunate that the clause relating to the equality status of official languages and dealing with the rights under Clauses 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter, does not emphasize their equality as languages of work and in equitable participation.
It would have been desirable to include these two issues under the "Purpose of Act" section because they are not mentioned as such in the Charter, as is the case for the language of service. It is agreed that these issues are dealt with more specifically in the Bill, but their inclusion in the "Purpose of Act" section would have given them priority status.
Bill C-72 confirms such existing principles as those calling for the provision of services to the public as well as Secretary of State programs promoting minorities. Moreover, Bill C-72 offers new elements concerning the language of work and the rule of law, subject to the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. There is also the obligation for the President of the Treasury Board or any other minister designated by the Government to consult the Francophone and Anglophone minorities when drafting the regulations applicable to this legislation.
Consultation itself is not new. Madam Speaker. As far as I know, it has existed for at least 15 years. In June 1973, Mr. Trudeau, who was Prime Minister at the time, sent for the representatives of various official language minority groups to hear their views on his project to extend the national radio and television network everywhere in Canada and to make it possible for the CBC to serve all communities of more than 500 people regardless of where they lived. For that, it was necessary to develop satellite communications technology. It was a major step forward in establishing the significance and justice of our linguistic duality. It was very useful in that it forced us to develop a new technology to meet our own needs and at the same time become international leaders in the area of communications.
February 8, 1988

In addition to these requirements with regard to minority consultations, the Bill provides for a Committee of the House and/or the Senate to supervise its implementation. I would point out, Madam Speaker, that this clause of the Bill does not require the committee to be made up of members of both Houses. It could be a committee of the House and/or the Senate, each House having its own. This may only be a technicality but it is important to realize that the Bill allows for something other than a Standing Joint Committee. One day, perhaps this House will see fit to have its own Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Bill C-72 had to reflect present realities. Thus, the Official Languages Committee that had previouly been created by an order of the House now has a legal status under an Act. This means that the Government is adding to the Act elements that had come to existence gradually over the years. Since 1969, many improvements were made, both in the administration of the Act and in the implementation of new government programs. They are part of government policy as legal requirements. Therefore, they had to be included in the Act, but they represent nothing new because the programs exist already.
Other elements are new, for example, the requirement to publish simultaneously in both official languages all legislative, regulatory and other documents. This is new in Bill C-72, although the idea is not. As a matter of fact, last Friday, I introduced in the House a Bill to amend the 1969 Act in order to make sure that all documents are tabled by the Government in both official languages in the House of Commons and the Senate. I think that is elementary. And it would certainly prevent disgraceful occurrences of the kind we had recently, when a Minister of this Government who claims to respect official languages read to us, at top speed, a list of amendments to Bill C-22, drafted in English only. It would also prevent documents as important as the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement from being tabled in the House of Commons in English only, as happened initially. There are people in this House, Madam Speaker, to whom this is a matter of vital importance. And it is important that any document tabled by the Government in the House should be made available to all Members, whatever their mother tongue, and made available in both official languages, in French and in English.
Madam Speaker, I am delighted with these new provisions, awaited by so many people for so many years. The necessary amendments to the legislation were identified, considered and in some cases suggested by the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages which was established in 1979, and the Committee's recommendations were published in a number of reports. Now we are ready to enjoy the fruits of our labours. At this point I would like to thank all those who took part in
Official Languages Act
the consultation process and helped prepare these amendments, and I also want to congratulate the Government once more for taking the initiative of tabling this Bill.
Bill C-72, tabled in 1987, responds to the principal recommendations of the Official Languages Committee. The new legislation includes the concept of active offer of services. In other words, public servants have a duty to invite the public to use the language of its choice. We also find the language of work concept and provisions for its application in the Public Service of Canada. The recommendation to make the legislation executory, which would create rights that would be protected by the courts, is essential if we want the law to be observed. The matter of full participation by both official language groups is also covered, as well as the issue of primacy of the legislation.
There are those who feel that the legislation's primacy is guaranteed by the very fact that Sections 16 to 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. According to this interpretation, the Charter would render invalid the provisions of any other rule of law that would be incompatible, since the Constitution is supreme. Incidentally, the Charter repeats, almost word for word, Section 2 of the Official Languages Act, 1969. Any lack of precision in the Act means that the extremely vague guarantees of Section 16(1) of the Charter will prevail.
Others feel that the Official Languages Act will always be the framework for the courts' interpretation and will enable the courts to determine the spirit and intent of the legislator. Since the Charter is rather vague, they feel it would be preferable to state precisely the spirit and the intent of the legislator by including in the legislation how its provisions are consequential on other Acts. This would provide more specific guarantees which would, furthermore, be supported by the guarantees afforded under the Charter.
Madam Speaker, I admit that I support the second option. I believe that the legislation should serve as a basis for interpreting the Constitution and that it would be more equitable to include that in the legislation.
To protect the provisions of the Official Languages Act, therefore, it becomes imperative to include a clause clearly confirming the intention of the lawmakers to place this legislation above any other Act, ordinance, decree, order, rule or regulation and confirming its supremacy over any other Act.
As a member of this House, I have introduced several private Bills calling on the House to have the Official Languages Act override any other Acts. From 1977 to 1984, I introduced a series of eight Bills with that definite purpose in mind.

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
I am therefore proud and happy to support this initiative. Bill C-72 ensures that if some essential provisions of this act are in conflict with other federal legislation or regulation, the act will prevail, subject only to the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, there could be problems with the drafting of the section. Indeed, Subsection 79(2) excludes explicitly the Canadian Human Rights Act and any regulation made thereunder. Well, it may happen that some provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, such as Section 3 dealing with discrimination based on race, ethnic or national origin, or Section 7 dealing with job discrimination, or even Section 8 dealing with job applications and advertising, may come in conflict with the Official Languages Act.
The linguistic rights could in this case be weakened because of discriminatory motives, since the Canadian Human Rights Act is excluded from the overriding clause.
Moreover, the fact that Part VI of Bill C-72 is excluded from the paragraph dealing with supremacy could cause problems in the areas of equitable participation, language of work and language of service. For instance, there could be inconsistencies between the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act and those of the Official Languages Act.
As concerns administrative bilingualism, which covers the three major areas of language of service, language of work and equitable participation, Bill C-72 will first correct the obvious weaknesses of the Act in the matter of the language of work. As for the language of service, everyone knows that this means contributions of public servants who deal with the public as part of their work to serve Canadians. The obligation to provide services in the customer's own language has already been well covered, and this right is in fact guaranteed by the Constitution.
As for the language of work, this is a more complex issue, but Bill C-72 provides that English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions and that employees have the right to use either official language.
The Government will have to ensure that the working environment allows real use of both languages; it will have to provide central services in both languages and ensure that the documentation and material used at work are available in both French and English.
There is a great variety of applications on the theme of the language of work. Which variations will be implemented under the new legislation? Will there be foot-dragging? We shall have to wait to see the administrative mechanisms implemented by Treasury Board. We all know that Treasury Board increasingly delegates its powers to the deputy ministers and that accountability often leaves much to be desired. We shall therefore have to remain vigilant to ensure an equitable and effective implementation.
In addition, there will be requirements as to the ability of supervisors and senior management to communicate and operate in both official languages.
We may wonder how this will be implemented in practice. Will there be sufficient political will to take necessary action? We may well wonder, and I have already raised this issue in the House several times as the instructions of the Treasury Board allow the deputy ministers and senior public servants to depart more easily from linguistic requirements.
Whatever the President of the Treasury Board might tell me, we all know the influence of a supervisor has over his subordinates. If he is unilingual, there will be a very strong pressure on the department to have all documents and communications in the language of the senior official. This is a fact. I am not suggesting that this senior official will force all others to use his language, I am simply saying that it is more than likely. We will need enlightened leaders who can tell the difference between authority and autocracy, while showing full respect for the linguistic rights of all Canadians.
Again I say that even with the new law, strong political will will be required to make sure it is duly enforced. We can easily live with the principles, but the administrative regulations and their implementation are something else again.
For example, the major issue of equal participation is covered under Bill C-72, to the extent that the Government will have to make sure that all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin or mother tongue, have equal employment and promotion opportunities in federal institutions. In addition, the staff of these institutions will have to reflect the presence in Canada of both the English and French-speaking communities.
Well, Madam Speaker, federal employees are not hired by Bill C-72, but by Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission of Canada. We will have to see to it that their hiring practices do reflect the spirit of the law. That is what is called political will.
Thanks to this legislation, individuals or groups who feel their rights have been breached will at least be entitled to legal recourse, which means they may be heard by a court and seek redress. This is an entirely new concept, Madam Speaker, and I do believe it is the essential aspect of Bill C-72, in the sense that it will give executory power under the law, the fact that an individual may appear before the court to seek justice, to seek redress.
The possibility of a legal recourse when one feels his rights have been aggrieved has been included in the legislation. So, ultimately, that could be a means of countering the bad faith on the part of a lazy administration.
Besides a recourse to the Commissioner, this Bill provides for seizing the Federal Court of a complaint six months after lodging that complaint with the Commissioner. One can proceed alone or with the help of the Commissioner.
This is an indispensable guarantee at which one can only rejoice although the process is long and costly. At least, it is there and it can be used.
February 8, 1988

So, Clause 75(1) states that anyone who has tabled a complaint with the Commissioner can take legal proceedings. It remains to be seen if the courts will act on a single complaint or rather on a series of complaints. As I said, will the courts act on the basis of one single complaint or only on a series of complaints? As we know, Madam Speaker, one swallow does not make a summer-will one language incident be enough to trigger the use of the judicial process? Time will tell!
There are serious gaps that should have been corrected, one of which is the matter of the privatization of Crown Corporations, and in that respect I would like to suggest that as far as 1 am concerned that whole question will have to be closely scrutinized. As we know, the Government is committed to privatizing certain Crown Corporations that sometimes have been providing essential services in such different areas as transportation, communications, health, security and other areas. There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent a Crown Corporation wholly owned by the Government from avoiding the impact of the legislation by selling 1 per cent of its shares. In fact, the legislation as drafted only applies to a corporation or to its wholly owned subsidiaries. As I said, selling 1 per cent of the shares would be enough to avoid being subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act. It is clear that such behavior is unacceptable-a mischievous management could turn that clause into a real farce. The Government might answer they intend to preserve language rights by inserting into the privatization sale agreement a clause safeguarding those rights.
I have strong doubts that a satisfactory solution may be reached, so much so that there would be no legal requirements to do so. Each time a corporation is privatized the debate will surface. 1 find it hard to visualize, madam Speaker, how Air Canada, if it were to sell 1 per cent of its shares, could feel it is not covered by the new Official Languages Act. It is my view that in committee we will have to discuss that whole question with the Minister and hopefully we can find an acceptable solution.
Another gap involves federal-provincial agreements, because Canadians are treated differently according to the region they live in. For instance, a federal-provincial agreement between Canada and Saskatchewan would not have to be written in French. It could be if the provincial Government so requested. Why different standards? Does the Federal Government wear its bilingual hat when negotiating with Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba, and a different, unilingual hat when negotiating with other provinces? This Madam Speaker, is a matter that will have to be very closely examined.
It is to be assumed also that if that clause is enacted minorities would not have exactly equal status. That Section, that is Part II reflects a deplorable lack of political courage. The federal Government should at least require full bilingualism from its own institutions.
Official Languages Act
Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) will deal with a provision he feels strongly about, Clause 90 relating to the Northwest Territories Act. He will have some strong reservations to express on the necessity for Parliament to give consent should the Commissioner in Council wish to amend or repeal the Official Languages Ordinance.
Finally, let me deal with the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Indeed, over the years he has been the language ombudsman. His role in Bill C-72 is being clarified. His powers are greatly extended and he will have a very active part on his own or on behalf of a complainant in applying to the Federal Court for a remedy to an alleged violation of the Act. This gives the law the needed teeth, the executory powers to ensure compliance with the law. I welcome this disposition.
The Commissioner will also be able, under the law, to look into complaints arising out of provisions of other federal laws and to review any regulations or directives of the Government made under the Act.
The Government has incorporated other recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. In my view it could have gone a little further and established an effective language ombudsman, something like our Auditor General. We will pursue this matter in committee and hope to be able to strengthen the office of the Official Languages Commissioner.

In theory, Bill C-72 is satisfactory. In practice, the Government, the Ministers, the agencies, the Crown corporations and all those involved will have to show great understanding. The legal parameters are there to foster harmony and strengthen the will to make Canadian society more just, more open and more tolerant of its minorities.
I hope with all my heart that we will achieve that goal together and that Bill C-72 will prove to be as important a step in the evolution of attitudes as the Official Languages Act was in 1969.
Finally, there must be public education. To discuss and pass bills in the House is not enough. We must also see to it they are explained to and understood by the general public. That is also the role of a Member of Parliament. I count on my colleagues to spread and explain the spirit of the Bill.
I call on all Members of this House to stand up and be counted on this Bill, to make their views known openly here in the House. Madam Speaker, it will be worth while to discuss the Bill. I think it will be useful to do so, but I wish also to assure the Government that on our side of the House, the Liberal side, we want this legislation adopted as soon as possible.

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this morning to speak to the Bill before the House, because to me, it is a very strong piece of legislation, and I say congratulations to the Government of Canada for tabling this Bill in the House.

We are not only dealing with the substance of Bill C-72, but with the direction in which I hope our country and society is headed. It is with some sadness that during recent provincial elections people in various communities were still attempting to maintain them as unilingual communities. We must get a stronger understanding of our history, as I hope Bill C-72 will help to achieve, but we must also remember that it took Canada almost 100 years to enact legislation protecting the language of both founding cultures.
Canada was established not through war but through an agreement between two colonies who wanted to establish a single country which would make them both the richer while protecting their cultural differences. Unfortunately, we too seldom teach our children the history of how these two cultures were brought together into one country and society. I believe that some of the tensions and difficulties in this country arise because that protection did not exist and different groups in areas of the country did not feel a full part of society.
Two of the most important commissions which have changed the direction and social fabric of Canada were the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, chaired by Senator Bird, and the B and B Commission chaired by Mr. Laurendeau and Mr. Dunton. The establishment of those recommendations into law in 1969 was only a first step. For the first time we saw that our country could be administrated in both official languages.
It is rather amusing to think that some of the crises which arise are very much related to our day-to-day activities, such as the St. Jean appeal case in the Yukon. Something as simple as a speeding ticket or parking ticket brings forward the importance of establishing those rights in our country. This Bill has teeth, which is why, as 1 said earlier, I want to compliment the Government for bringing it forward. It is a Bill with which we can live. I hope it will put to rest many of the concerns that we have heard across the country in the past. It is an affirmation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in terms of the protection of both official languages in minority communities.
However, we do have some concerns with the Bill. They can be dealt with at the committee level. They are with respect to the exclusion in the Bill of the Northwest Territories as a federal institution. The fact that the Northwest Territories is excluded while at the same time any change to its official languages legislation must be brought forward to the House of Commons is a heavy-handed move. It is up to Parliament to review such matters. The power is with the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to carry out such measures. We should look at these provisions and ensure that we let the Government of the Northwest Territories know that we respect its autonomy with respect to official languages and with respect to its legislation.
My other concern is that the Yukon has not been excluded from the Bill. We recognize that the St. Jean appeal is going forward and that something might automatically come from it. If it does not, there is some concern with respect to the ability of the Yukon to implement its own official languages legislation giving priority to aboriginal languages.
There are two scars on our country. One is with respect to the way we treated our native people in the past. There is a consensus across the country wanting to change that and to ensure that future legislation will respect the rights of our aboriginal people while addressing some of the wrongs of the past. We must recognize the resources which exist in the Yukon in terms of being able to implement minority languages. There is goodwill in the Yukon. There have been negotiations between the Government of the Yukon and the Government of Canada to ensure that such legislation can be put in place.
At this point in time perhaps it is not essential to declare the Yukon officially bilingual, at least not until it has the capacity to put bilingual services into place. It has a Bill of its own which will start to put such services in place. I am sure we can come to a consensus to deal with this difficulty if we hear from the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of the Yukon at the committee stage.
For the first time we have a Bill in front of us that will allow the children of those from both languages and both cultures the opportunity to feel comfortable in that they will be living in a society which has two official languages. It is with pride that they will be able to say, "This is my country. As an Anglo- Canadian I know that the other founding official language and culture is protected in my community even though it does not represent the majority". A French Canadian youth can say, "Anglo-Canadians in my community can have the same type of pride in what their culture and identity is".
We do not celebrate enough the great steps that we have taken forward. They are steps which have not occurred in other societies. This is what makes me feel proud to be a Canadian. We have taken two very different cultures and two very different peoples and brought them together to form a country. In the process of doing so we have been able to protect individual rights and individual cultures. If we had not had the official languages legislation of 1969 we could not have been quite as explicit as we were in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What Bill C-72 does is to take the cosmetic appearance of the 1969 Official Languages Act and give it strength. It has given it a certain amount of justice. What it does is give the responsibility to the people who are there.
February 8, 1988

The Commissioner of Official Languages will no longer have to be concerned with just reporting. He now has the ability to take action. 1 was pleased to see that he will be reporting to the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board will be able to use his or her clout to see that the recommendations of the Commissioner are not just recommendations but that they are implemented.
Also in the Bill is a provision that as a last resort matters can be referred to the courts. That is very important. It is important that those who are heard in the courts can be heard in their own language. Anyone who studies our history in any depth knows that we must celebrate our two cultures and our two languages. We have to ensure that our two languages will always be protected. As we learn to celebrate this fact with each other we can then become the kind of people who will be an international influence. We will have dealt with our own difficulties with some justice and with a great deal of dignity and strength. That is very important to me.
It is important for Members of Parliament, not just as Members of Parliament but as members of this society, when we are in our communities and hear people objecting to our language laws to say that a law such as this is a law which was supported by all three Parties. We will hear such objections if we are sensitive to what is happening at the grassroots level of our communities. This is a law by which we can understand our history. It is out of the evolution of our history and our maturation as a country that something as strong as this law is in front of us. We should never back away from that.
My dream is that some day every child who graduates from a Canadian school will graduate with pride in that he or she can understand what the two cultures are all about. They will understand that it was not because of the Treaty of 1763 that we became a country but because of the events which took place in 1967. That is when we had two strong and separate societies which came together. Once people begin to understand that the debate about whether or not we need an Official Languages Act will be over. There is a dream and an image that eventually perhaps in the not too distant future we will have a society that is truly bilingual which can freely express itself in terms of its own culture, arts and language.
I do not often compliment the Government. However, I want to say that the Government has showed courage and strength in bringing this Bill forward. The Government had a choice of saying that there is an Official Language Act and nothing needs to be done about it, but it chose to give us a much stronger official languages Bill. That is something we can all celebrate. Sometimes in the House the whole process is difficult, and that process is difficult because it is adversarial. It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to a Bill that we know will strengthen the fabric of our society.
Some parts of this Bill we are looking at today are long overdue. I wish to refer to the old Act that provided for the issuance of regulations in both languages, but permits issuance
Official Languages Act
in one language before the other in urgent cases. The legislative instruments and proclamations and the subordinate legislation such as regulations adopted by the Governor in Council would have to be made simultaneously in both official languages. The Government of the Northwest Territories, Indian bands, bands or councils, or other bodies would not be affected by those provisions. That is the part that I referred to earlier; we hope that the Yukon would be excluded from until it is ready to get its own resources, and certainly I would hope that it receives some help from the federal Government to enforce its own language Act.
Parts of the Act are important and will have great importance in the future because of the fact that we still see and know ourselves as a mosaic. We also see that this Act, and Section 27 of the Charter states:
This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
The provision for the two officials languages now would not undermine the preservation and enhancement of languages other than English and French. That is very important, as we look more and more at the richness of multiculturalism in our country. I have often heard people of first and second generation Canadians ask, "Why English or why French?" depending upon what part of the country they live in. They ask, "Why can it not be partly the language that I have brought with me from my roots?" Again, I refer to the fact that that comes from our superficial knowledge of our own history. We want to ensure that every one of those people who came to this country bringing other cultures and other heritages can be proud of those roots, feel good about themselves, and know that they truly contributed to the development of our society. That is very much protected within this law, and that is very commendable. It is something that we should all respect and understand.
The old Act contained an enabling provision which attempted to open the door to proceedings in either official language in criminal trials. In the proposed Act we have Criminal Code provisions. If we are going to get anything that has some strength, we have to address the Criminal Code provisions.
The provisions of this proposed Act would permit the amendment of Part XIV. 1 of the Criminal Code which deals with the language of trial. It provides for a complete code of language rights in criminal matters and ensures the national implementation of the law. In the past that is something that we have seen as very difficult. We now have a certain sense of security in that we know the Act has actually dealt with these amendments. I cannot call them amendments because it is a brand new Act, and it is an Act with a lot of strength.
Also when we look at the role of the President of the Treasury Board, or another Minister who is designated, it makes sense that the President of the Treasury Board should be the one who is presently designated, because it is the President of the Treasury Board whose over-all responsibility

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
is the management of the public and administrative functions. It seems to me that giving that office that type of power is really important.
When I was at the municipal level we had factions within the provincial context that were angry that there could be two official languages in a province. We were able to bring people from our community and municipality together and have a bylaw that declared a municipality bilingual. For me, it was something that affirmed the fact that it could be done. I was told that we would bankrupt the municipality, that it was totally impossible. With some very practical applications it was possible.
When 1 was President of the New Democratic Party, travelling across the country, more and more 1 realized the richness and the willingness of people in all communities. Sometimes those people rationalized it a little by saying, "I would never want to learn the other language, but for the sake of my children it is important we do", or "I think it is important for the good of the children that we encourage them to learn the other language". But it was the rationalization of older biases that were starting to diminish and the resolution was beginning to be there because they understood the importance of strengthening our country as a bilingual and bicultural country.
As we travel through the country and talk openly, and let us not be afraid to talk about it, even if we do have some differences, let us put them on the table and talk about what type of vision we have. Where are we going with it? Is it correct that an individual who speaks the language of one of the founding nations of our country, either English or French, cannot be heard in a court of law in the language with which he or she is most comfortable? There are not many people across this land who would say that such person should not be heard in the official language with which he or she is comfortable.
In looking at the language of work, it seems to me that certainly the public service is just that, it is giving service to the people of the country. It does not make any sense to suggest that citizens of this country could only receive this service in one official language, either French or English.
We have put a law in place that will say forever more there will be that type of protection; forever more that there will be the ability for us to operate our federal Government in both official languages, and that as we move into the future we will reach that point, 1 hope, when we are rid of those types of debates that took place in some of the communities across this land during provincial elections. I am quite sure that they also take place periodically during municipal elections.
Today we must state that it is a pleasure to be in the House of Commons and know that we have Bill C-72 before us knowing that it has to go to committee. There are a few areas that I think have to be strengthened or amended. But there is goodwill, and I think this can be done. There are none of us here who do not recognize the difficulty and the tensions that exist in the North regarding the protection of the languages of
our aboriginal people. We do want that to be the case, while at the same time we also want to ensure that English and French receive the priority they should receive. It is unacceptable that French and English people living and working in the North cannot receive services in their language.
At this moment in our history it is possible to make some amendments in order that both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories can be excluded from being officially bilingual. I guess that happens by not identifying them as federal institutions. They will then have time to meet the needs of their communities, needs which are very different needs from those in the South. It is important that we recognize that fact.
As we are trying to recognize the justice of our bilingual and bicultural society in our evolution, surely we must remember that the peoples who were here first are those peoples who have probably had the most difficult time in protecting their culture and their language. It seems to me if we can do anything through our Official Languages Act, through other laws, or by providing resources to the territories to help them change the situations that have existed for so long, we should be wanting to do that.
1 do not think the Bill will require a great deal of amendment. 1 think we can do it. However, I would ask Hon. Members to think about perhaps excluding the Yukon as a federal institution under the Act. If we look at the total implications, and recognizing that the Yukon Government is willing to deliver services in both official languages but is trying to balance its resources to protect aboriginal languages, I do not think it is an extraordinary request. The place to do that would be at committee, and I think we can come to some resolution that would make some sense.
I am pleased that this legislation is before us. We have probably taken three steps in this regard. The first step was in 1969 with the first Official Languages Act. The next step was in 1982 when once and for all the rights of both cultures and languages were recognized in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and soon we will have a very strong law to protect both languages. Certainly society will recognize the fact that it is not whether it is French or English, but it is because of French and English which gives our country its strength and beauty. As we live with this legislation it will make more sense and legislators and public servants will automatically address the delivery of their services in both languages.
Annually, since 1969, we have always looked at the report of the Official Languages Commissioner. It has had a certain amount of clout. It was always interesting to see what Departments were not doing so well and what Departments were doing better. There was a certain amount of pride when Departments did well, and it was very important. However, this Bill will no longer depend upon a review or a report. We will still be getting reports, but the Bill will put some teeth into
February 8, 1988

the legislation so that the Commissioner of Official Languages will be able to recommend and enforce. This is very important. If there is anything that is almost pathological in society today, it is the cynicism of recommendations constantly being made without the ability to enforce or implement them. Certainly we can now say with a great deal of pride that we have an official languages Bill that does not only depend upon review and reports but actually has some teeth to implement the recommendations coming from these reports. This is probably one of the most important parts of the whole Bill. As good as is any law, if it is difficult to enforce, it gets watered down or people tend to ignore it. That is not what we want.
I say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we would like to ask for a couple of amendments at committee. They are nothing very great. It would be just to get some consensus in terms of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Apart from that, we are very pleased to support the Bill. It is a step forward in the evolution of our country and our society. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have been able to speak to it. It is something that has been very close to my heart. As a native Quebecer I saw a lot of discrimination happening to the majority of the community there when I was growing up. Today I see the progress which has been made, and I see people born in English Canada who are proud of the fact that they are part of a bicultural and bilingual society.
All I can say is that we have come a long way and we will still go a long way with positive evolutions in society that will give us the character and fabric of which many of us have dreamed. I think that will be a reality, and the Bill will help it happen.
Without being overly full of praise, I say that this is one time the Government has done something which we can all certainly support.


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the Lion. Members for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) on raising the level of debate on the Bill before the House above any hint of political partisanship. I am sure the Government has no objection to the House adopting this Bill as soon as possible. Madam Speaker, as the Member for Chambly and as a resident of that riding since my earliest years-

I was raised in a very small community which had a few Anglophones. 1 had the opportunity to learn English at an early age and to attend a French high school where I had good English teachers, which improved my English a little. Of course, Madam Speaker, I would never say that I am as bilingual as you. I also had the opportunity to send my children to English schools. Even if we are Francophones in origin, we understand a little better the two cultures of our great country.
Official Languages Act
I am very proud to live in a part of Quebec where there is absolute co-operation between French-speaking and Englishspeaking people living in the community and in fact in the whole riding of Chambly. I am very proud to represent them, whether they are English or French.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the second reading stage of Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. This Bill is an important piece of legislation which, I believe, reflects the many linguistic aspirations of French-speaking Canadians, whether they are from Acadia, Manitoba or Quebec, and of English-speaking Canadians, whether they are from Newfoundland, Quebec or Alberta.
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Members of the Standing Committee, Members of both Chambers who worked so hard to prepare and draft this Bill, and especially the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hame-lin), who chaired the Committee for several months and the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien), the present joint chairman.
The House will recall that the existing Official Languages Act is 18 years old. It was necessary to amend the Act to reflect changes that have taken place in Canadian society in the last two decades and the linguistic reality of the eighties. We had to provide a modern and progressive framework for our language policy for the years to come. The Bill contains a number of new elements that are compatible with the linguistic needs of Canadians.
I think Canadians will approve of the rights conferred under this Bill and the obligations it places on federal institutions, and I am thinking of the proceedings and business of Parliament, legislative documents, the courts, communications with and services for the public, language of work, and so on. Canadians will also have access to judicial recourse when they consider they have been denied their language rights.
The concept of official languages has changed a great deal in the last 20 years. From the report of the B & B Commission to the 1969 Official Languages Act, from the entrenchment of language rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the recognition of the Canadian linguistic duality in the Meech Lake Accord-when once more our Government and our Prime Minister, along with his provincial counterparts representing four different political parties, were able to sign this historic agreement that brings back Quebec within the Canadian constitutional family-, we went from what some consider to be a symbol to a concrete and living reality.
This Government, with its commitment to national reconciliation, started early to work for a reform of language policies in order to ensure institutional equality between English and French-speaking Canadians. In June 1987, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) introduced Bill C-72,

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
which is the cornerstone of linguistic renewal in this country. If there is a part of the Bill which reflects the Government's will to concretely and effectively improve established systems, it is the one dealing with administration of justice. In this regard, the Bill is to be considered as an extension of the rights afforded in the 1969 Act and of the basic guarantees given by the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, each and every year, during the Canada Day celebrations, we can see all over the country another concrete proof of the importance of bilingualism and national reconciliation for this Government. Since 1984, and particularly since July 1st, 1985, Quebec in particular celebrates Canada Day. Canada Day is not exclusively for the rest of Canada any more; Quebecers are also full-fledged Canadian citizens and celebrate Canada Day with as much vigor, energy and pride as Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24.
Madam Speaker, I will not repeat each component of this Bill. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has stated them very clearly. Just let me, as Parliamentary Secretary, say a few words on language obligations imposed on federal institutions in the administration of justice as well as on this Bill's opening onto Canadian society in general.
In that important area, the new legislation proposes to implement the existing constitutional guarantees, namely, as the Supreme Court of Canada said in the decision on language rights in Manitoba, "to give French-speaking and Englishspeaking people equal access to the legislative bodies, the legislation and the courts of law."
Of course, the Bill states some obligations that already appear in the existing Official Languages Act. Thus, federal courts will still be required to hear witnesses in either of the official languages, to provide simultaneous interpretation services and to make available to the public their decisions in both official languages. However, the Bill goes even further. For the first time, a federal law will force federal courts to ensure that the judge chosen to preside at a hearing understands without the help of an interpreter the official language in which the case is being heard.
Madam Speaker, also for the first time, the Government of Canada will have to use in legal proceedings the official language selected by the other parties. Finally, under a new provision, forms that are required to be served by federal institutions must be bilingual.
With respect to provincial courts having a criminal jurisdiction, the Official Languages Act provides for some consequential amendments to the Criminal Code concerning the language in which the proceedings are carried on.
We have to remember that the Criminal Code already provides in Part XIV. 1 that any accused is entitled to be prosecuted in his own official language.
It has been noted throughout the years that the scope of that right had to be specified. The Bill provides that when a court orders that an accused is to be prosecuted before a judge or a
judge and jury who speak the official language of his choice, the accused and his lawyer will be entitled to use any official language during the proceedings; the witnesses will be entitled to testify in one of the official languages; the accused will be entitled to hear the plaintiff in the language of his choice; the courts will be required to offer simultaneous interpretation services; and finally, the file will include a copy of such interpretation.
I suggest this brief statement shows convincingly that this new legislation will enable us to make large strides in the administration of justice. I am firmly convinced of that.
I would now like to point out a significant provision of this Bill which shows the innovating nature of the linguistic renewal undertaken by the Government and its desire to open up the Canadian society.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I refer to the Meech Lake agreement concluded by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) which has allowed the Canadian people to realize that we are a society unrivalled throughout the world. Canadians are unique.
As I said, the Meech Lake agreement undoutedly shows the interest shown by the Government to allow the Canadian community to become more open.
Madam Speaker, the enforcement of the legislation is not merely restricted to federal institutions. It has a wider scope since it attempts-and I insist on that term-to involve Canadians generally. Thus, it sets forth the Government's commitment to promote full recognition and use of French and English in the Canadian society, to encourage the development of French and English minorities in Canada, with as much equity and equality as must be deserved.
The Bill had surely to provide for means of carrying out those commitments. So the Governement, through the Secretary of State, intends to co-operate with the provinces, and the private and volunteer sectors to pursue those various interests. The Secretary of State will also have to attend to the continuation and development of programs relating to the official languages. The Government's policy in that area is clear: it seeks to foster recognition and use of as well as training in the official languages, everywhere in Canada.
Madam Speaker, the Official Languages Bill is a complete measure in that it makes linguistic duality meaningful. It covers the most important aspects of the linguistic field and gives them a strong and durable basis in law. It proves the very strong will of the Government of truly and really reforming its language policy. It fits in with our efforts to achieve national reconciliation. In that sense, it complements the historical Meech Lake Accord. In short, Madam Speaker, it has all the necessary elements to fulfill everybody's aspirations and expectations in that area. So, as a Progressive Conservative Member and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, I am very proud of the contents and scope of this Bill, and I hope it will soon be part of our federal statutes.
February 8, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the Elouse took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caecia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in its haste to get a trade deal with the United States, the Government neglected to examine possible environmental consequences. The Mining Association of Canada said recently that it favours a "harmonization" of environmental law on both sides of the border so as to achieve "a level playing field" between environmental requirements and costs to industry.
It is fair to say that Canadians would support this concept only if standards are equalized to the higher, not the lower standards, so as to reflect the growing concern of both Canadians and Americans for more stringent environmental protection. But the Government did not address this issue when negotiating the sale of Canada.
If any harmonization of environmental standards to keep industry on both sides of the border on a level playing field is to be made, it must be done with improved environmental protection as the priority. By its own admission, the Government has not studied possible environmental impacts of the trade deal. Thus, the Government has failed to live up to its commitment to the Brundtland Commission report. What a sham!



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF U.S. WHEAT ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian critics of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement in their overblown rhetoric claim that the Canadian Wheat board is gone, the family farm has been sold, and other like nonsense. Let us examine the American viewpoint regarding these same provisions.
A delegate to the National Association of U.S. Wheat Growers said: "We got shafted by Canada. We want fair trade, not free trade". The Association President, James Miller, stated: "Canada came out the clear winner in the FTA
because it will gain access to the huge U.S. market without giving anything in return".
Winston Wilson, President of the U. S. Wheat Association, stated: "We got our pants taken off on this one. We can't afford any more agreements of this type. We can't see the rights of our producers sold off. Canadians can sell all the wheat they want to us but we can't ship any back".
This is the other side of the coin. These are the comments of leaders of the United States wheat growing groups. Can it be that maybe, just maybe, our negotiators did an outstanding job of safeguarding the interests of Canada's wheat producers?



BANKRUPTCIES


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Principal Group investors throughout Canada are angry. They are angry at this Government that promised them over eight months ago that it would soon be completing its investigation into possible misleading representations made to investors by the Principal Group.
Principal Group investors, many of whom lost their entire life savings, are demanding to know why it has taken the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs over 240 days to complete its investigation. On August 12, 1987, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) assured us that he was "looking into" allegations of misrepresentation. On August 13, 1987, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) said that his Department was "attaching high priority to this matter". On August 26 the same Minister said in this House that the investigation would be completed by the end of August. The Minister was later criticized by a bureaucrat in his own Department for going "a little too far".
Eight months later, despite all this talk of action, the investigation is still not completed and thousands of investors are demanding to know why.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Brain Trust did so much ripping at its meeting in Vancouver last weekend, where the free trade pact was discussed, that it reminded me of Rip Van Winkle.
"Rip it up! Rip it up", cried the Right Hon. John Turner. "Don't rip it up. Don't rip it up", shouted Paul Martin, an alleged rising star in the Liberal Party.

February 8, 1988
"Rip, rip, rip!" "Don't rip, don't rip!" "Rip, rip!" "Don't rip, don't rip!"
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) may rip the Liberal Party apart if he does not wake up and join Don Johnston.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, Fort Albany is a small Indian community on the western shore of James Bay. There are 130 children, from kindergarten to grade eight, who attend the local school. Their school is a fire trap.
The school's fire hazards were brought to the attention of the Department of Indian Affairs in 1986, and again in 1987, with little response. A recent evaluation by an architectural firm from Winnipeg states that the fire detection, fire alarm and fire-fighting systems are completely inadequate. The firm recommends closing the school immediately. The firm states: "Without over-emphasizing the situation, we suggest that the lives of the children are hanging in the balance".
The Minister must move quickly to make this school safe from the threat of fire. Plans for the construction of a new school, scheduled for completion in four years, must be accelerated. Prompt action now can prevent a disaster.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday in Nepean-Carleton, the Hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) opened Northern Telecom's new Advanced Semi Conductor Technology Centre built at a cost of $106 million. This is one of the most significant high-technology investments made by the private sector in Canada in the last decade.
In addition, Northern Telecom's research and operating expenses related to the centre will exceed $205 million between 1986 and 1990.
Northern Telecom is the world's leading supplier of fully digital telecommunications systems and the fourth largest manufacturer of telecommunications systems in the world. Its goal is to achieve world leadership in telecommunications by the year 2000. The company chose Canada for this major
investment because of availability of skilled personnel, enhanced trading relations with the U.S., and a favourable tax environment.
Friday was a day to celebrate, in both Nepean-Carleton and Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the violence in the Middle East has left three more dead and scores injured. While the Israeli Government seeks control through beatings and killings, the persistent resistance of Palestinian youths attests to the bankruptcy of this policy. Until now the Canadian Government has failed either to issue a diplomatic protest or ask the Israelis to show restraint.
The Israelis and the world now know that the Palestinian call for a homeland demands an urgent response or the Middle East will plunge into dangerous and violent anarchy which will threaten not only the existence of Israel, but world peace.
A long-term solution must be found and an international peace conference will provide a means. More than once the opportunity to resolve the Palestinian problem has been lost because Governments dithered. It is imperative that we do not allow this to happen again. I therefore call upon the Canadian Government to state its support for such a conference and commit itself to working towards its accomplishment with the urgency the situation demands. If this effort is made, perhaps some good can yet come from this turmoil.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the House is the only institution in Canada where Members can exercise complete freedom of expression without consequence. This intrinsic right, however, entails a heavy burden of responsibility. By our actions we set the moral agenda for present and future generations. Recent events in this House are reason to examine this right more closely.
As a Member who was born and spent the early portion of his life in Holland, I am familiar with the rules and regulations of European Parliaments. When Members in those democracies comment on an event involving individuals, they must be certain of the facts before any names are used. Innuendo, circumstance, and partial facts are not allowed. That protects
February 8, 1988

individuals as well as the integrity of Parliament and its Members.
A few weeks ago the Leader of the Socialist Party of Canada underscored this point when, using a newspaper article as his source, he accused an innocent person of being a Palestinian terrorist. Freedom of expression means honour, integrity, and responsibility. If we follow these ideals, then no one will be hurt.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, once again Canada's space agency has been launched into the world of publicity, but not to the stars and not into orbit. Once again the Government's launch was aborted, and once again its lack of leadership has hit the news. This time it is the frustrated former head of the agency who resigned because of the Conservatives' inertia and inability to take a decision on whether the agency's headquarters should be in Ottawa or Montreal. We have been waiting more than 16 months for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to make up his mind, and we are still waiting today.
The Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) said the delay had put a lot of extra pressure on Art Collin. More than six months ago the Minister asked the Prime Minister to make a quick decision, and Mr. Ken Lewis, head of the Canadian Aerospace Industries Association, said Canadians are the victims of the space agency delay. If the Government cannot make a decision, who the heck can? Let us have a decision on the space agency as soon as possible.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of paragraphs from a letter from a constituent of mine, a union member who is extremely upset:
Dear Felix:
Why do I have to support the NDP with my union dues? More than half of my buddies can't stomach the Socialists, especially here in Manitoba. We're paying through the nose here because of those "beep beep" Socialists under Howard Pawley.
Felix, can't you make a law that stops our union from automatically taking and giving my hard-earned money to Socialists?
Do I, as a Canadian, not have the right to object to this misuse of union funds? Aren't the NDP collecting campaign funds in an illegal fashion this way?



S. 0. 21

[Stage Direction]
Felix, I read in the Hansard you sent to me that the municipal NDP
candidates were funnelling money as a tax rip-off through their federal party.
There is nothing democratic about this situation. Please help.
Signed, Bill.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) announced last week the establishment of a permanent military base in Nanisivik, Northwest Territories. The Minister promised there would be consultation on the cultural, social, and environmental impacts of this project.
The Government does not have a good record of listening to northerners. The concerns of the Innuit with regard to low level military flights, and of the residents of Cold Lake, Alberta, with regard to Cruise missile testing, have fallen on deaf ears.
I call on the Minister to set out a specific timetable for the consultation process that will take place with groups such as the territorial Government, local communities-particularly those of Nanisivik and Arctic Bay-environmental groups, and other interested groups, and to ensure that the current land claims negotiations between the Tungavik Federation of Nunavit and the federal Government will be respected.
Further, the Minister must ensure that northerners benefit from any development in the North. I call upon the Minister of National Defence to guarantee that skilled job opportunities with commensurate training will be available to the people in whose area this project is built.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, last week we witnessed the NDP's dilemma of whether to reject the Party's longstanding policy to pull Canada out of NATO. While anxiously awaiting the result of this battle between ideology and pragmatism, we witness the now true colours of the Liberal Party as articulated this weekend by their Leader (Mr. Turner).
After some 20 years of neglecting our Armed Forces and of not pulling our weight in NATO, we see that the Liberals would further weaken our already rusty Navy while at the same time threaten our traditional freedoms and values by planning to abandon the NATO Alliance.

February 8, 1988
Oral Questions
The Liberals plan to demilitarize the Arctic, yet the Soviet Union has some 200 nuclear powered submarines, with a new one off the assembly line every five weeks. The Liberals plan to discontinue Cruise missile testing, while the Soviet Union continues to fly simulated attacks on the North American continent with their Cruise missile carriers, the Bear H Bombers.
During the last election campaign we found that the Liberals turned to Washington for their foreign and defence policy. In an attempt to swing their Party to the left are they now seeking their policy from Moscow?
Now is the time for solidarity in the NATO alliance, not a time to grab at superficially attractive but substantially inadequate measures.



CALL FOR LABELLING OF FAST FOODS

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I think the saddest moment I have experienced as a Member of Parliament was when I had a lady in my office last December whose son had died after eating a fast-food apple turnover at Arby's. She cried in my office and said that he died in her husband's arms and he did not even have a chance to wake up. He knew that he had a problem with the food but, unfortunately, the Government has not required labelling of fast foods.
At the time I was so moved that, rather than making a partisan issue of it, I spoke to the Minister directly and asked whether there was something we could do to the Food and Drugs Act to prevent this kind of tragedy from occurring again. I waited some time and nothing was forthcoming. In mid-January I made plans to introduce a Private Members' Bill by seeking legal drafting. 1 have been waiting for that.
In the meantime another young woman has died. How many young people in the prime of their lives have to be snatched away before we in fact take some action with respect to labelling of fast foods? McDonald's has money for packaging to sell the clowns and the sizzle. Why can it not simply mark what is included in fast foods in order to prevent the senseless deaths and tragedies that we saw recently in Ottawa, and before that in the city of Burlington?
I ask the Minister to support a request I will be making tonight before the Committee on National Health and Welfare to have the Government move with regulations on fast food labelling.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals once again with the resignation of the former Minister of Supply and Services.
According to a report published in Le Soleil, the Rivard, Hickson and Sirois lawfirm paid some $200,000 toward the purchase of the former Minister's house.
In view of the fact that Mr. Jean Sirois was appointed Chairman of the Board of Telefilm Canada some two weeks later, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us whether it was by a happy coincidence that Mr. Jean Sirois was chosen for that job, rather than someone else?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which does not touch upon the Government's responsibilities. The transactions between a Minister and someone else in this instance are not presently under any inquiry of the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member begins his supplementary question, I must say that I was listening carefully to the question and I think that the answer that has been given is probably a right observation procedurally. I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed with some care.


TELEFILM CANADA-APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the appointment of Mr. Jean Sirois as Chairman of the Board of Telefilm Canada was an Order in Council appointment, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why this individual was hired for this job and why, in particular, he received a salary of $64,225 a year when his predecessor's salary was $13,325 a year?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that the Government is prepared to answer questions on government policy. With all due respect, however, I am not nor do I think any one in the Ministry is in a position to answer that particular question.
February 8, 1988


PURCHASE OF FORMER MINISTERS HOUSE-APPOINTMENT TO TELEFILM BOARD
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister will know that Order in Council appointments are the responsibility of Cabinet and, more particularly, of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House now why that particular individual who, along with others, had contributed to the purchase of the Minister's former house, was chosen for that position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the Hon. Member suggesting or making some charge of wrongdoing with respect to some individual in relation to a purchase of a house by a Minister? If so, this is not the proper place to make it. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


ISSUANCE OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When he announced the resignation of the former Minister of Supply and Services, he said that it was because the Minister did not report a loan as required by the conflict of interest guidelines, and described it as a technical violation.
However, on the weekend we learned that the Minister, who is responsible for government purchasing, had taken this loan from an individual whose corporate enterprises had been given large government contracts. Does the Prime Minister not consider this behaviour as a conflict of interest and not a mere technical violation? Why was it not reported as such? When will the Prime Minister give us the full details with respect to this loan?
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the firms of Adelard Laberge and Talbot Hunter have been on the government supply list for some time-in fact Adelard Laberge since 1979 and Talbot Hunter since 1973. In other words, they have been supplying the Government for some time and there is no suggestion of any improprieties.
We are presently conducting an investigation. As soon as the examination is complete a full report will be made available.


Mr. Allmand:: No Minister received a loan of $250,000 in the period of time referred to by the Minister.


Mr. Crosbie:: How do you know?


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, reported these matters to the Prime Minister's Office over a year ago. How can the Prime Minister or his Deputy House Leader say that the Government did not know about these matters? Why did it take them so long to act on them?
Oral Questions
Finally, do the Prime Minister and the Government intend to act on the request by the Member for Rosemount, the former Minister, when she asks for a Royal Commission to look into all these very shady matters?
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House, a full inquiry is taking place by the government officials. I think my hon. friend made a mistake when he referred to the Minister of Energy.
As soon as the failure to report was reported to the Prime Minister, the Minister's resignation was demanded.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa in a moment.
1 listened carefully to the question. I think that perhaps the Hon. Member mentioned the Minister of Energy in error. I want to be sure that the record is accurate on that point. Perhaps the Hon. Member can assist the Chair and indicate whether he meant the Minister of Energy or another Minister.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Minister of Energy is reported to have told the Prime Minister's Office more than a year ago about these matters relating to the former Minister of Supply and Services yet nothing was done. It was in that respect that I mentioned the Minister of Energy.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Prime Minister. They concern two subjects about which I wrote the Prime Minister on Friday.
The Prime Minister will recall that last Tuesday he asked for and obtained the resignation of a Minister of the Crown because, in his words, the Minister failed to register a personal loan. Since Section 24 of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest guidelines requires all members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, to register "all direct and contingent liabilities", why did the Prime Minister not act in compliance with this section by registering the moneys that he received from the PC Canada Fund?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on January 19 the Leader of the NDP rose in the House of Commons and made a false accusation against the wrong man, Mr. Mohammad. On Friday he made another false accusation, using misinformation about me and about my family.

February 8, 1988
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: What is the accusation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He did indeed. The Leader of the NDP on Friday said that either he was telling the truth last year when he said it was a loan, in which case it has to be registered, or it is not a loan, to put it bluntly, and they were lying to the people of Canada. The answer is that it was not either/or. The answer is that it was neither.
There is a statement issued today by Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Assistant Deputy Registrar General of Canada, which states the following:
In view of the confusion surrounding this matter, however, I wish to make it clear that my Office has been aware of the Prime Minister's arrangements with the P.C. Canada Fund since they were first mentioned publicly and at no time have I or my predecessor or anyone else considered them to be related in any way to the Code.
Moreover, were I asked today if these arrangements are covered by the Code. I would advise that they are not and I would consequently state that they do not constitute a potential conflict of interest, an apparent one, or a real one, and that they do not require to be reported under the Code.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTENT OF GUIDELINES-RF.GISTRATION QUERY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. It would have helped if the Prime Minister had answered the question. The question refers to a very specific section of his guidelines where it states that all direct and contingent liabilities ought to be registered. My question was straightforward. I asked him why it was not registered. I asked him that particularly in light of the fact that the same gentleman to whom he referred, prior to the weekend indicated in his view, in terms that we all understand, that money obtained under those circumstances did indeed constitute a liability. The question was straightforward when I put it to the Prime Minister, and I would still like an answer.
Could the Prime Minister, who is responsible for those guidelines, and who has heard the wording twice from me already, tell us why, in his view, the moneys he received from the PC Canada Fund ought not to be registered? It is a straightforward question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am under no illusions with the Leader of the NDP, and I say this with some sadness. He has become the master of calumny of the thirty-second clip.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question now, Mr. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to continue his answer, and as much as possible I would ask all Hon. Members to contain their language during this exchange.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that he made no apology to Mr. Mohammad or his family for having unfairly defamed them, and I expect none today from the Hon. Member. That is becoming, unfortunately, his tradition of throwing out falsehoods and accusations that he cannot sustain, and then backing away from them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Look who is talking.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that earlier this morning 1 made it very clear that I expected all Hon. Members to exercise this Question Period at a proper level of parliamentary procedure. I asked Hon. Members who were asking questions to think through very carefully their preambles. While there may be a little straying, there is some indication that those admonishments have been respected.
I would expect that all other Hon. Members, who may be in a position to answer questions, try to ensure that their answers are also as procedurally proper as can be.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, clearly the New Democratic Leader refuses to accept a completely watertight statement. I will therefore read once more the statement just issued by Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Assistant Deputy Registrar General, who concludes the following:
"In view of the confusion surrounding this matter, however, I wish to make it clear that my Office has been aware of the Prime Minister's arrangements with the PC Canada Fund since they were first mentioned publicly and at no time have I or my predecessor or anyone else considered them to be related in any way to the Code. Moreover, were I asked today if these arrangements are covered by the Code, I would advise that they are not and I would consequently state that they do not constitute a potential conflict of interest, an apparent one, or a real one, and that they do not require to be reported under the Code.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to know now what other kinds of loans will not have to be registered. We know that loans from the PC Canada Fund do not have to be, and Canadians will be very interested to know what other kinds of loans will not have to be registered.
[ Translation]


MICHEL COTE AFFAIR-QUERY WHY PRIME MINISTER WAITED YEAR BEFORE ACTING
John Edward Broadbent: But my last question deals with a different matter. According to a report published in Le Devoir, a newspaper that is well respected in Quebec and other provinces, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
February 8, 1988

informed the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary in November of 1986 of certain allegations concerning former Minister Cote. If that was accurate, why did the Prime Minister wait a year before acting?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to a report according to which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources informed,
I am told, on November 10, 1986 my Principal Secretary of some matter. As it happens, on November 10, 1986, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was abroad.


STATEMENT RELEASED BY ASSISTANT DEPUTY REGISTRAR GENERAL
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister on the statement of Jean-Pierre Kingsley which I understand was released at two o'clock just before Question Period began.
I understand that on Friday, Mr. Lortie, the Press Secretary for the Prime Minister, described the payments made by the PC Canada Fund for the Prime Minister as advances. That same day Jean-Pierre Kingsley stated that funds made available to a Minister, whether called a loan or an advance, are subject to the conflict of interest rules.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell the House exactly what was it that led Mr. Kingsley to issue his statement today, taking a position which seemed quite at odds with the one he took on Friday. Could he help the House to understand exactly what happened over the weekend?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to help my hon. friend. Mr. Kingsley sets it out very clearly in the first two paragraphs:
In view of statements attributed to me in the media relating to the "Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders" and the Prime Minister's arrangements with the P.C. Canada fund, I wish to clarify the matter.
Last week, in response to inquiries from representatives of the media, the Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party, 1 advised on what constituted a liability, a loan, and an advance on a loan concerning public office holders generally. I have always refused to discuss the individual situation of any public office holder and I avoided commenting on the Prime Minister's arrangements with the P.C. Canada Fund, either directly or indirectly.
Some Members took the liberty of extrapolating from that statement a conclusion against me. The conclusion was false.
I say to the Leader of the NDP or the House Leader of the Liberal Party: If you have any charge to make against me or my family, rise in your place and make it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


INTERPRETATION OF GUIDELINES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I and other Members of the House have a perfect right to know the extent to which the Prime Minister is applying to himself his own conflict of interest guidelines and whether he is dealing differently with himself, for example, than he dealt with the Hon. Member for Langelier.
Now we have Mr. Kingsley's statement, and I want to ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us whether Mr. Kingsley has gone into detail on exactly what loans or advances to Ministers are now acceptable under his guidelines. Can he answer that question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is a classic illustration of the recklessness of the Opposition in regard to the truth. Mr. Kingsley puts out a statement which clearly deals specifically with the question raised by the Leader of the NDP and the House Leader of the Liberal Party and, notwithstanding that, he refuses to accept the word of a senior public official of the Government of Canada and tries to cast aspersions.
I tell my hon. friend, and 1 tell the Leader of the NDP, that while I accept the cut and thrust of partisan debate, 1 believe that Canadians think, in regard to the matters that you persist in raising every day, you have crossed the boundaries of fairness and propriety. You have gone too far.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for CMHC. In view of Metro Toronto's housing crisis due partly to the high cost of land there, what initiative can and will the Minister take to free up some of the land now being held in Metro by the Government, including 50 acres around the offices of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself, as well as some lands in the city of Scarborough?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public W'orks):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, a report was commissioned and filed by Mr. McLaughlin who studied all federal sites in the city of Toronto. That study is now being analysed to see if there are any surplus properties that might be made available for housing or for any other reason.
We hope to have the results of that report and that analysis reasonably soon.

February 8, 1988
Oral Questions


CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know that one of the most respected journalists in the province of Quebec reported last Friday that in November, 1986-I would not know the precise date-the Prime Minister's Office was made aware of concerns and scandals, and specifically of problems in the case of the Minister, now the Hon. Member for Langelier, about his personnal debts and the cost of his lifestyle. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not deny that report so far. He did not comment it at all.
Could the Prime Minister confirm that discussions have been held in his office with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on or about November 1986, about problems in Quebec City? If so, why no action has been taken for 15 months?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just returned from Saint John, New Brunswick, where they are very interested in the regional development policies of my hon. friend. They want to see my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre who announced that the NDP regional development policy was to take business away from the Saint John Shipyards in Atlantic Canada. They do not think that is much of a regional development policy at all, and they are waiting for you in the Maritimes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will want to take a look at the newspaper clipping to which my hon. friend refers in regard to a respected journalist, as he says, from the Province of Quebec. I will take a look at it.
My information is that it contains a specific date, in which case my information is that during the time when this meeting was alleged to have taken place the Minister in question was out of the country.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER S OFFICE HAD BEEN
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want an "open" answer from the Prime Minister who has had four days now-the PMO has had four days to confirm or deny the article published in Le Soleil by one of the most respected journalists in Quebec. Yes or no, during the month of November 1986-I do not have the exact date-did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Quebec's "political" Minister in the Conservative Cabinet, tell the Prime Minister's Office about serious problems concerning the
life style and personal debts of the former Minister of Supply and Services, the Hon. Member for Langelier? And why was nothing done for at least 15 months after being advised that journalists wanted to write articles on this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 listened very carefully to that question and 1 cannot help but note that a lifestyle or some debts are not necessarily any kind of criminal offence. I just want to make that observation before the Government replies, and 1 would ask that in that reply Ministers keep carefully in mind exactly what the question was.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. Having failed in their first attempt to smear the Prime Minister of Canada, the NDP Members-conceited as they are-are now trying to stain the reputation of other persons. Please, talk about issues like employment, regional development, interest rates, national unity, talk about something but not garbage!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have in my hand a copy of the statement by Jean-Pierre Kingsley, which was given to Members just before Question Period.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the interpretation by Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley of the Conflict of Interest Code, specifically Section 24, Members can only be left with the conclusion that all loans arranged by Ministers of the Crown through Party funds, or for that matter by extension through riding association funds, are not subject to the Code. 1 ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member suggesting that there is any accusation around any Minister getting money from Party funds?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I just want that clear in the question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think if you check the "blues", you will see that I have made no accusation. I am asking a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Given my premise and given that the Prime Minister intends to publish soon, we are told, new conflict of interest guidelines for public office holders, specifically

February 8, 1988

Ministers of the Crown, will this interpretation, if it stands with respect to Section 24 and which 1 submit would be an enormous loophole, be closed in the exercise of publishing new conflict of interest guidelines?
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kingsley's statement is straighforward. If that statement raises some concerns with the Hon. Member, it seems to me quite appropriate to discuss those concerns whenever some legislation is tabled in the House. We all want reasonable and leakproof rules to govern the conduct of Hon. Members and Ministers. Therefore, I will listen carefully to any new suggestion from my hon. colleague.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CLOSE POSSIBLE LOOPHOLE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Prime Minister that given the interpretation of Section 24 as outlined today by Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley in his letter versus a strict reading of Section 24, we have an obvious, massive, grey area. I submit it is a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through.
Can the Prime Minister give the House an undertaking today that he will specifically look at Section 24 and the interpretation of Jean-Pierre Kingsley, as outlined in his letter, with a view to closing any possible loophole that will allow public office holders, specifically cabinet Ministers, to use Party fund-raising apparatus as a means of obtaining loans that otherwise would not have to be reported?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have just seen a situation with regard to the Elections Act where clearly, on behalf of all Members of Parliament in all political Parties, changes ought to be made. That Act has to be tightened up to protect Members of Parliament against inadvertent errors that could result in unfair charges against a Member in any political Party. That, I think, should be part of our urgent review to make sure that Members of Parliament are not needlessly or unfairly dealt with pursuant to the Elections Act.
It may very well be that when my hon. friend sees the new legislation he will want to raise concerns, to tighten up any suggestions to make the legislation better and more reasonable. Indeed, I will listen with care. What I am looking for is what I am sure all Members of Parliament are looking for, namely, the highest standards which require integrity on behalf of all Members of Parliament on behalf of the national interest which we all seek to serve.
Oral Questions ABORTION


SUPREME COURT DECISION POSITION OF B.C. PREMIER ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This past weekend the Premier of British Columbia defied the spirit of the Supreme Court decision on Canadian abortion laws, contrary to the Health Care Act.
When the Minister meets with his provincial counterparts will he make sure that Canadians right across the country have fair access to health care?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House last week, I have written to all my provincial counterparts asking for their views.
I think all Members, regardless of what position they take on the question of abortion, and specifically the Supreme Court decision, know that it is not only complicated but also that it runs very deeply into various areas of administration and public concern. The Government, as the Minister of Justice indicated earlier, will come forward with a policy, but we will do it when those consultations have taken place.


CANADA HEALTH ACT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 10 days now since the Supreme Court decision came out. The Premier of British Columbia is creating a two-tier system, one for the rich and one for the poor. It is very, very irresponsible of the Minister if he does not make a decision very quickly that the Canada Health Act be certainly met by every province in Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I take it that that was a statement and not a question.


SECTION 7 OF ACT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister on the same subject. Does he feel that Section 7 of the Canada Health Act is currently being respected?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, Sections 8 to 12 of the Canada Health Act very clearly spell out the principles of the Canada Health Act, and Sections 13 and 14 very clearly spell out the action which the Minister has to take.


REQUEST FOR MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to give me an answer to a very simple question.

February 8, 1988
Oral Questions
Does he believe that Section 7 is being respected? If he believes there is a problem with respect to the application of the Canada Health Act, as set out in Section 7 dealing with principles of comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility, will the Minister within the next 48 hours convene a meeting of the Ministers of Health across the country so that we can start to return some order into the chaos that has erupted as a result of the Government's lack of leadership?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court heard the case and took approximately 16 months to come forward with its decision. I think any person who has looked at the issue will agree that some time can and should be taken on these very sensitive issues before a decision is made.
The Member mentions Section 7. I have already indicated, through Sections 8 to 12 and 13 and 14, the exact position of the Canada Health Act.


BANK OF CANADA
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister, I am sure, will have noted that various Members of this House, particularly from my Party, as well as government Members and the Premier of Quebec, last week called upon the Government to institute a lower interest rate policy. In fact Mr. Bourassa stated that the high interest rate policy is causing a loss of jobs and that the Government can and should instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to lower the rates.
Does the Minister agree with the Premier of Quebec, or does he agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the tight monetary policy that that institution is following?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think what Mr. Bourassa has said in terms of the over-all desire for increased economic growth is something which this Government shares and has demonstrated with the policies we have followed and a broad range of things we have done over the last three and a half years.
What I have made very clear, and I will state quite clearly in the House today, is that we are in support of the monetary policy that has been conducted by the Bank of Canada.
I want to draw to the attention of the Member that in previous times, particularly in the 1970s when inflationary pressures were ignored, this led to considerable economic problems which took a long time to work their way out of the system. It is important to head these inflationary problems off in their earliest stages, rather than letting them develop to the magnitude which they did before.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO BANK GOVERNOR
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. On the one hand we have a government policy attempting to keep the Canadian dollar down, or at least stable in its relationship with the U.S. dollar, yet on the other hand we continue a high interest rate policy forcing the dollar up. The result is a loss of Canadian jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is the Minister of Finance not prepared to instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to ease up on the monetary policy so that people in Saskatchewan, in rural areas in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces, and in many regions of this country with high unemployment, know that at least there is a monetary policy to help those regions and create more employment in all our regions?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member has to cast his mind farther afield than on just one element of economic policy. What has produced the good economic results in Canada has been a range of economic initiatives taken by the Government.
If I may quote Peter Martin, chief economist for the investment dealers McLeod, Young, Weir, described in The Gazette as an influential voice in the financial community in Canada, he said: "They have had a fabulous economic policy, the best economic performance in Canada's history and an extremely good fiscal policy".
That is what we are standing on. We have followed a range of policies that were first enunciated in September, 1984. The over-all result is the creation of over 1,150,000 jobs, an economic growth in Canada that is best of the G-7 countries, an employment growth in Canada that is best of the major industrialized countries, and an inflation rate that is stable, but on the high side in relation to Japan, Germany and France. It is that inflation rate that we would like to see down a little bit further to improve our competitive position and to improve the job-creating performance that we have today.


TEXTILE EXPORTS -MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES TRADE AMBASSADOR
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Could the Minister confirm that at that meeting in fact the U.S. officials asked Canada to withdraw its proposals? Could he tell us whether the Canadian decision still stands firm to hold towards a program of aiding the garment and apparel people in this country so they will be able to compete properly and effectively?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer in part to the Hon. Member's question is, yes, 1 met with Mr. Yeutter at the meeting in Switzerland. But the content of that meeting, I think, the Hon. Member, who was himself a Minister, would understand is a matter of confidence between Mr. Yeutter and myself.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-U.S. SENATORS' LETTER
Lloyd Axworthy: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister for International Trade. I have here a copy of a letter that was sent by a number of Senators in the U.S. Finance Committee, which is responsible for approving the proposed Canada-U.S. agreement, to Mr. Clayton Yeutter. It is signed by the chairman, Mr. Bentsen, and a number of other Senators. It states that before the committee will turn its attention to the specifics of implementing legislation on the Canada-U.S. agreement, the Congress wants to know how the administration intends to deal with the proposed Canadian moves on both textiles and import controls on dairy products, two very important ingredients in terms of the competitiveness of our own industry.
In light of this kind of position being taken by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee to the U.S. administration, is it not the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to report to this House whether the Government is now under some form of threat, or intimidation, or pressure to change its position? Can we get a firm confirmation that the Minister does not intend to change the position on either the textile remissions or the proposals on import controls for the dairy products of Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility for duty remissions prompts me to answer that supplementary question. I am delighted the Hon. Member is expressing concern about the Canada-U.S. agreement perhaps not being passed. 1 am pleased he has expressed this concern. Perhaps he will join in helping us bring it about.
More importantly, I feel that quotations from the United States on the duty remission scheme from Canada are vastly premature. We have no formal position in place. We have no program in place. We have no level in place.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: Therefore, statements from the Americans are totally premature at this time.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Here we go again.


HOUSING
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well. It also relates to the affordable housing crisis in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area at the present time. As the Minister is aware, the Government is sitting on some 250 acres of vacant land at the Downsview air base. Will the Minister give the House his assurance today that that land will be made available for affordable housing just as quickly as possible?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, as I previously indicated to another question, we are looking at the McLaughlin report. I might note that the fiscal and housing policies of the Government have realized some 55,000 housing starts in the Toronto area in the last two years, 2,200 of them directed toward social housing. Those are record-breaking numbers that should be observed.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be aware that his British Columbia counterpart has recently announced that the Province of British Columbia plans to withdraw unilaterally from the Economic and Regional Development Agreements, thereby causing even more difficulties in terms of that regional economy getting back on its feet. In light of this rather peculiar initiative by a Finance Minister from one of our provinces, could the Minister of Finance indicate, first, whether or not he is aware of this withdrawal and, if so, what the Government has considered doing about it?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the question put by the Hon. Member is hypothetical. We are aware that the Province of British Columbia is reconsidering its approach to economic development. Talks are taking place between officials of both Governments concerning the ERDAs which do exist in the province. No decision has been made, to our

February 8, 1988
Oral Questions
knowledge, by the province to withdraw unilaterally. My colleague, the Minister responsible for WDO, is in close contact with British Columbia and is looking after the issue.


FEDERAL GOVERN MENT'S POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Minister that I am also in close contact with British Columbia. The Minister of Finance announced a few days ago that the Government of British Columbia was in fact unilaterally withdrawing-had withdrawn-from the ERDA agreement. That has been confirmed as late as this afternoon.
Knowing that the Government of British Columbia had decided to abandon its serious pursuit of economic development in that province, and considering the extremely high unemployment levels throughout the interior and coastal areas of the Province of British Columbia, will the Government now take some initiative on the eve of the Budget to indicate that, while the Government of British Columbia might abandon its business sector and any attempt at economic development, this Government will plan on some special economic affirmative action program to counter that province's particular inaction?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, quite in line with our policy of national reconciliation, I do not think it is the intention of the federal Government to dictate to British Columbia how it should deal with economic development within that province. What we have told British Columbia, and what Members of this House will know, is that the Government, through the western diversification initiative, is fully ready and willing to co-operate with British Columbia to address the economic issues affecting that province, and that is what we are doing.


HOUSING
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister responsible for CMHC. In the area of Vaughan, adjacent to the riding of Willowdale, there is also a large parcel of land about to be sold. Can the Minister assure the House that this land will be used, or can be used, for building reasonably priced homes?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular parcel of land in question. However, if the Hon. Member would like to give me particulars and indicate his particular wish, I would be happy to direct Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to review the possibilities and report to him.


IMPORT CONTROLS ON DAIRY COMMODITIES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. In light of the letter written by Lloyd Bentsen, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the United States Senate, to Mr. Yeutter, concerning the imposition of import controls on dairy commodities which the Minister of Agriculture announced with great flourish at the meeting of dairy producers of Canada in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, is the Minister now saying that these import controls were not passed as a cabinet order? Are they not in place? Could he clarify just what the position of the Government is now in this respect?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure the Hon. Member that the measures announced by the Minister of Agriculture are in fact valid measures and are in place as appropriate.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the three Ministers of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It concerns the hardship that has been worked on dairy farmers by the Government. I want to ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture if the statements made by the new Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Jim Hewitt, represent government policy. He said that farmers will be dealing with a tougher, unforgiving federal loan agency in the future, and that the agency will move against farmers who cannot make their payments. I wonder if the Acting Minister of Agriculture can say if that represents government policy or whether Mr. Hewitt was just talking off the top of his head.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the statements of Mr. Hewitt will be examined and the Minister of Agriculture will respond to them tomorrow.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Late show!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody is rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. St. Germain:: A question, not a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.
February 8, 1988



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, and is supplementary to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. Mr. Marchi: That is not a supplementary.


Gerry St. Germain: It is a supplementary, i would like the Minister to state clearly in this House, and eliminate any confusion in British Columbia, that the western diversification initiative and all federal programs will remain in place and will progress for British Columbians as set out. Would he verify that, please?


Bernard Valcourt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to say something to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. It may very well be that on his question, which turned out to be completely appropriate, I interrupted too soon. 1 want to apologize to the Hon. Member.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
WAYS AND MEANS-DESIGNATION OF ORDER OF THE DAY Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to move the following order immediately and vote on it without debate, it concerns the Budget. I move: That further to the order of the House of Jan. 29, 1988 respecting arrangements for budget day, Feb. 10, 1988, the following paragraph be inserted between the first and second paragraphs of the said order:
That, immediately following such budget statement, the House shall revert to the routine proceeding "Introduction of Government Bills" and, following introduction and first reading of such Bill or Bills, the Speaker shall recognize a Member of the Official Opposition in debate on Ways and Means proceedings No. 29; and
There have been discussions among the House Leaders and I appreciate their co-operation in this matter.
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 just wanted to report that indeed there were consultations and what the Hon. Minister has just explained to the House appears to be a true reflection of the agreement reached.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased we are to lend our support to this initiative. In this way the entire budget package will be before the people of Canada on budget night as opposed to dribs and drabs coming out over the following weeks. We appreciate this initiative so that we and the people of Canada can have a comprehensive view of the Budget and its implications on budget night.
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in my eight and a half years in this House 1 have never risen on such a question and in many ways I am hoping that before we are done it will go away; that the graciousness and integrity for which this House is known will prevail, and it will not have to be carried even further.
You may have noticed that during Question Period on Friday, on the basis of what I heard, I was obviously distraught and disturbed. This morning I had the opportunity to read Hansard and that reading confirmed the feeling 1 had at that time. Sometimes during Question Period we may or may not hear correctly and I hesitated to raise the matter until I had Hansard in front of me.
Privilege is a time-honoured tradition in this House, and I think Joseph Maingot's book, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, has for many of us been the definitive work on privilege in the House of Commons. Those privileges can be breached in a general way when Members or the press or anyone else shows contempt for the Chamber. It can also be argued as to what constitutes contempt. I think it can also be corrected if the record is corrected by the Hon. Member who made the statement. I am referring to statements made in this House by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) as shown on page 12672 of Hansard of Friday, February 5. In his opening statement the Hon. Member said:
Mr. Speaker, in addition to what we already knew, we are learning this
morning-
I would like to stop there for a second and point out to the House that there is information available, about the situation which is the subject matter of the question, which is not known to all Members of the House but is known to members who sat on the committee. It is known to those of us who were not members of the committee but who sat through the hearings.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques was and is a member of the committee and he sat through two very traumatic hearings on Wednesday and Thursday of last week, February 3 and February 4, in which matters related to the Elections Commissioner, evidence collected by the RCMP, and conclusions reached by the Commissioner, were the subject of some five hours of testimony. I assume that the Hon. Member is speaking about what we already knew in the context of his continued attendance at that committee, including questions he asked and information which was given to him by the Commissioner and others in response to those questions.

February 8, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
His words "we are learning this morning" refers to an article in the Montreal Gazette which supposedly put new information on the table. It may have seemed like new information to many Members of this Chamber and the general public, but to members who sat on the committee it was not new information.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary for the last four or five minutes and 1 do not understand the question of privilege he is trying to develop. He said himself that the assumptions he made are wrong. 1 would like to know exactly what the point of order is so that we can deal with it in a thorough manner. It is not a question of privilege if, as 1 understand, his assumptions are wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could respond.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 will just go to the next part of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques' opening statement:
-we are learning this morning that the Minister of Energy would have overspent to the tune of $20,000-
I have in my hand The Gazette of that morning. I asked my office to carefully check other sources of information and the only source of information available about the overspending is in The Gazette article. The headline says: "Masse hid big outlays: RCMP allege" and then: "Affidavit filed by police during probe suggested excess spending of $20,000."
The affidavits mentioned in this particular newspaper article are related to the alleged overspending of the Minister. I want to point out that one of the statements in the article, and in many other articles over many other months, is:
By law Masse was allowed to spend $35,500 for his campaign in Frontcnac riding. He reported expenses of $32,941.
The publicly available document of election spending reported by the Minister reports spending of $52,328.92. That amount is approximately $20,000 higher than the amount mentioned in The Gazette article. Committee members are aware that affidavits were issued and searches were conducted in September and October. All members of the committee who attended the hearings are also aware that all of the evidence from those searches and seizures was presented to the committee and that the Electoral Commissioner-


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the alleged question of privilege of the Parliamentary Secretary, it relates to the preamble to the question put by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) yesterday. I repeat:
Mr. Speaker, in addition to what we already knew, we are learning this morning that the Minister of Energy would have overspent to the tune of $20,000-
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary then interjected and said "Wrong!" and others interjected. The Hon. Member for Saint-
Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) continued and said: "Information disclosed in 16 police raids has it that the Minister would not have reported the personal chauffeur" et cetera, and a number of other things, at which point I asked the Hon. Member to put his question.
It seems to me, unless I have misunderstood, that the point of the Parliamentary Secretary is that in some way the questions of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques leave an impression which is not consistent with the facts as were presented in the committee. Do I understand the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's point?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you do.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well you are wrong then. You cannot do that.


Jacques Guilbault: You cannot do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Go back to the committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This so-called new information mentions the 16 police raids-not 16 affidavits but 16 police raids. The evidence before committee is that all the evidence gathered through that investigation was presented to the Commissioner of Elections and the Commissioner of Elections decided that the Minister would not be charged for overspending, would not be charged for not reporting expenditures made-all of which would be breaches of the Act-would not be charged for signing in improper fashion an incorrect return, and not be charged for counselling anybody else to break the law. That is a brief summary of two days of testimony.
The Gazette story presents what the Member for Saint-Jacques describes as new information based on affidavits. I would like to read into the record a very brief exchange between the Member for Saint-Jacques and the-


Mr. Rossi:: You are boycotting the language Bill, Hawkes, and you know it. That is what you are doing.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion that is being made is that an Hon. Member has made statements in this House which, according to things which have taken place in committee with regard to the Hon. Minister of Energy, do not accurately reflect the situation. As I understand it that is the Parliamentary Secretary's procedural point.
It would seem to me that if the Chair were to find contempt or privilege the Chair would have to be satisfied that even if the statement was incorrect it carried an intention to mislead the House. It may be that hon. friends on the other side listening to the Parliamentary Secretary are a little concerned that that imputation may be being made here and they may very well want to offer it.
February 8, 1988

I think I have the Parliamentary Secretary's point and I have to ensure that 1 hear it all. However, I understood also that the Parliamentary Secretary may very well be saying that the newspaper is in contempt of this place. If that is the case, I would like to receive some instruction on that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the nub of the issue is that the privileges of the House, as they affect contempt, are based on the issue of anything which a Member does in the House which offends the dignity of the House. That is on page 14 of Mr. Maingot's book and it goes further in the same paragraph to provide such protection for officers of the House. The Elections Commissioner is indeed an officer of the House.
As the Member knew the testimony of the officer of the House you face the following situation, Mr. Speaker. If you accept that evidence from the officer of the House you then know that the so-called new information is not correct in many of its particulars, and in particular on the issue of overspending. You have another choice if you believe that the officer of the House has not told the committee the truth. In that case you can make a charge about the officer of the House.
However, it is not possible that the story is correct while at the same time the testimony of the commissioner is correct. There is a libel against the officer inherent in what was said or there is disrespect for the House involved in what was said, and for this Member in particular, who is the only member of the committee who brought forward an RCMP affidavit which the committee accepted and distributed to all Members. There was an exchange about the RCMP affidavit. If 1 could, just for one second, read from that exchange-


Mr. Speaker:: My difficulty is that while I think it is incumbent upon the Chair at some times to give considerable latitude, we are now getting into a debate over evidence or information. My difficulty is that I am not quite sure how far it leads. We cannot take up the whole of the afternoon trying to unravel what interpretation might be given.


Carlo Rossi: That is what he wants.


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying very hard to ensure that no one in this place imputes the motive of any Hon. Member and I am having some difficulty with interventions from somewhere on my left.
1 am essentially concerned that if this is to be privilege or contempt there has to be a clear indication that, prima facie, the Hon. Member made certain remarks with some deliberate intent to mislead this place or knowing something which, if the Hon. Member had paid any attention to it, would have kept him from making those comments. In other words, there must be some suggestion of intentional wrong-doing.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has certainly made a compelling argument that there are perhaps two sides to the
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
fact pattern. However, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has not gone so far as to suggest that whatever was in the preamble of the question of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques on Friday was an intent to deceive this place. It may very well be that two Members can come at the same set of facts with a different version.
However, my concern, again, is that the Speaker cannot decide which Member's version of the facts is the most accurate. I must decide whether there is a prima facie case of someone trying to mislead this place. That is the difficulty I am in. Perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could sum up and I will consider what other Hon. Members have to say.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 thank you for your wisdom, Mr. Speaker. It would be helpful if more time passed and we had the committee report and all of the testimony before the House. I would be quite willing to stand down at this time in light of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, because it is a difficult case for Members to understand without the transcripts and all the testimony available to them. Members would have to decide for themselves whether or not the knowledge which the Member for Saint-Jacques had by the time February 4 was over should have been used by him in dealing with the so-called new information on the fifth.
The whole issue of protection of the integrity of the House might go away if the Member, either at this moment or between now and then, reflected upon it. Perhaps we are simply dealing with someone who mis-spoke. You can see from the record that the Member was cut off. Had he been allowed to continue he may have had a chance to finish a set of ideas which, in themselves, constitute a kind of privilege. I would certainly be willing to let the matter rest for a while.


Mr. Speaker:: It may well be that the Chair, in intervening when I did, did the Hon. Member an injustice. I certainly did not want to do that. I will certainly hear the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), not for raising this confusing would-be question of privilege in the House, but rather for his courtesy this morning in advising my office that he would make an attempt at convincing Your Honour that I was in breach of privilege.
First, to clear the air, let me say that whatever I did last Friday-and I will come back to that-was in no way an attempt to try to mislead the House as to facts as I knew them. It was not an attempt to charge a Member of the House. 1 believe that over the years I have been known for using very straightforward language. If I had wanted to charge someone, I think everyone would have been able to realize it.

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was wise enough to guess that when I rose on Friday morning I was quoting the morning issue of The Gazette, from an article which I am holding, entitled "Masse Hid Big Outlays RCMP Alleged".
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is wrong in saying that this was the only place where the information could be found. It also appears in The Ottawa Citizen in an article entitled "Masse overspent by $20,000: Report". I have more than that now. I am holding a pile of affidavits which describe in detail what is only hinted at in these articles.
If I am guilty of something, it would be for quoting a press clipping without properly attributing the source. In fact, 1 had only three lines in Hansard in describing my preamble before I was interrupted by the Hon. Member who is raising the question of privilege and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid). I had little time to carry on describing what I was reading verbatim from The Gazette when Your Honour stood to say:
I think that the Hon. Member has put sufficient into his preamble to place
the question.
1 was getting to the point of quoting a couple of other items from the article and stating clearly that I was quoting from The Gazette.
I had to clarify this because if I made these statements on my own I believe I would have to account for them.
I did not even go as far as The Gazette. 1 can provide the Chair with a copy of the article that I was reading. If Your Honour reads the whole article, 1 think you will see that I was trying only to give the essential elements in the preamble to my question. Your Honour can analyse my statement that the Minister "would have overspent" with the article which states in much straighter language: "Mr. Masse's spending report made no mention". It is very clear. I was very careful to say "Would have overspent". I went on to say in my question, "Would not have reported", contrary to the article which makes an outright accusation.
I believe I can establish that I have been prudent in not trying to lay a charge in the House but to quote from a press report as a basis to a question, as has been done in the House dozens of times and continues today.
I suggest it is wrong for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to try to place before the House his confused interpretation of what transpired at committee hearings and allege that I should have known some of the things that happened in committee which would have prevented me from asking my question. Your Honour has known for a long time that one cannot raise a question of privilege because an Hon. Member does not understand committee proceedings the way another Member understands them.
1 will not go into the details but simply say that the information that was disclosed before the committee is an opinion of
officers of the House. It was clear from the testimony that we heard that this opinion is not shared equally by other participants in these inquiries, the RCMP. The RCMP will appear before the committee tomorrow night and if they give their testimony in accordance with some of the material I have, I think it is obvious that they will not come to the same conclusion as the lawyer from Elections Canada. I think that is all beside the point.
The real issue, I submit, is to determine whether I was willfully trying to mislead Parliament or charge the Minister. If there was anything that I said which led anyone to believe that I was trying to mislead the House, and it was interpreted that I did, I am ready to withdraw anything I said. I have never done that and will not start.
I make the same statement with respect to charging the Minister. I would not want anything I said to be interpreted as making a personal charge against an individual in the House. I will leave it up to the Chair to make a decision and will abide by the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for Saint Jacques I have listened with care. It is a complex matter and may well not have been made any easier by some reports in various places.
However, what is significant is that the Hon. Member for Saint Jacques has made it very clear that whatever differences there may be about what was said in committee or what ought to be known as a consequence of what was said, he did not at any time intend to either charge the Minister or to misrepresent or mislead this place. I think that is the end of the matter.



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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) had just completed his remarks. We are now in the question and comment period.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, one of my highest priorities ever since I came to Parliament in 1965 has been the protection of minority rights, whether these be racial, religious, ethnic, aboriginal or language rights. My constituency in Montreal, Notre-Dame-de-Grace, is a community of minorities. We have people from many races, religions and ethnic backgrounds.
February 8, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would like to make sure that the Hon. Member heard what I said. Is the Hon. Member on debate? I indicated that this was a period for questions and comments and I recognized the Hon. Member for a question or comment. However, as ( listen to him 1 believe he is entering into debate for which I will be delighted to recognize him later.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, 1 misunderstood. I was entering into debate. I will wait for the question period to finish.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), who expressed some of his views about the Official Languages Act.
I would like to ask him two specific questions about the administration of justice. Section 15 requires all courts except the Supreme Court of Canada to be perfectly bilingual within five years and also requires that the judge understand perfectly the language used.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether he believes that, within five years, every court in Canada except for the Supreme Court will be bilingual and that judges, even in Alberta or in Manitoba, will have to understand French perfectly, or does he think that this will not happen? That is my first question.
I have a second question about the language of work. Section 35 states that, in certain regions, employees in management positions must understand the language perfectly. Does the Hon. Member believe that it is realistic to implement such a provision in certain parts of Canada?


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to thank my colleague for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) for his interest in the official languages. First, as concerns the judges of a federal court, whether in Alberta or in another province, the important thing is to be able to provide judicial services in the language of choice when it is requested. This does not mean that we have to require that all judges of all federal courts throughout the province be perfectly bilingual.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-72 states that when the accused in a trial requests to be heard in French, he be given a Frenchspeaking or at least a bilingual judge, and that the judge be able to hear the accused in his mother tongue, whether English or French.
The Bill will certainly not require that all federal court judges in Alberta be bilingual. That is not the case. However, Alberta courts must be able to provide services to the accused in either official language, whether French or English. I can tell the Hon. Member for Calgary East that, in every province, the Department of Justice and the courts can now provide such services.
Official Languages Act
As for the second question about the language of work, especially as concerns supervisors and managers, this provision obviously applies to the language of work of the employees at a given office in a given location, not to the whole country.
If in St. John's, Newfoundland, there is a Federal National Revenue office where most of the employees are Englishspeaking with only one Francophone or bilingual employee, it is clear that English will be the language of work. It would not be administratively possible to demand, just because there is a bilingual or Francophone employee on the premises ... The same should apply in the various regions of Quebec, but not in Montreal, because Montreal, just as the National Capital Region, has been designated as a bilingual area. As far as the language of work is concerned, however, one should be able to function in the language used by the majority of the employees.


Alex Kindy: A supplementary question. Madam Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary has presented his view well, but I understand Clause 15 of the Bill differently. Could he indicate whether the Government is prepared to bring in an amendment to clarify the situation? For it is stated that any judge or other presiding officer must be able to understand the language well. I feel that an amendment should specify that such should be the case in one or two jurisdictions, and not in all the jurisdictions in every province. Let us make this clear. On behalf of the Government, could the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that he will accept an amendment to Clause 15?


Richard Grisé: First of all, Madam Speaker, Clause 15 applies only to federal, and not provincial courts. Only when Bill C-72 applies to courts of federal jurisdiction. If I may, I should like to read again the first part of Clause 1 5 which reads:
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.
My friend the Hon. Member for Calgary East would like to move an amendment to limit the number. Well, Madam Speaker, how could one justify a number? Would a number of 1, 2 or 3, in one province, be justified in another province? What really matters is for this legislation to clearly indicate that the Government of Canada and the Canadian courts at the federal level, wherever they may be, will make sure that the cases are dealt with in the language chosen by the defendant.


Mr. Domm:: Madam Speaker, I would like to pursue this point concerning the matter of Clause 15(1) which deals with the Federal Court. I would like to reiterate what my colleague has said with respect to the indecisiveness of the wording. Clause 15(1) states:

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
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.
I suggest that that wording needs to be changed. Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider a couple of changes? First, rather than "every court" I suggest it should state "every Federal Court". Rather than "any judge or other presiding officer" it should state "any judge within the Federal Court system". If it says "any judge" it means all judges.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary not consider an amendment in that respect to read "a judge", which clearly would make it more acceptable to me? It would mean to me that in a jurisdiction considered to be a region that is able to enforce this measure the whole region would not need to have every judge, or any judge, able to communicate in both official languages without Translation but rather a judge able to handle the needs of the minority. I say that, whether or not the minority is Anglophone in one region or Francophone in another. Such a change would dispel any anxiety on the part of not only the judges but of certain Members of Parliament as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time allocated for questions and comments has now expired. However, I will allow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to answer briefly.


Richard Grisé: I wish to respond because I know how hard the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has worked on this matter. He is very interested, and he has some very good suggestions regarding Bill C-72. I wish to assure my colleague, the Hon. Member for Peterborough, that when this Bill is brought before the committee, I definitely will take note of that. Of course, we will deal with this matter and with the very interesting suggestion from the Hon. Member regarding this matter, and particularly Clause 15 of Bill C-72.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, as I was about to say earlier, ever since I came to Parliament in 1965 one of my highest priorities has been the protection of minority rights whether these be racial, religious, ethnic, aboriginal, or language rights.
My constituency in Montreal of Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East is a community of minorities. There are people from many races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds, and a strong representation from both language minority groups. In my constituency the French-speaking population is approximately 40 per cent of the total population. This means that the Francophone group in the constituency, while they are a minority in the constituency and a minority in Canada, they belong to the majority group in Quebec. On the other hand, the 60 per cent of Anglophones in the constituency, and here 1 include people whose mother tongue is English, and those who
have another mother tongue but who have opted for English as their official language in Canada, constitute 60 per cent of the population. Therefore, they belong to the majority in Canada and in North America, but are a minority in Quebec.
Because of the strong presence of both language minorities in the constituency, I am very pleased to support this Bill which attempts to strengthen minority language rights in Canada under federal jurisdiction. In addition to strengthening minority language rights under federal jurisdiction, the Bill also has provisions to encourage improvement in language rights at the provincial level and in the private sector.
As the Minister stated this morning, this Bill is a result of wide and long consultation. As a member of the Official Languages Committee in Parliament since 1979, I wish to inform the House that over the years we have held hearings with respect to the Law and have been able to identify weaknesses and loopholes in it. Over those years we have made recommendations in order to strengthen the Law. Now a large number of those recommendations have been brought together and have been incorporated in the Bill.
What then does the Bill say? Well, the Bill deals with improvements with respect to the two official languages in Parliament, in the courts of Canada, in government institutions, with respect to the right of the public to communicate with the Government in the Public Service, and with respect to the Official Languages Commissioner. In all those areas improvements are recommended. I wish to refer to a few sections of the Bill in particular because I think they are extremely important.
In the preamble of the Bill one of the paragraphs states:
AND WHEREAS 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-
A further paragraph states:
AND WHEREAS 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.
Those two paragraphs in the preamble are extremely important because they point to new ground. That new ground is spelled out in greater detail, for example, in Clause 38. I refer to the following clause because I think it is extremely important. It states:
38(1) The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that
(a)	English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal access to appointment and advancement in federal institutions; and
(b)	the composition of the work-force of federal institutions tends to reflect the presence of both the official language communities of Canada-
That is a very important clause. It puts into law some of the policies that Governments from both the Liberal Party and the
February 8, 1988

Conservative Party have been attempting to enforce for years. Similar provisions are found in Clause 40 of the same Bill.
Another clause that I find extremely good and useful is Clause 75 which provides for remedies when a person's language rights are violated. Under the present Official Languages Act if a person thought that his or her rights were violated, he or she could make a complaint to the Language Commissioner who is an ombudsman for language rights. They could make a complaint to that person and the commissioner would investigate the complaint and make a report. It would be up to the Minister or the Government to take action on that report. That is all very good. But now in Clause 75 we have provided for a remedy before the courts, in addition to the remedy before the commissioner. These improvements in the law are important.
While it is a new Bill, this Bill constitutes a series of amendments to the Official Languages Act of 1969, a law that was passed in the early Government of Mr. Trudeau, but which was based on the royal commission report of 1963, a royal commission on the official languages in Canada established by the former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson. I had the good fortune to serve on the parliamentary committee in 1968-69 which dealt with that legislation. Therefore, I have a very real interest in it.
This legislation also builds on the constitutional provisions with respect to language rights that we find in our Constitution Act, 1867, and in our Constitution Act, 1982. In the Constitution Act, 1867 there is Section 133 which guarantees the right of people to use the French or the English language before the Parliament and courts of Canada, and before the Legislative Assembly and courts of Quebec. That was the only provision in the Constitution Act, 1867 with respect to language rights.
However, in the 1982 Constitution Act, there are Sections 16 to 22 which entrench very specific language rights for institutions under the federal Government and institutions under the New Brunswick Government. There is a paragraph in those sections that allows any other province to opt in to those constitutional provisions. Of course we are always hopeful that other provinces will do so. Recently the Ontario Government has taken some initiatives to further minority language rights. We hope that they will opt in fully to these provisions in due course.
Also in the Constitution Act, 1982 we have Section 23 which guarantees minority language rights in education to the linguistic minorities throughout Canada. This applies to all provinces, with one exception which 1 will mention in a few minutes.
The legislation strengthens some other measures as well. Over the last few years we have introduced a court challenges program by which the Government helps individuals to finance their court cases when they believe that their language rights under the Constitution have been violated. A number of cases has been financed by the Government under that program. It is a good program. It can always do with improvement, but it is a good one.
Official Languages Act
We also have two other government programs to assist with minority language education. There is the minority language education program whereby the federal Government gives money to the provinces to assist with minority language education. We have another program to help provinces introduce programs for second language education.
All these things move in the same direction-toward greater assistance and help for minority language groups in Canada.
Many Canadians might ask how Bill C-72, which is before us, relates to the Meech Lake Accord, in particular to its language provisions. As I stated in the debate on the Meech Lake Accord, there were parts of the accord which we in this Party did not like and tried to amend. The amendments were defeated, but on balance we accepted the accord and voted for it. I want to make it clear that in my opinion and in the opinion of most people in my Party, the Meech Lake Accord did not reduce minority language rights; it did not reduce minority language rights. If anything, it affirmed and added to minority language rights.
A good number of people, some of whom are in my own constituency, will argue that the Meech Lake Accord drastically reduced minority language rights for Anglophones and in fact even eliminated them. That is complete nonsense. The Meech Lake Accord did not take away any of the rights entrenched in the Constitution under the Constitution Act, 1867, that is, Article 133. It did not reduce or take away any of the language rights in the Constitution Act, 1982, the ones to which I just referred, Sections 16 to 22 and Section 23. It did not reduce or touch those articles in any way whatsoever.
What in fact it did, if we read the Meech Lake Accord closely, was to add some new provisions recognizing the linguistic minority communities in Canada. Because this is such an issue, I think I had better refer to it once again. It goes hand in glove with the provisions of the Bill before us.
Those who will argue that the Meech Lake Accord took away or reduced minority language rights-and in particular in my case they refer to anglophone rights in Quebec-the only evidence they will give to support their argument is that part of the Meech Lake Accord which recognizes Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. They say that that provision will harm or reduce the rights of Anglophones in Quebec. I do not know how they come to that conclusion, because there is no definition of a distinct society and there is no provision to indicate that it will harm or hurt other rights.
However, there is a provision in another subsection of the same clause which recognizes the fundamental characteristic of Canada. That clause says that the Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and Englishspeaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada. In the very next paragraph it says that the role of Canada and provincial legislatures, and that includes Quebec, is to preserve that fundamental characteristic of Canada.

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
In other words, by the IMeech Lake Accord, the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces including Quebec must preserve this fundamental characteristic of Canada which includes the English-speaking factor in Quebec. I do not know how those who argue that the accord does away with or reduces Anglophone rights in Quebec can ignore that particular paragraph.
Unfortunately this paragraph has been referred to as the "distinct society" paragraph, but some learned jurists have suggested that it should be called the "D and D" paragraph, meaning the distinct society and duality paragraph because it does both things. It recognizes the distinct society of Quebec, but it also says that duality, the English and French-speaking minorities in Quebec and outside Quebec, must be preserved by the Governments of Canada and of the provinces.
That is a new protection for language rights in Canada. I do not know how those who argue the way my learned colleague from Westmount (Mr. Johnston) does, can ignore the paragraph to which I just referred.
I have challenged those people to show me anywhere in the Meech Lake Accord provisions which would reduce or eliminate Anglophone rights in Quebec or francophone rights outside Quebec. 1 have challenged them to do that, and I have not had one person come before me who has been able to do so.
I also believe that those who argue in that way are making a serious mistake because by undermining or making little of the duality clause they may be hurting their case in years to come when they would want to use the clause to protect their rights before the courts. 1 can see the day coming when a provincial Government, as has happened in the past, will take steps through ordinary legislation to reduce Anglophone rights in the Province of Quebec. Those who are harmed may want to go to court and say that according to the Meech Lake Accord the Government of Quebec is to protect the fundamental characteristic of Canada, which includes the English-speaking community in Quebec, and that therefore they want this harmful or destructive legislation overturned. They will want to use it, and they should give it a fuller interpretation rather than ignore it as some have been doing today. This does not say that the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord could not be clearer and stronger. Of course they could be clearer and stronger. The fact of the matter is that they do not specifically reduce or eliminate language rights at all.
Having said that, this is not to say that there have not been attacks on English-speaking minority rights in the Province of Quebec. Of course there have been such attacks, and they have been overwhelmingly carried out by provincial Governments, in particular by certain clauses of Quebec Bill 101. By the way, the Quebec Governments which introduced that Bill did it without the help of the Meech Lake Accord. When a Government wants to act in the way they acted in respect of Bill 101 and wants to attack language rights, it does not need a Meech Lake Accord to do it. They did not need it in the past. There are still several oppressive sections in Bill 101 in respect of language rights.
1 can accept parts of that law which are meant to protect and promote the French language, to make sure that it survives, but I cannot accept articles in Quebec Bill 101 which outlaw and suppress the English language which existed in that province going back to the 17th century and which, by the way, in parts of the province was the first European language there. We all know that both the French and English speaking communities only came in the 17th century. There were aboriginal languages long before either the French or the English came. In any case, the English language was in parts of Quebec going back to the 17th century. It is a complete travesty of justice to try to eliminate those language rights.
Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada has already struck down several provisions of Quebec's Bill 101. It has struck down the provision that would have eliminated English in the courts and in the legislature of Quebec. The Supreme Court of Canada has also struck down the provision which would have insisted on the Quebec clause with respect to education rather than the Canada clause. Both the Superior Court of Quebec and the Quebec Court of Appeal have struck down the provisions eliminating English on commercial signs, and that case is now before the Supreme Court for which we are awaiting judgment.
1 must say that with respect to the signs law, I am extremely disillusioned and disappointed with the present policies of the Quebec Government. Premier Bourassa in the election of 1985 very clearly said that he would modify Bill 101, the French langauge Charter, to allow the use of English on commercial signs in Quebec. Not only did he promise that in the election but it was part of the Liberal Party platform in Quebec. The polls in Quebec overwhelming supported that kind of action. Francophones in Quebec overwhelmingly felt that Anglophones had the right to put English on signs in addition to French.
One cannot understand what Mr. Bourassa and the Quebec Government is afraid of. Do they think that the 95 per cent Francophone population of Quebec will flood the province with bilingual signs? Do they think we are going to see bilingual signs in Lac-St-Jean, Abitibi, Gaspe, the Beauce, Champlain and so on and so on? Only 5 per cent of the province is English speaking. The English speaking minority is limited mostly to Montreal and the Eastern Townships, in the Gaspe to a certain extent, and up here near Ottawa. They are not asking to be allowed to have unilingual English signs. What they are asking is that they have the right to put English on signs in addition to French. They admit and accept that French must be required on all signs in the province but they are saying that when certain individuals want to add English they should have the right to do so. That is a long standing right and it is wrong for the province to take that right away and it is particularly wrong for the Premier of the province to welsh on promises that he made during the election campaign with respect to those rights.
February 8, 1988

When the Constitution Act of 1982 was before this House I, of course, supported it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is only one minute remaining for the Hon. Member to wrap up his speech.


William Warren Allmand: I am sorry I did not have my attention on the Chair, Madam Speaker, and did not see your signals.
The Bill before this House is an excellent Bill. It moves to protect English and French speaking language minorities in Canada. I hope that we pass the Bill and that we pass it quickly. I would ask those provinces out there in the country that also deal with language minority groups, whether the English language minority in Quebec or the Francophone minorities in Ontario, in the Atlantic Provinces and in the west, to do likewise as we are doing here today in this House, namely, to follow the example of this Parliament, this Government and the previous Government and protect the minority language groups in Canada as they should be protected and as the Constitution of Canada has pointed the way.


Mr. Nowlan:: Madam Speaker, I was very interested, as I always am, in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Ailmand). He certainly talked a lot about Meech Lake. I think he said more about Meech Lake here this afternoon on Bill C-72 than perhaps he did when the Accord was being debated initially. I will not come to that for the moment.
His closing remarks were on Bill 101, which I am glad the Member mentioned because he comes from the province where that Bill has caused so much political discontent and/or, frankly, betrayal, as I read the papers. In view of what was said in election campaigns and what has actually been done, with the Hon. Member, coming from that province where Bill 101 does adversely affect a good bulk of Canadians within that province, would he be prepared to have conversations with his House Leader on this House doing what we did on the Manitoba language question of passing a resolution asking the Quebec Government to move on Bill 101 and/or to fulfil its promises made in the election campaign? Or will we just sit back and wait until the Supreme Court perhaps comes down and helps resolve the problem?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, if the Government House Leader were to make such a proposal, I would certainly approach my House Leader and ask for support of such a resolution, similar to the one in the case of Manitoba. By all means, I encourage the Government to come forward with such a resolution. We will be glad to discuss it on this side.
I agree with the Hon. Member that fairness must be done on all sides. The same fairness that we are attempting to provide at the federal level must also apply in provinces. That is why I
Official Languages Act
said I hoped Ontario one day will opt in totally to the constitutional provisions in the Constitution Act of 1982. That is why I ask Quebec to follow the example that we are setting here.
We passed the Meech Lake Accord. Let Quebec respond in like kind and pass legislation that would take away those repressive parts of Bill 101.
By the way, I must inform my hon. friend that I spoke at great length on the Meech Lake Accord when it was before the House.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Ailmand). He said the distinct society clause is simply to protect the French fact in Quebec. We have not yet had an interpretation by the courts of the meaning of the phrase distinct society. Is the Member not afraid that once we get a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada, distinct society might mean all sorts of things, similar to what we have seen lately concerning the abortion legislation which has been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Nobody knew about it, but it happened. We are leaving a lot to be desired because the court might interpret that distinct clause differently than the Member does, then Bill 101 might stay forever.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, perhaps I was speaking too quickly but I certainly did not define distinct society in the way in which the Hon. Member just quoted me.
I said that the distinct society was not defined in the Meech Lake Accord and consequently I did not know how others could interpret it to mean that it would eliminate minority language rights in Canada or in Quebec. That is what I said. I went on to point out that since the distinct society has no definition in the Meech Lake Accord, it is not defined, it cannot be interpreted to come into contradiction with other parts of the Meech Lake Accord which are clear. What is clear is what is called the duality clause. It says that a fundamental characteristic of Canada is that we have French language minority groups outside of Quebec, that we have an English language group inside Quebec and that the Governments of Canada and the provinces must preserve those minority groups. That is very clear in the Meech Lake Accord. The distinct society clause is not defined.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, 1 understood what the Hon. Member said but I wonder, when he voted in favour of Meech Lake, he voted for something that was not defined. I think it is dangerous for the House to let the courts decide the definition of a distinct society. It might override Bill C-72. The courts might say that because of the distinct society clause, the Bill is going to apply only in English Canada and will not apply in Quebec because Quebec has to preserve its own language.

February 8, 1988
Adjournment Debate
The constitutional amendment overrides any legislation by Parliament, as we have seen lately with respect to the abortion issue. Does the Hon. Member agree with me on that?


William Warren Allmand: No, Madam Speaker, as a lawyer, in my wildest imaginings, 1 do not know how nine judges of the Supreme Court could interpret the distinct character clause in that way when in the very next paragraph it says that the Parliament and Governments of Canada must preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada and I put accent on "fundamental" characteristic of Canada which is that there is an English-speaking community in Quebec which must be preserved and French-speaking groups in the other provinces which must be preserved. That is a fundamental characteristic of Canada. How nine judges collectively in a majority decision could just ignore that clause and interpret the distinct society clause to do away with all English-speaking rights, as a lawyer 1 cannot see that. Some people are arguing that way but they are completely ignoring the duality clause which is only one sentence away from the distinct society clause. They are completely ignoring that.



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 Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig)- Labour relations-Prince Rupert grain handlers' strike; the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)- Finance-Credit card interest rates; the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher)-Administration of justice-Convicted murderer-rapist charged with triple murder while on parole.



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.
Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, as Member for Madawaska-Victoria in New Brunswick, as an Acadian and a Francophone outside Quebec, I am honoured and privileged to join in this important debate on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada.
I would be remiss if, from the outset, I failed to underscore the historic character of the legislation now under consideration. We all know that this Bill is the first major reform of the Official Languages Act since it was adopted in 1969, yet however valid and avant-garde it may have been at the time no one would question the urgent need for reconsidering and redrafting the law to reflect Canada's changing requirements and new circumstances.
The legislation had to be adapted to the new constitutional and political realities of this country so that it would be a more satisfactory reflection of the linguistic changes that have taken place in Canadian society. Needless to say, Madam Speaker, Bill C-72 goes well beyond these two prerequisites, covering all major aspects of the language question. Today, however, I would prefer to highlight some aspects of the Bill that are particularly important to me as an Acadian and a Francophone from a region outside Quebec. 1 am thinking more specifically of the Government's new responsibility for promoting and developing official language communities and the special place this Bill has in the process of promoting and implementing the French fact in Canada.
I said that this Bill was drafted in order to provide urgently needed legislation. Actually, it was necessary to update the Official Languages Act, 1969, to bring it into line with the constitutional requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this respect, there are some important provisions regarding the language of work in the federal Public Service, service to the public across this country, full participation by French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians in federal institutions, and the administration of justice. Furthermore, as I said earlier, it was necessary to adapt our official languages legislation to the linguistic changes in Canadian society. In fact, tremendous progress has been made in this respect since 1969. Hence the need for a better definition of the roles and responsibilities of the various departments responsible for implementing the new policy, and also the need for determining the parameters of federal-provincial cooperation involving the enhancement of official language communities and, finally, the need for expanding opportunities for learning the other official language.

1 truly believe that Bill C-72 reaches all of its initial objectives. In fact, the introduction of Bill C-72 in the House on June 25, 1987, was greeted throughout the country by a wave of approval by the opposition Parties, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and representatives of the Anglophone communities in Quebec and the Francophone communities outside of Quebec unanimously agreed on the value and depth of the proposed changes.

The Constitutional Accord signed by all First Ministers on June 3 recognized, as was mentioned earlier by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East
February 8, 1988

(Mr. Allmand), that the existence of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians in all regions of the country constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada, a characteristic that Parliament and all provincial legislatures now have a duty to protect thanks to this Accord, and this should, in my opinion, be considered a substantial step forward in the age old struggle waged by Francophones for recognition of their language rights.
As I pointed out in this Flouse on October 1 of last year, representatives of French-speaking groups outside Quebec and supporters of their cause would have liked all governments to be given the role of promoting as well as preserving the fundamental characteristic recognized in this Accord. But we know, as all Honourable Members do, that in spite of the efforts of the Prime Minister of Canada himself, his provincial counterparts could not agree on such an objective. This noncommitment on the part of provincial partners, which I hope is circumstantial and temporary, should not prevent us from proceeding resolutely in that direction with regard to matters and in areas under our jurisdiction. So I am glad to read in the preamble of this legislation that the Canadian government is committed, and I quote:
-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;
Moreover, this legislation reflects our government's commitment, and I quote:
-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;

It should be understood that the official languages policy of Canada was not intended to force all Canadians to become bilingual. That is important. On the contrary, the policy allows for the majority of Francophones and Anglophones of our country to function on a day-to-day basis in their first official language, and even to remain unilingual if they so desire. However, this policy does require federal authorities, and encourages the provinces and the private sector, to become bilingual with a view to bridging the gap between citizens and communities of both French and English backgrounds.
My own riding of Madawaska-Victoria is 75 per cent Francophone and 25 per cent Anglophone. Unless the public authorities there can serve these communities in their own official languages, there will be chaos, and this is what we are attempting to do.
[ Translation]
And as my colleague, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate, senator Lowell Murray, was saying quite appropriately in Quebec City on June 26 of last year, and I quote:
Official Languages Act
Bridges can only be useful if we prevent both banks they link together from
crumbling.
Madam Speaker, that is why 1 consider that in promoting and supporting linguistic communities, a role the government assumes under Bill C-72, we are dealing with one of the most important and essential aspects of our new language policy.
According to that logic, indeed, could we on the one hand force the federal Government to offer its services in both official languages everywhere in the country and, on the other hand, abandon linguistic communities to their fate without protecting them nor promoting their development?
I am also happy the Secretary of State has been given the responsibility of inciting, encouraging and co-ordinating the fulfilment within other federal institutions of that commitment to help official languages communities prosper and develop.
Allow me, Madam Speaker, to point out that the Department of the Secretary of State did not wait for the coming into force of the new Act to show it was interested in honouring that commitment. The national program that was launched last September to create community radio stations for official languages communities is a very good example of the new role the Department of the Secretary of State, and hence the Government, will be able to play in the social, economic and cultural development of those communities.
I hope that program, as other similar measures, will help the representatives of those communities understand that, contrary to what some of them may say, they are not the great losers in the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
Other departments such as Employment and Immigration also prove to be much more open towards the development of our linguistic communities. For instance, this very day and more exactly one hour ago, in Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, the Department of Employment and Immigration signed a contract worth over $40,000 for personnel replacement and community development training, for a group of nine anglophone organizations in Alberta.
I think we will see other similar initiatives come from this new legislation, and the whole country will benefit.
Madam Speaker, allow me to expand for a moment on the importance of this language policy for the affirmation of the French fact in Canada. The tabling of Bill C-72 is not an isolated and inconsequent move. As I already said, it is part of the whole evolution of the Canadian society, and the result or end-product of more than 20 years of reflection and analysis about official languages.
Consequently, it is not, in its form and content, foreign to the values and concepts put forward by the Canadian Government during 20 years of language policy.
However, when we look at the path followed by our Government, this Bill takes a particular significance. It is consistent with our objectives respecting national reconciliation, social justice and international influence.

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
On the international scene in particular Canada, thanks to its dual identity, is able to enjoy with French-speaking countries, within the Francophonie, newly created at the second summit held in Quebec, the same kind of special relationship it has enjoyed with English-speaking countries within the Commonwealth.
The second summit of countries which have French as a common language, held in Quebec in September, and later the Commonwealth summit, in Vancouver, strengthened the international stature of Canada. It would be ironic on our part to try and play a major role within these two international organizations while neglecting, at home, these two languages and the communities which use them.
Madam Speaker, our official languages communities shall not be left alone in their undertaking towards the preservation and promotion of their culture and heritage. Because their heritage is also ours!
Madam Speaker, I was particularly pleased with the positive and serene atmosphere in which this Bill has been prepared, presented and received. This feeling is all the more vividly felt for me since I had the opportunity of following very closely the painful debate which took place in New Brunswick in 1984 and 1985, during the review process of the province's Official Languages Act.
Indeed, Acadians and the French speaking community had been anxiously awaiting since 1980 for their provincial Government to re-examine in its turn the language legislation passed as well by the New Brunswick legislature in 1969.
I take opportunity of this debate, Madam Speaker, as did my colleague the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine-East (Mr. Allmand), to call once more upon New Brunswick political leaders. I strongly urge them to enact the positions they have sustained in the past and to adopt as soon as possible, following the example of the federal Government, a clearer, more articulate, more open and more generous linguistic law, a law that would have a wider scope and, finally, that would better represent the social fabric of the province.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I wish perhaps to underline the leading and exemplary role the Prime Minister has played in order to bring about this linguistic reform. For us it would have been difficult-perhaps even impossible-to undertake such an initiative if we could not have relied on people like the Prime Minister who was able to give us a coherent and articulate insight into what Canada is today and what it should be tomorrow. I sincerely commend him for his unwavering will to work towards erecting a Canadian society based on justice, tolerance, fairness and respect.
I also want to congratulate my colleagues the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Secretary of State, the former President of the Treasury Board-and the new President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) who is continuing the
work-for producing a well-balanced, responsible and, in many respects, avant-garde measure. Members of the Senate and House of Commons committee-and I see my colleague the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) is here-did not spare any effort with respect to this Bill and they deserve our congratulations.
Madam Speaker, my closing remarks are directed to my colleagues in the House. 1 urge them to give generous support to this Bill and promote it in their respective ridings. This morning I heard the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) say that as Members we should all go to our ridings and promote this Bill on the official languages. I agree with her and I hope that all Members of the House will support this Bill and promote it in their respective regions.
Madam Speaker, I am convinced that Bill C-72 will mark the long awaited new beginning in the realm of the official languages, and I think we all have every reason to be proud.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Hon. Member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Val-court) about the Province of Quebec, which is adjacent to his own province.
What is his position on Quebec Bill 101 and on the protection of the English language in that province? Would he support a resolution of this House asking Quebec to withdraw Bill 101?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, earlier today during the Oral Question Period, I told a Member who had asked me a question about the economic development policy of British Columbia that, in my personal opinion, it would go against our national reconciliation policy to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Bill 101 is an issue which obviously concerns the Quebec Government, and it is also taking a new dimension with the Meech Lake Accord. Once implemented, the constitutional amendments contained in the Accord guarantee to Quebec and English-speaking Quebecers not only their survival, but also their promotion within Quebec. 1 am certain that the Quebec Government will adapt its own laws to the new circumstances when the Meech Lake Accord is approved, as I hope it will be, by every province in Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, 1 have a couple of questions. With regard to the question of my hon. friend from Calgary East (Mr. Kindy), I understand why Parliament does not often trespass on provincial jurisdiction. However, the fact is that this Parliament, under a former regime, had a history of passing resolutions when provincial history was being changed by language law.
February 8, 1988

The first such resolution came before this Chamber on October 6, 1983. In 1983 the Parliament of Canada in effect passed a directive to the Manitoba Legislature on its language question. We could do the same thing with regard to Bill 101. The next time the issue came up was on February 24, 1984, with "whereases" which could be changed slightly to tell the Province of Quebec that it is abrogating history with regard to Bill 101. However, we will leave Bill 101 aside.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) spoke this morning but our rules do not allow us to ask the Minister questions. I would therefore like to ask this Minister a couple of short questions and, depending upon his answer, perhaps a brief supplementary question.
Does the Minister agree that this Bill is not only an amendment of the Official Languages Act but basically a brand new Bill extending, very fundamentally and substantively, the official language policy of the Government?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I believe that it is a good thing that the Bill extends the scope of the Act. If it were a perfect replica of the 1969 Act, there would be no reason to discuss it or to adopt it. As I have already said, I believe that the amendments contained in the Bill reflect the new situation in Canada.

The Government had the obligation to bring this Act in line with the charter requirements. The Government also had the obligation to reflect in this Bill the new situation.
The Member has been here for a long time, much longer than I. In 1969 when this legislation was passed my home province of New Brunswick passed similar legislation. I remember the mood in the communities in my home province at that time. I have witnessed tremendous progress in terms of the attitude of people toward the official languages. Although we may talk about Bill 101 in Quebec, as parliamentarians in this House of Commons we must address this Bill before us and the merits of it. We must look at what it attempts to do.
Some people try to portray this as the Government obliging people to become bilingual or to force English or French on to them. That is not the purpose of this. If you want to remain unilingual English, that is fine. If you want to remain unilingual French, that is fine. The Bill only says that when the Government extends services to its people it recognizes that there are two official languages and that the Government should provide those services in the language of choice to our clients, our constituents, our people. That is all it does.


Mr. Malepart:: Madam Speaker-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am very glad that I have been recognized for a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have seen the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).
Official Languages Act

However, I had already recognized the Hon. Member for a supplementary. I shall come back to the Hon. Member afterwards.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question fits in with the Minister's answer. There is no doubt that things have changed. I was here when the first Bill came through and there are now different feelings.
However, I was very bothered by part of the Minister's answer in that he said that we are not moving into individual bilingualism because even the commissioners said way back in '68 and before that that we must not get into a situation of individual bilingualism. They said that we could have institutional bilingualism to communicate and correspond in either of the official languages.
The interpretation clause 3(2) says that:
-"court" means any court, tribunal or other body that carries out
adjudicative functions and is established by or pursuant to an Act of
Parliament.
I would like the Minister to answer me so that we will know what we are doing with this Bill. Pursuant to Clause 15 you have to have the proceeding without the benefit of official translation, which in effect means that you have to be bilingual, that you must have individual bilingualism. With the definition of "court" as any tribunal, is the Minister prepared to argue that that will apply to the parole board, the CRTC, the CTC, the NTA, and any other number of federal boards and tribunals which have adjudicative or quasi-judicial powers?
Does the Minister agree that those two clauses get away from the principle of the initial Act and the B and B report of institutional bilingualism but will compel people who have to serve on those boards and speak before them to represent their clients to be individually bilingual? That is one of the concerns which Members have.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thought the Hon. Member spoke about a short supplementary. The Hon. Minister of State.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the provisions of the administration of justice generally apply to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, and to every other federal agency including a court, tribunal, board, or commission which exercises judicial power applying legal principles to the assertion of claims under their constituent legislation.
For example, with regard to the parole board, I do not find it offensive at all that the person who will decide the fate of an Acadian from New Brunswick appearing before a parole board should understand the language of the person in front of him. Yes indeed, I believe that is the effect of that clause and I think that is what we want for our people.

February 8, 1988
Official Languages Act
Why should an Anglophone in Gaspe appear before a parole board, as an example, and not be able to speak himself, or through his counsel, to someone who will understand him without interpretation? That is what we are talking about. That is what we want Clause 15 to do, and I think it will do that.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, first of all, I think everyone knows our Party agrees with the Bill before the House today, a Bill whose purpose is to reflect changes in bilingualism in Canada.


Mr. Stewart:: Madam Speaker, is the Member on debate? I have a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I had told the Hon. Member, when I allowed the Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants (Mr. Nowlan) a supplementary question, that 1 would recognize him for a short question thereafter. We will then go into debate.
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, 1 said that our Party supported the Bill. However, I rose to say how disappointed 1 am in the two Hon. Members who just spoke, the Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) and the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). They were complaining to the Minister about Bill 101 and worried about the fact that an Anglophone was having trouble in Quebec, while the Hon. Member for Calgary could have spoken out to make sure French-speaking parliamentarians like Mr. Piquette are able to express themselves in French in his riding.
I hope those were the last two Members we will hear worrying about the situation in Quebec. 1 think Quebecers are mature enough to handle this themselves. I don't think Anglophones are treated any worse in Quebec than Francophones are treated in other provinces, especially in Alberta.
1 would be interested to hear the Minister's opinion. I think he is to be commended on his speech, although I rarely congratulate Conservatives in the House, but I think bilingualism is an issue that should be discussed without political partisanship, and this Bill is part of the normal changes that take place in the life of this country. I think some tolerance is in order, because we must not forget that in Quebec, the Montreal area for instance, there are schools where the majority is neither French nor English speaking, and there are neighbourhoods where Francophones have become a minority when they used to be a majority. If we fail to protect the French language in Quebec, Madam Speaker, I think it would be a serious loss. So 1 would like to hear the Minister's comments on his colleagues in other provinces.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I take exception to the Member referring to Members who ask questions about this
Bill. This Bill is before the House for debate and we should let all Members pose questions. The questions that have been asked deserve consideration and it is the right, indeed the obligation, of Members of the House to address this Bill seriously and air those concerns. They have been elected to come and represent the interests of their constituents. I take exception to the Member's statement.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. This legislation needs serious reflection because it is the kind of legislation that must have the benefit of knowledge and facts rather than emotion and exaggerated statements. Our comments on this legislation must reflect our concern for unity and harmony in this country and for a consensus with regard to official languages.
During my remarks I want to deal with the question of official languages, the kind of debate with which we are involved today, as well as to deal with some very serious shortcomings in the legislation.
Until now, the official languages legislation was the product of the Liberal Party. Today is an historical occasion because the introduction of this new legislation by the Conservative Party means that the issue of official languages has moved from being a partisan subject to being a non- partisan issue. The policy of official bilingualism has been supported from the outset by the New Democratic Party.
Bilingualism has a negative meaning to many people. To some, in the worst parlance, it means that French is being shoved down their throats, that they must learn another language and cannot work in the federal Public Service unless they are bilingual. Of course, that is a distortion of the reality because bilingualism means that Canadians can speak their own language without having to learn the other. It means that English-speaking western Canadians do not have to learn French, because Canadians can live in their own language.
Of course, we hope that that right will only encourage Canadians to choose to learn the other official language or any of the other languages that are spoken in this country.
Clearly, once people understand that they have this right to live in their community and speak their mother tongue, they will feel secure enough to enjoy the benefits from learning the other languages that exist in this country.
We must understand that the official language policy means that Canadians have the right to live and work in their own language without having to learn the other.
The official languages Bill is an historic development because it means the end to social prejudice which gave rise to comments such as "speak white" to French Canadians and gave rise to an attitude that somehow French Canadians were less than equal to English-speaking Canadians. It means an end to prejudice and discrimination which led to some powerful and articulate poetry based on those attitudes.
February 8, 1988

This legislation is a first step toward equality and we must approach it with some understanding as to the meaning of bilingualism while setting aside some of the distortions that have been propagated over the years.
Let us consider the debate in which we are engaged with regard to the Official Languages Act. I suggest it is essential that it be a non-partisan debate that is characterized by its capacity to educate and shed light on this subject, not from an adversarial or political point of view, but on the basis of understanding. It is only through understanding the legislation and through understanding the different communities in our country that we will be able to preserve the unity of Canada. Only in this way will we be able to continue to have a country called Canada.
The debate must be democratic and open. We must listen to all sides of the issue. We must listen to those who are strong proponents of the legislation, those who indicate the need for such legislation. At the same time we must be open to those who have concerns about the legislation, people who say that aspects of it go too far. It is only when people can speak up about the legislation without fear that we can have a useful and open debate and that language policy will find an acceptable place in Canada.
I want to point out one thing about the debate, not only in the House but in the country, with respect to what it should not be. I refer specifically now to a magazine called the Western Report. On the front cover of a recent issue it stated: "Si vous ne pouvez pas lire ceci, vous ne pouvez pas travaiUer pour le gouvernement federal." It then states: "Translation: If you can't read this, you can't work for the federal Government." I just sat here to read the legislation. What this says is a complete and utter distortion of the reality of the legislation. It is a complete and utter distortion of the official languages policy of Canada. This so-called contribution to the debate is what subtracts from it rather than adds to it. This type of characterization of the legislation with which we are dealing is unfortunate. It adds nothing to the debate. In fact, it makes it much more difficult.
Rather than respond to those types of distortions which particular writers place on the legislation, let us remind ourselves that, while this legislation recognizes that there are two official languages in Canada, both French and English enjoy an equal status. The legislation also has its limits. It should have limits. No legislation should be without limits.
Let me point out specifically what I mean when I say that this legislation should have limits. With respect to the right to work concerning those in the federal service, officers and employees of all federal institutions would have the right to use either official language. That is a pretty broad and sweeping principle. I happen to think it is a good one. However, I point
Official Languages Act
out that the principle is limited in its application, as I think it should be. That is reasonable.
This part of the legislation is limited to head offices of federal institutions. It is limited to federal institutions in the National Capital Region. It is limited to federal institutions in other prescribed regions. It does not apply in an unlimited fashion. It is necessary to make these points in order to bring reason back into the debate and to put aside the distortions that lead to excessive emotion with regard to this subject.
With respect to the provisions concerning service, we need provisions with regard to service in the official languages of our country. People must be assured that they can receive service in their own official language. However, those provisions are limited, as I think they should be. They are limited with regard to service to those areas where there is a significant demand for the service. It does not apply to every place and all over but to places where there is a significant demand.
Let us bring some rationality and some reason back to the debate so that we can progress with regard to unity. This will enable us to amend such legislation when it is indicated that an amendment is appropriate. It does not have to be all or nothing. One should not be accused of being a racist if one raises questions about such legislation. One should not be accused of giving special privileges to one group if one is in favour of this legislation. We must bring reason to the debate. We need to stay away from excessive emotion and partisanship. The debate must be open to all sides of the issue.
I now wish to make a couple of points about the legislation which are critical. This legislation deserves to be criticized because it is important legislation. It falls short in two respects. 1 refer to the provisions affecting the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. With regard to the Yukon, the Yukon is treated as a federal institution in this legislation, while the Northwest Territories is exempted from such designation. Why not exempt the Yukon from the provision as well? Why not respect the legislative authority of the Yukon? In that respect this legislation is ham-fisted. It is too heavy. It ought to show some respect for the local authorities.
With respect to the Northwest Territories, it has an Official Languages Act. Yet there are provisions in this Bill which state that in order for the Northwest Territories legislation to be amended it would require the concurrence of the Parliament of Canada. Surely, that provision should not be there. The legislative authority of the Northwest Territories should be respected. We live in a country which has a federal system of government. That means that we respect the jurisdictions of different legislatures. In that respect this legislation falls short. It must be amended.
I have heard from some quarters of the House concerns with regard to the provisions affecting courts. Those provisions need to be examined critically. Surely, we need a court system

February 8, 1988
Social Insurance Numbers
which is capable of serving people in their own language. However, that does not mean that every judge in every court in the country has to speak both official languages. We need to approach this debate in an open fashion, a fashion that will allow, permit and enhance the unity of our country. We must approach the debate about official languages from the perspective of what we have in common as Canadians.
We have one common citizenship. We are all Canadians. There is but one Canada. It is only when we start from that premise that we can then move forward to celebrate and recognize the differences that we have. They are differences in language and culture. They provide a strong foundation upon which to build our official languages policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House resumes studying this Bill the Hon. Member will have three minutes in which to conclude his speech. A ten minute question and comment period will follow.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: that Bill C-236, an Act respecting the use of social insurance numbers be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, anyone who is watching this debate could assume that the process was a democratic one, that elected representatives of the people would debate the merits of this Bill and vote according to choice. The reality is different. The process is a triumph of bureaucracy not democracy. It is a charade of Parliament. We will debate the merits of the Bill but the decision has already been made. The elected representatives of the people will not have a chance to vote at all. That has already been decided. There will be enough speakers to maintain the debate until 6 p.m. when the Speaker will assume that a motion to adjourn the House has been made.
This debate has usually been called "talking out". It is very familiar, and because of its familiarity it has gained a certain legitimacy. It is unworthy of Parliament. I have to believe that it is a form of legislative "coitus interrupts" which is the term for the ancient Roman method of birth control that prevented conception simply by bringing the whole process to an end when a decision could be made. So here we are, the House witnessing the possibility of legislative life being snuffed out by
interfering with the process. We are here to talk not to vote, that is the message.
I have to ask, why would this Bill suffer such a fate? Not for the obvious reason that one Minister or many Ministers do not want it to become a law. We know that, because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Minister responsible for the law affecting the social insurance numbers, spoke in favour of such a Bill when he was a Private Member. We remember when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) as a Private Member introduced a Bill comparable to Bill C-236. He cannot be against it. Well, who is? Who wants to talk it out? It is not the elected Government. It is the appointed Government. So such is my inference, that Canada, as I have observed in the years that I have served in the House, has two Governments. There is an elected Government that is accountable to the people; and there is a Government by appointed officials, accountable mainly to each other. Their hand reaches out everywhere in this capital, including the precincts of Parliament. Some are eminent, such as Deputy Ministers and senior officials. Others are not, such as ministerial assistants. But all have power, including the power to shape what will happen on the floor of the House of Commons, a House they cannot enter, but which they can affect.
The result today is that we will have a masquerade ball in which Members of the House will dance a parliamentary minuet with one another, according to music that the bureaucrats have chosen. I understand why bureaucrats would make such a decision, for this is the type of Bill that undercuts power. The assumption of all bureaucracy is that if there is anything they do not control, it is for one reason: they have chosen not to control it. This Bill is a threat to that. That is why, to use another figure of speech, it is going to be aborted.
In the information age knowledge is power. The more you know about a person, the more control you have over him or her. This is the reason that the very thought of reducing the opportunities of demanding the social insurance number of an individual is a threat to bureaucracy.
The social insurance number gives bureaucrats the chance to control us by giving them the key to start up the entire high-tech apparatus. Given the large number of government agencies and Departments, federal and provincial, now using the social insurance number, that number is the key to a mass of information about every one of us in this Chamber, everyone listening to this debate via television, everyone from coast to coast. Thus, the computer gives the bureaucrat an instrument of power such as none before him ever possessed.
When the social insurance number was first proposed, many Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament pointed out how it could become an instrument to identify each person in the country, a registration by which Governments could keep tabs on everyone. For example, the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker warned that it could become a national identifier that could be the basis for a national registration. When he heard that, Prime Minister Pearson insisted that it would never be so
February 8, 1988

used. When it was suggested that the social insurance number might be used for income tax as well as for unemployment insurance, he immediately interjected, "Certainly not".
The most startling feature of this entire travesty is the claim of Professor Flaherty, who has made an exhaustive study of the social insurance number, and who stated: "The House of Commons was never asked in 1964, or at any other time, to authorize or ratify the introduction of social insurance numbers, which was essentially a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission". There you have it, Mr. Speaker, from the very conception, through the delivery, through the growth, it has been fathered, mothered, nurtured, educated and bred by bureaucracy.
Since then it has become the legislated right of 19 federal agencies to require that individuals report their number when seeking service. And they are not all. Without legislation, other agencies have began demanding it, as have provincial Governments, and hospitals. By abusing the social insurance number it has become possible to gain a great, illicit, unmerited grasp of a person's life including many dimensions of his or her life that should be private. One can learn what is the hospital history of a person, whether she has had an abortion, whether he has been admitted to a psychiatric centre. Now such is the abuse of this by Governments.
I want to point out briefly that the potential abuse of the social insurance number is not confined to Governments, for bureaucracy is not confined to Governments. Bureaucracy is a state of mind, and it is found in the corporate dimension of the private sector. The private sector does not as a whole abhor bureaucracy. The entrepreneurs do, and the small business people do. They want to live and work as free individuals and serve other free individuals.
But people who are at home in the mass of corporate structures of the private sector have the same mentality as those who are at home in the massive organizational structure of governments. What difference is there between the management of a government Department and the management of a corporation department? Not very much. Neither assumes that the shareholders own it. They act, whether in government or in corporation, as though management owned it. That is why so many government officials can readily move into corporations and then come back to government. One can almost describe a certain two-way traffic between Toronto and Ottawa in certain dimensions of government. A person may come out of university, come to Ottawa and learn all about a Department, then go down to Toronto or perhaps to Montreal and be in business. They know all the loopholes, how to exploit them, and then they return to Ottawa as a senior official and rewrite the law. One environment is the same as the other. Each is an environment of bureaucracy, and each has the same passion for control of people.
We often find that elements in the private sector are as eager to abuse this as elements in the public sector. The social insurance number is now demanded of customers and
Social Insurance Numbers
employees as though a corporation had a right to it. A person opening a bank account may have to report it. A person applying for a job may have to report it. A person wanting insurance may have to report it. One may ask: Why not? What is wrong with that? This is what is wrong with it: the accumulation of a vast continent of information, its reportability made possible by computers, means that anyone with the right key to this storehouse of data can learn about a person what should be that person's own.
The abuse of the social insurance number is thus an invasion of the privacy to which every citizen in a democracy is entitled. We ought to see the threat that is before each of us. The social insurance number is a key which can open the door to a person's life revealing that which is his own.
Here is a man complaining that two large food chains in Newfoundland demand the social insurance number before cashing cheques. Here is an Ottawa woman reporting that a local hospital emergency ward demanded that her number be reported before she could be admitted for medical treatment. Here is a New Brunswick man complaining that his union insisted its members give their numbers.
If Bill C-236 could only come to a vote, could take one more step toward becoming law, that could change. It would mean that no person, organization, group, or body could demand that a person disclose his social insurance number, and that no federal body should request it without setting out in writing what is the particular purpose for which it is needed and what Act of Parliament authorizes the disclosure. Any organization requesting the number would be required to advise the person that he or she is free to refuse it.
Our need for this legislation has been clear for years. On December 8, 1978, the then Hon. Member for Saskatoon- Biggar, the Minister of Justice gave a carefully crafted, vigorously worded plea for a similar Bill to Bill C-236. He said:
My real worry arises from the real possibility that use of a single identifying number, such as SIN, in more and more computer files makes it easier and cheaper for organizations to exchange data among themselves and to merge records from files of different agencies, departments and organizations into central data banks. There arises the ultimate possibility that a person with access to the data banks will be able to compile a complete dossier on any individual.
1 recognize that some people, perhaps some Hon. Members, may wonder whether that is a critical threat to a person with nothing dishonest, nothing illegal, or nothing subversive to hide. The threat is real. The more a government knows about us, the more power it has over us. The more corporate data manipulators know about us, the more they can exploit us. This is why the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) planned legislation to restrict the use of the social insurance number. The defeat of that Government meant that that legislation did not see the light of day until the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, the

February 8, 1988
Social Insurance Numbers
Minister of National Defence, introduced a Private Member's Bill in 1980, as did Senator Jacques Flynn in the other place. Other Bills have been introduced over the years by the Flon. Member for Saskatoon-Biggar, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), and Mr. John Gamble when he was a Member of the House. In March, 1987 the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General reported that it shared the concerns expressed in these initiatives and recommended changes to the Privacy Act that would achieve many of the objectives of Bill C-236.
When we face this kind of threat to our privacy and hence to our freedom; when we see this issue excite the concern of Hon. Members over many years, patiently returning to the House when one Bill after another has been talked out according to the process that I have described; and when we see a government wanting to take initiative to bring in some control over the use and abuse of the social insurance number, I must ask: Why should we wait any longer? Here is a Bill to be voted on and if approved by the House to be sent to committee. We are not allowed to use the word "hypocrisy", but if we were, we would certainly think of it if we were to describe the process which says that we cannot accept the Bill because it has something wrong with it. What human composition ever lacks something wrong with it? Any Bill which comes into the House invites amendment and improvement. This is what committees are for. If some part of a Bill is deficient and needs to be corrected, the committee is the place to do it. This debate is to focus on the principle of the legislation, and if we are satisfied as a House, then we can work on the refinement of the Bill itself.
Why wait? Why not today strike a blow for liberty by restoring some of every Canadian's privacy? I ask that question but I know the answer, for since there will not be a vote on the Bill we cannot strike a blow for liberty. Liberty has struck out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member who just made a very eloquent and compassionate speech to the House. I paid very close attention to his remarks, and I cannot think of anything but praise for the Hon. Member on his effort today in not only convincing Members of the House of the necessity of such legislation but in indeed trying to convince anyone who cares to listen that some people who are not elected unfortunately wield much power around this place and in other circles of government. That message which he gave to us is as important as the Bill which he proposed to the House. Again I reiterate my sincere congratulations.
The issue which the Hon. Member brings to our attention is certainly not a new one. Indeed, from its very inception Members of the House have been concerned with possible misuse of social insurance numbers. The authors of the initiative never contemplated that social insurance numbers
would be used, and I would add abused, the way that they are today.
In his annual report of 1986-87, which was tabled in the House, the Privacy Commissioner described some of the worst cases of misuse of social insurance numbers. Let me read a few of them. The first one reads:
The Privacy Commissioner's participation on CBC's Cross Country Checkup generated an entire two hours of calls about the use and abuse of SIN. One caller, a woman from the Maritimes, told the Commissioner that unemployed workers were required to put their SIN on the outside of the envelope in which they send employment reports to EIC.
The Commissioner, concerned about her allegations, inquired about the practice. In fact, the offending envelope had been replaced some time earlier with one that does not ask for SINs. The regional office has been using up its large stock.
In other words, what we had was a government agency not only requiring social insurance numbers to be used but asking that they actually be displayed within public view on the outside of envelopes. Here is another example which concerns all of us:
Another caller was upset because Canada Post insisted on a SIN before releasing registered mail. The postal clerk had rejected three other pieces of identification, insisting on the SIN. The clerk relented only when the woman asked that the letter be returned to sender.
How many people would take that amount of time and trouble in order to refuse the giving up of private information such as is the social insurance number? Most people just give in and say, "I don't have time for this argument," provide the social insurance number, as wrong as that is, and go on doing their daily business.
The now Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) in
1978	and the now Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in
1979	both proposed in this House a reform of the use of social insurance numbers. Today, of course, those two Members of Parliament are cabinet Ministers. 1 know that they are listening attentively to the remarks that I am making today and they will want to convey to the rest of their cabinet colleagues my comments and even, more important, the comments of the Hon. Member who proposed the Bill to us. It is my hope that if the Government talks this Bill out today, which I know is the fear of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) because he took great pains to express that to us, at least on the second day of debate the Government will have had time to reconsider doing that. Perhaps there is a message out there to all Canadians to lobby their Members of Parliament whoever they are, whatever Party or constituency they represent, including cabinet Ministers, to ensure that this Bill or one like it is passed by this Parliament.
There are, of course-and the Government will take great pains in telling us that-flaws in the Bill. A number of government bills have flaws in them. We were discussing a government initiative earlier today known as the conflict of interest code. A few people found things wrong with that
February 8, 1988

particular initiative. It was a government initiative proposed in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
There are several other initiatives-I am only using that as an example-of government legislation, which are flawed. Many Bills are introduced in this House and when they are presented to us, they are often, at second reading, filled with amendments. In committee we sometimes get amendments that are so broad that legislation has to be withdrawn and reintroduced. The fact that there may be failures in this Bill, and if there are any failures they are not major, is not an excuse for anyone to refuse having this Bill to come to a vote.
My wish would be that the Bill would have primacy over other legislation to ensure that no other government agency passes or causes an Act to be passed by this Parliament or any other so that we can prevent the use of social insurance numbers by other government Departments. That is not quite covered in the Bill. We could tighten up that provision at committee. Notwithstanding that, what is in the Bill is far better than what is there now because what is there now is almost nothing at all.

I would like to take a few moments to share with you, Madam Speaker and Hon. Members, some of my personal experience with the use of unemployment insurance numbers.
A few years ago, when I was a Member of the Ontario Legislature, I received a phone call at my parliamentary office in Toronto. My wife was calling to let me know that Julie, our little girl who had just started nursery school, was given an envelope that morning she was asked to take home to her parents. So Julie had put the envelope in her school bag and brought it home. The envelope was from the school and contained a form to apply for a social insurance number. This was for a four-year-old child!
I was very upset. 1 called the school and 1 asked them: What on earth are you sending us this for? Why did you ask our daughter to take this envelope home and give it to her parents to complete and send back to the school? School authorities simply said: Well, that is the policy of the school board. Here, a number is given to each child on the first day of school. So the policy of the school board was then to give each four-year old a social insurance number. Why, Madam Speaker? I have no idea. I was never given a reason.
You can be sure that the next day 1 rose in the Legislative Assembly to ask the then Minister of Education, Mrs. Bette Stephenson, why school boards asked for the children's social insurance numbers. She replied: That is nonsense, of course, no school board has such a requirement. I rose and presented her with the envelope my daughter Julie had been given the day before.
Needless to say the Minister was startled and that a few days later the school board made it known it no longer insisted children needed a social insurance number.
Social Insurance Numbers
Our daughter who is now 10 years old still does not have a social insurance number, and I wonder why she would need one at that age. You would be astonished to learn how often she was asked for one to participate in a sport or other activities, as if it was thoroughly acceptable for a child to have his or her social insurance number. I still ask myself the same question: why?

Orwell in his book, 1984, was predicting that governments would have big computers, the big brother of government as he referred to it, that would have massive amounts of data on people. In a way, he was carrying it a bit far but in another way he was still, nevertheless, close to the point. However, it is not as much big government that has made most of the abuse, it is big government that has permitted others to abuse the system even more than governments have done it themselves, to such a point that I have even entered buildings and have been asked to register and indicate my social insurance number.
Those practices are totally unacceptable, and I think all Members of this House would agree that they are. It was not a federal government building but it was a form of government building, to answer my friend from Winnipeg. There is indeed a need for legislation as proposed to us by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West.
I am sure that if all Members took the time to inform themselves of the abuses of this system and the potential abuses in the future, not just by governments but by corporations that can exchange data of all sorts merely with a social insurance number which, as we know, is not kept privately enough, then that misuse is cause for concern.
Let me conclude by reading an article written by Vicki Barnett of The Calgary Herald on July 14, 1987. She said:
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce asked for it when I opened an account there. I needed to give it for family allowance. Years ago, I couldn't get a student loan without it, and when I studied journalism at Toronto's Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, my SIN was my student identification number. Credit agencies use it to keep track of my credit record. Some retailers want it as identification on cheques, and there is even a local 7-11 video club that demands it before you can obtain a membership.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, Orwell was not too far off.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments with regard to the Private Member's legislation before us today. I want to commend my colleague for having brought the legislation forward. I also want to remind him, when he talks about this legislation being talked out, that it will not be anyone from this Party who talks it out. I know this is Private Members' Hour and Party lines are erased, but I also know that no New Democrat will talk this legislation out. I do not know whether any Liberals will do so. I doubt it. But I wonder who will talk this legislation out? Perhaps if the Hon. Member could identify those who would talk this legislation out,

February 8, 1988
Social Insurance Numbers
legislation which should go to committee to be studied, if those Hon. Members were named publicly, it would put a little pressure on them and perhaps persuade them to give this legislation the serious consideration it deserves.
1 believe this legislation ought to go to committee. The subject ought to be studied. We have to take seriously the concerns expressed by Canadians about the use of social insurance numbers. I have been spending considerable time visiting my constituents and this is one of the things that was brought up frequently. One gentleman who lives in my riding of Winnipeg North Centre is doing quite a study on the use of the SIN number. He has documents from the Privacy Commissioner. He points out the limitations of any citizen who tries to assert his or her right not to divulge his SIN number if he does not wish. He finds that this is a right which is honoured more in the breach than in the practice.
We have to study the way in which the social insurance number is used. On the basis of fact and understanding we have to come to some appreciation of what the number is used for and when its use turns into abuse. There is something to be balanced here. The balance is between privacy and the capacity to get things done. We have a social insurance number because of the need for organization. Yet if the number is used appropriately, I am sure people would accept its existence. However, if it is abused, then serious questions are raised. Therefore, we must examine how the number is being used and abused these days.
I do not know whether Hon. Members recall when the social insurance number was introduced or for what purpose. I am sure it was introduced for some specific and limited purpose. For the life of me, I could not really say exactly what. I am sure it has something to do with the administration of federal social programs. But that is the dilemma we find ourselves in. We know it was introduced some time ago for a good reason and it grew like Topsy. Now it is popping up all over the place. In an age of large organizations and instant communication, the age of the computer, this information on Canadian citizens can be collected very easily. It is time to examine how the social insurance number is used and to what extent it is being abused. It is time to recognize that the social insurance number is just the tip of the iceberg in a modern information age in which we once again must define and assert the notion of privacy. Our individual privacy has to do with our own individual power to assert ourselves as individual citizens rather than being abused by those who can surreptiously collect information about us in ways which were never intended.
I do not want to talk this Bill out. I want the Bill to go to committee which will result in a thorough and public study of the use and abuse of the social insurance number. It is time we did this. I call upon those Members who have been appointed to talk the Bill out to slip behind the curtains and allow this Bill to come to a vote so that this subject can be dealt with. The Whip or whoever it was who told Members to talk this Bill out might be angry and come down upon them, but it will be for a good cause. Show some moral integrity, slip behind the curtains and allow the legislation to be dealt with so we
can have a thorough and comprehensive study of the use and abuse of the social insurance number.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to speak in support of Bill C-236 which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). This is not the first time a Bill such as this has been brought before the House, nor would I expect it to be the last. It is rather unfortunate that apparently this Bill has not been selected for the five hours of debate and then a vote. Far be it for me to make any critical comments about the committee of my colleagues which makes the selection. However, I would hope that if this Bill does return to the Order Paper at some time in the future, such a selection will be made. I think it deserves much more than one short hour's debate. It is something that should be voted upon.
I am speaking in support of this Bill but I cannot be as forceful, as eloquent or as knowledgeable as the Hon. Member who presented the Bill. I think there is a tendency for Members to become somewhat repetitive due to the fact that when one decides to speak on an issue and starts making notes, it seems that everyone has the same things in mind. Everyone is worried about social insurance numbers starting off with a very limited use and then being used more and more until abuse is built into the system with much more potential for abuse, so that we must look at ways in which this might be controlled. Forgive me, Madam Speaker, if I repeat a few of the points made beforehand.
We have to look with good intent at the spread which has taken place. It has been insidious but it has not been done deliberately and maliciously.
Social insurance numbers were originally brought in with a good purpose in mind. We needed an indentifier for social programs such as unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. There had to be some form of identification. But then it spread into the tax system because deductions for Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance were of interest to the tax Department and it was only natural that it would want to credit the right account. So it all made sense and it grew a little there.
Employers are required by law to deduct tax and unemployment insurance premiums and to remit that money to the Government. It is only logical, in a way, that they should require that same number so that the proper accounts could be credited. Because they have to use this number for every employee, it becomes natural for them to use that as an employee identification number. They could argue: "Why have two numbers? We have to use this one. Why not use it as our employee identification number?" So it grows bit by bit. The same applies to banks which sometimes are required to deduct tax payments on interest or at least provide someone with a T-5 form. It is the same thing with trust companies and stock brokers. They are required to credit dividend tax credits and so on. So it grows and grows and grows and so it spreads.
February 8, 1988

Perhaps the problem with the social insurance number is that it is just too useful. It is becoming a universal identifier for every reason. In the age of the computer, that can certainly lead to abuse. Everyone who has spoken on this has a vision in mind of what that abuse could be with the computers available to us today.
If this trend continues I can foresee the day when every baby born in Canada will be held upside down and have a social insurance number tattooed on the sole of his or her foot. Then, later on in life, someone will punch a button on a computer and up will come the history of that child from birth. All the taxes paid and taxes owing; where the person lived and lives; marital history and what they were up to when they were not married; how much they owe in maintenance payments or anything else. There will be the child's medical records, list of assets and liabilities, criminal record if any, passports issued, and where that person has travelled around the world.
A veritable mine of information will be available at the push of a button. This information will be extremely useful to certain people and certain agencies. It will obviously be very useful to tax collectors. It will be useful to police investigating certain offences. It will be useful for people involved in assessing security risks and that type of thing.
As much as we do not like tax collectors, for example, we know they are necessary. The difficulty they, for example, may have in drawing the line is that if you have a useful tool, when do you not use that useful tool? That question has to be addressed. If that kind of a situation were to arise, would it be consistent with the relationship we expect in a free society between the state and its citizens? That is where we have to find the right balance.
In certain totalitarian states, and I believe the Soviet Union is an example, people are required to have with them all kinds of information to present on demand to the authorities. In South Africa people are required to have with them the so-called Book of Life which lists all manner of information about them. I know South Africans do not like having to carry around with them all that information to present to the authorities on demand. They consider it to be an abridgment of their freedom and their rights as citizens. They certainly resent the situation, and I would like to think that we are not coming to the same thing in Canada.
If this kind of information is available to Government, you can bet your bottom dollar it will also get into private hands. It is almost impossible to stop that from happening. Even if we have a degree of confidence in our Government, there are very few of us who would want that type of information to get into private hands as well.
How do we address these questions? Evidently a lot of thought has gone into the drafting of this Bill. I compliment
Social Insurance Numbers
the Member for that. He has presented some pretty good ideas which should be considered in detail with respect to the steps we must take to curb abuse or potential abuse. First he suggests the restriction of compulsory use of social insurance numbers to federal Government and agencies thereof. Provincial, municipal and private bodies would be unable to demand social insurance numbers. He proposes to make sure that any other persons who request a social insurance number must point out that it is not necessary that it be given. In addition, there can be no repercussions if the number is refused. He also creates a number of summary conviction offences and civil remedies if someone's rights have been abused.
Thank you very much indeed for giving me the opportunity to speak on this most important subject, Madam Speaker, and once again, I offer my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse).


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Madam Speaker, I am indeed, dear colleague for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), number 224-490-622. I am pleased to identify myself by that SIN which of course is fictitious because I would not like it to be known across Canada that I am number 224-490622. You are absolutely right indeed with your proposal. And 1 appreciate your evident frustration that minuet directors apparently decided to have us talk on that Bill, although it is extremely well taken. And I am telling the good news right now that number 224-490-622 will support you on that private member's Bill, dear colleague. Certainly I will not prevent you from taking this opportunity to have the Bill enacted.
In order that people and especially the French-speaking community understand correctly, the thrust of my dear colleague's Bill is that the famous social insurance number that is imposed upon us at birth does not become some sort of a universal identity card used for this or that, for all sorts of things, a number that deprives you of your identity or that stamps on you a final, abosolute, digital identity that sticks on you all through your life.
Of course I had another opportunity recently, when one of my constituents came to me, Madam Speaker, saying: Sir, I do not exist anymore. She had applied for something with a public institution, which did not find her social insurance number on the relevant list, and the official told her: Madam, you do not exist. That's all. You do not exist. We have no business with you, you simply do not exist in this department. I can absolutely not meet your needs. You have no right to the service applied for, since you do not exist.
In order indeed to condemn such abuse, my colleague put forward this legislation that would further control and limit the use of that almost universal number identity that is hanging about somewhere. And it is my view that even if we only enacted the Bill, it would be a start.

February 8, 1988
Social Insurance Numbers
You should not, however, delude yourself into thinking that, by limiting the use of social insurance numbers, people will not know who you are and what you do, how much you are worth, what people you know, and so on. There are now in Canada companies which specialize in stripping you naked, which could be nice in certain cases and less so in others, and which are in the business of investigating systematically your financial means and your record, criminal or otherwise. Certain organizations can say what you are worth, what you will be worth, and so on. Such firms use all sorts of information, including probably social insurance numbers, and they can provide a detailed report on just about anyone and anything. Name it, we have it, they say.
In this regard, I would like to steer the Hon. Member in another direction, as I would really like us to succeed in limiting the activities of such firms which rate people for all kinds of things, and if possible, I would like us to pass legislation to protect all such personal information on yourself and the members of your family.
There is now no such legislation. At this time, if someone has the money to pay, he can strip you naked, my dear colleague, without any problem, and use this information for all kinds of other purposes which are not always very honourable. People might want to sell you all kinds of things or to involve you in all kinds of activities. With this information, people can invade your privacy.
However, even if it were only a fist step, this legislation would be something positive. On the other hand, I would certainly prefer legislation which could protect ordinary citizens from the information specialists who offer their services to those who have money to pay them. Naturally, this brings to mind our tax returns, which contain special identity numbers, especially if we think about the interrelationship or compatibility of IBM and other systems, and I am not trying to provide free publicity for any company. We can all be computerized, and as a matter of fact we already are, and sold for purposes which are not always justifiable and which are certainly not in our interests, at least 98 per cent of the time. Such information serves other interests than ours and threaten our privacy, as you pointed out yourself. There is so little privacy left nowadays. I know that we still enjoy a lot of it in my beautiful riding, but the fact remains that privacy, confidentiality today means self respect and control of the environment; I do think my colleague's proposition is well justified. On this note I will now end my remarks so that this legislation can come to a vote, as is the wish of my colleague which would be a first step, wouldn't it. So, SIN 224-490-622 thanks you, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) for a very thoughtful presentation on this subject which is of great concern to many Canadians.
While I plan to use up the remaining time allotted to us today to discuss this Bill, I hope that by the time it comes around again some of the questions I would like to raise will have been answered so that we can proceed to pass this Bill.
Bill C-236 deals with a matter which is near and dear to many Canadians. The use of social insurance numbers has been ever-increasing since their introduction. Given the very important object of this Bill it is important that it be clearly understood. To foster this understanding it is necessary to look at the provisions of this Bill in some detail. This I propose to do. However, before I proceed, it is important that the issues which the Bill addresses are put into context. To do this, additional information is required.
First, in my view it would be helpful for Members to have the benefit of some information about the origin of the SIN and subsequent developments with respect to its use. It could also be useful to Members to be aware of a 1980 study which was done by the Privacy Commissioner concerning the extent to which the SIN was being used and the privacy implications arising from its uses.
I also believe it could be useful to Members to know more about the Privacy Act, which came into force on July 1, 1983, and how it affects the collection, use, retention, disclosure, and disposal of the social insurance number. Finally, it would be important to know what initiatives have been undertaken by the Government recently with regard to the social insurance number.
This information is important for two reasons. It will indicate why the social insurance number was created and how it is used. It will also help Members to identify the privacy implications which are associated with this number. Finally, and most important, it will permit Members to assess the controls proposed by the Bill in light of those which are currently in place and those which are now being undertaken by the Government.
The issues raised by the SIN are not new. In fact, in previous sessions of this House efforts have been made by Members to address them. However, the approach which has been adopted in the past has not necessarily been the same. Bill C-236 contains a preamble which provides the underlying rationale for the Bill. The Bill is to prevent the SIN from becoming a general use identification number and to restrict the use and disclosure of the SIN to those purposes authorized by Parliament.
Clause 2 of this Bill sets out the definition of two terms; "federal body" and "social insurance number". It is necessary to define "federal body" because, as will be revealed in future discussions, a distinction is made between entities which are federal bodies and those which are not. Generally speaking the term as defined would include federal Departments and agencies as well as federally created boards and tribunals.
Another matter which requires further study and review before this Bill can proceed relates to the remedies which the
February 8, 1988

Bill intends to provide. Clearly the Federal Court of Canada plays an important role where relief is claimed against the Crown. Flowever, the Federal Court may not be the appropriate tribunal to deal with the claim of an individual who is seeking a remedy against an entity which is in no way related to the federal Crown. Until the point has also been clarified, the Bill should be deferred for further clarification.
We would do well not to vote on this Bill today but to wait until another day. I propose that we defer this matter to another day to be brought back before the Flouse for further consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to expand further on a question I first raised in the House on December 17, 1987. The point I want to make is the futility of strikes as well as lock-outs when a labour dispute occurs.
When a labour dispute occurs it is as a result of a breakdown in negotiations between representatives of labour and management. This was never more evident than in the recent labour dispute in Prince Rupert which began on December 9, 1987.
When operations at the Port of Prince Rupert resumed on January 22, 1988. the Canadian Wheat Board indicated that it had been unable to ship some $70 million worth of grain that would have otherwise been shipped from this port. In addition, there was some $15 million spent on transportation costs to divert grain to the St. Lawrence ports for export.
All of this has taken place while the parties involved in this dispute have both claimed to have the best interests of the western Canadian grain producers uppermost in their minds. Unfortunately, the grain producers of western Canada are the ones who suffer from the lost sales, and it is these same producers who must pay the increased transportation costs as well as the demurrage that must be paid to some of the oceangoing freighters waiting to be loaded.
Adjournment Debate
This was shameful behaviour on the part of both parties in this dispute. Both parties displayed a complete lack of concern for western grain producers. Both parties not only shirked their responsibilities but completely abdicated them. Since this facility is in large part owned by the western Canadian cooperatives which, in turn, are owned by their shareholders who by chance happen to be western Canadian grain producers, it is particularly difficult to understand how this situation could have been allowed to fester for four years before breaking out as a strike by 69 grain handlers last December 9.
The Minister of Labour of the day had appointed Mr. Vince Ready as conciliation commissioner in 1985. He worked on this problem throughout 1985 and in January, 1986, produced a report with recommendations for a settlement. This recommendation was unacceptable to the union although the companies did accept it with reservation. The dispute simmered until December 9, 1987, when the boiling point was reached.
The third party in these labour disputes is the Canadian public, who will not tolerate prolonged disruptions. The Prince Rupert situation was particularly stressful to western Canadian farmers who are already suffering from tight cash flows as a result of the cost-price squeeze. But consider also that 70 employees of CN Rail were laid off as a result of this dispute.
In my opinion, we must have a dispute settling mechanism in place that will start up at the end of a contract if the parties are not able to reach an agreement. It matters little if it is the postal workers or rail workers or the Air Canada workers, the Canadian public must have some safeguards in place. If a new contract cannot be negotiated before a present contract expires, we should have a labour court system that would automatically kick in to gear and would require both parties to submit to binding arbitration.
I further recommend that a parliamentary committee be established with all Parties represented in the House to investigate and implement this type of dispute settling mechanism.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) has raised a question having to do with an industrial dispute which, as we are all aware, was dealt with by this House on January 19, 1988, when it passed the Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act. The Act terminated the strike by the 69 grain handlers at Prince Rupert and provided for the settlement of all outstanding issues in dispute between the parties by the use of binding aritration. Although the dispute has been settled, the Hon. Member's question is still very relevant as it has to do with the inconvenience that Prairie farmers were subjected to during the strike.

February 8, 1988
Adjournment Debate
The Government is fully appreciative of the frustration our Prairie grain producers experience whenever the grain handling system is threatened by a labour disruption. We are all in favour of a labour relations system in which disruption is minimized. In this regard the Government is convinced that our free collective bargaining system is the most appropriate and the most effective method of resolving labour-management conflicts in a democratic society.
Collective bargaining is an adversarial system and, as such, disputes will occur. The key to the effective functioning of this system is the acceptance by labour and management of their rights and responsibilities to settle their differences through reasonable and fair compromise.
Over the course of the tenure of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) close to 1,000 collective agreements have been negotiated under the collective bargaining provisions of the Canada Labour Code. Over this period there have been four disputes in which it was evident that labour and management could not accept their responsibility to work toward and to achieve a final, negotiated resolution of their differences.
In these instances, the parties were imposing, as a consequence of their actions, an unacceptable cost to the Canadian economy and the public interest. On each of these occasions the Government fulfilled the responsibility entrusted to it by the people of Canada by ordering an end to the disruption, prescribing a method for the final resolution of the issues in dispute.
With respect to the dispute between Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. and the grain workers union in particular, I would like to draw to the attention of all Hon. Members the fact that Mr. Justice Peter Seaton of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia has been appointed as arbitrator to resolve the three issues the parties were unable to settle.
This approach of providing the parties with every opportunity to negotiate and freely arrive at a settlement of their differences and of reserving arbitration as a remedy of last resort is far more effective in promoting constructive labour-management relations in the federal private sector.


FINANCE-CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 1987, I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) what action he could take to remind major credit card institutions of the obligations of good corporate citizenship. Since then most banks and trust companies have lowered their rates, but not the major department stores.
They are still charging an incredible, indefensible whopping 28.8 per cent. Not only have they stayed at that line, but they have convinced at least one Minister that they charge less than banks and trust companies because they do not make a charge
for the first 30 days. They say users of their charge cards are thus better off, which is true, but only for three months.
I ask Hon. Members to sit down to figure it out. Compound the interest over a period longer than that and Hon. Members will see that after that the 2 per cent per month sky-rockets.
I can tell Hon. Members of one person in Toronto who had his indebtedness to one department store sky-rocket over a period of under two years from $2,000 to $4,000. Many people cannot pay off their accounts in shorter periods of time, so they become victimized by this massive interest rate that is afflicted upon them. I am not referring to prodigals, wastrels, or spendthrifts. I mean those people who simply have no way of coping with the situation for which they are not at fault. I am thinking of a mother, perhaps a single mother who has a group of little children to outfit for winter. Her choice is between using a charge card or letting her children go inadequately clothed through the snow. We both know what decision she makes, and what decision she should make. Very often that woman cannot pay off her indebtedness in short order.
I am thinking of a person who perhaps buys a major appliance when that person has a job and expects to have it for a reasonable length of time. Then that person finds that he or she cannot pay this sizable amount because, through no fault of their own, the plant has closed and they are out of a job. That person is not to be blamed, they cannot help it. It is not their fault if unemployment insurance is only enough for subsistence.
A profound in-depth study of this problem has shown that credit card rates chiefly cause injury to people of low income. This problem to which I refer today is not chiefly a matter of concern to yuppies, to people who have gone out and bought high ticket items and wanted to indulge themselves in a higher, faster style of life. Studies have shown that it is the type of person to whom I have just referred that is the chief victim of the abuse of interest rates on credit cards and charge cards.
I raised this question because a committee of this House, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, in its fine, impressive, and influential report on this entire subject stated that retail stores should reduce their rates on accounts over $400. They recognized the need to draw some line such as that because there were additional administrative charges borne by department stores that were not borne by every other issuer of credit.
However, there has not been the slightest budging by the department stores. They have not moved even a tiny little inch toward acknowledging the message of this Parliament, a message of the parliamentary committee that was reinforced by a Minister of the Crown. When that report was submitted to the House, the Minister of State for Finance stated that he would act if there was not a proper response to the report of the parliamentary committee. In response to my question
February 8, 1988

raised on March 26, 1987, he stated that, if rates do not come down, as I have stated before, we will consider the best ways to proceed.
Madam Speaker, I am asking the question again. What are the best ways? I am asking, when will he proceed? When will he follow up the commitment made and implied in this question?


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in March 1987, as indicated by my friend the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), the Finance Committee tabled a report on the credit card issue. 1 think it was a major and even fundamental step toward understanding the cost involved in the use of credit card, especially at the financial level.
Madam Speaker, the Committee did not recommend that the Government should set credit card rates. On the other hand, it did recommend that the Canadian people should be made more aware of the cost associated with using credit cards.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the Federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) published in December 1987 an information booklet on credit cards, users costs, interest rates, etc., all the costs involved in the use of credit cards.
1 suggest that the Hon. Member for Scarborough West should be praised for his contribution and the results he has obtained with this special information booklet on credit cards.
As you certainly know also, in June 1987, the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs got together and agreed to set up a special task force to look into the issue of costs and problems resulting from the use of credit cards. The report from that task force should be available shortly.
Since then, and thanks in part to the excellent work which the Hon. Member has done, a number of financial institutions have been offering Canadian consumers products which are definitely more competitive and interesting. Madam Speaker, 1 feel that the Hon. Member should continue his good work and keep on informing Canadian consumers about the costs involved in using credit cards. 1 suggest it is in this direction that the Government and the Hon. Members of the House should continue to work.
Madam Speaker, I can assure you that this is in this direction we will continue to move.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-CONVICTED MURDERER-RAPIST CHARGED WITH TRIPLE MURDERS WHILE ON PAROLE
Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, on December 13 last, a 34-year old Chilliwack woman, her 12 year old daughter, and her daughter's best friend, also 12, were murdered by the mother's common-law husband. These
Adjournment Debate
murders shocked the small, closely knit community and tragically affected the lives of family and friends of the three victims.
The murderer, Allen George Foster, of Chilliwack was a convicted murderer and rapist who had already spent seven years in jail in the early seventies for murdering an 18 year old girl, Gwen Ann Lingor. When he killed Joan Pilling, her daughter Linda Brewer, and Megan McCleary just 12 days before Christmas, he was out on full parole.
The perversity of the situation is obvious. By the very weakness of our parole system this murderer was given the freedom to murder again, not just once but three times. Had he not taken his own life on December 27 in the washroom area of the Forensic Psychiatric Institute in Port Coquitlam, he very well may have murdered yet another time. It is no wonder that my constituents in Fraser Valley East and countless other Canadians recoiled in shock and disgust at this crime but, even more so, at the system which allowed Foster to be out on our streets.
On January 18, I asked the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher) in the House why this convicted deviant sexual offender, who had committed a heinous murder and rape in 1971 and who was subsequently convicted of indecent exposure in 1986, was let out on full parole.
The Minister's response indicated that there would be a full inquest conducted by the coroner of B.C. at the end of February or March. This is welcome news to the people of B.C.
Many Members in the House of Commons voted against the motion addressing the reinstatement of capital punishment when it came up for a vote in June of last year. At the time and despite the disappointment that I felt personally, I hoped that this would force us to move in a different direction and would lead us to tightening our parole laws. We did not move fast enough for Joan Pilling, Linda Brewer, or Megan McCleary.
I realize that we have made advances in this regard with Bill C-67 from the first session, but unfortunately and obviously they were not enough. The amendments to the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, which received Royal Assent in July, 1986 have given us the power for the first time to keep inmates who meet the criteria under the Bill in prison for the full length of their term. I was pleased to hear that since the introduction of the Bill some 25 per cent of all people who have come before the special parole board are now being detained until the full length of their term has expired.
We have been told that the parole board followed the proper procedure before granting full parole to Foster, and I have no doubt that it did. However, human nature being what it is, is there any doubt that even if every rule was followed Foster could have stepped out of line anyway? Who can predict what a convicted murderer will do next? It is time we examined the rules.

February 8, 1988
Adjournment Debate
I would like to take the House quickly through the life of Allen George Foster from 1971 to December 27, 1987. In 1971, Foster then 20 years old, was living with a young woman in British Columbia. For reasons not known to me or probably anyone else, he decided to rape his girlfriend's 18 year old cousin, beat her to death, wrap her in chains, and throw her body into Okanagan Lake. For this crime he received a life sentence but was granted unescorted temporary absences in 1979, only seven years after the conviction.
In May 1980 the National Parole Board allowed Foster to leave custody on day parole, which meant that he had to report in only at night. One and a half years later, in October 1981, he was granted full parole. Over the years he was watched and psychiatric tests were taken, but despite these precautions he was charged in April 1986 with performing an indecent act and breaking and entering.
[DOT] <1820)
Two months later he was convicted for the indecent act and sentenced to 21 days in jail. He remained there until August of the same year. In July, 1986, he was granted day parole and in December of that year he was granted full parole. Over the next year he was closely supervised. Then, again for reasons unknown to anyone, he murdered these three innocent people in Chilliwack. The two young girls, best friends, honour students and athletes were not even born when Foster committed his first act of murder back in 1971. Unfortunately, their destinies were tied in with Foster's even then.
This case is not unique. Another convicted killer out on parole on mandatory supervision from Sumas Centre in Abbotsford did not return to the centre on September 5, 1987. He broke into an unoccupied home and stole food and household items in order to survive and then stole a vehicle belonging to the home owners. He also took a large knife. This knife was to be used by the convict just four days later to terrorize completely a Matsqui husband and wife.
The details of this crime are almost too disgusting to be repeated but will show us in even greater detail why we must do something now to tighten our parole laws. After breaking into the home while the couple was in bed, he sexually assaulted both husband and wife in front of each other, all the while threatening them with the knife. After sexually assaulting the couple, the man made them go into the kitchen and forced the wife to make him a meal. He then demanded, at gun point, that the couple give him liquor, food and other items and made them load their own car for his escape. He then drove away. This entire scene lasted three hours but will live on in the minds of this couple for the rest of their lives. The same prisoner when apprehended three hours later told the detectives "I didn't want to come out. They made me come out. I can't even make it in a backyard, let alone society or the community".
It is up to the parole system to protect society from these criminals, and I am not satisfied that this is being done. I have
written to the chairman of the Justice and Solicitor General Committee to ask that when the committee visits British Columbia it have hearings on sentencing and the parole system and that the committee visits the municipalities about which I am speaking, and Fraser Valley East. I am pleased that representatives of the three municipalities have written to the Solicitor General, as have many of the citizens. I know they will welcome the opportunity to put their cases before the committee. I am encouraging the committee to come this spring when it visits British Columbia so that people can be heard and their concerns written into the register.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to express my shock and horror at the tragic death of a young mother, her daughter and a young friend in British Columbia last year. Both as Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General and as a father, I sympathize deeply with the families of these victims.
The alleged perpetrator of these crimes had been convicted of homicide 16 years earlier and was on parole at the time of these brutal murders. Two weeks later he took his own life while under psychiatric observation. We therefore may never know his full role in these crimes nor what could have motivated him.
A police investigation into the matter is now under way and the circumstances surrounding the crime will soon be examined by a coroner's inquest. Officials of the Solicitor General's ministry have been and will continue to offer whatever assistance they can to the police and coroner. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate to speculate on the findings of those inquiries.
The parolee in question was paroled after serving over 10 years of a life sentence for his earlier conviction. He had been on parole for over six years. He was seen weekly by his parole supervisor and received regular psychotherapy from two therapists. He had received psychological and psychiatric treatment throughout his sentence, including three years in the psychiatric treatment centre. By all accounts he was doing well, and at each stage of his sentence when decisions were made with regard to his very gradual release into the community, psychiatric and/or psychological opinions were considered by the parole board.
None of this can compensate for the loss of three innocent lives. The Minister will continue to examine the facts as they become known to ensure that this was the case, to learn what we can from this tragedy and to take whatever corrective action is indicated.
Our parole system must continue to help inmates to make the transition back to the community in a law-abiding fashion. At the same time the degree of risk must remain the key element in making such decisions. The harsh reality is that
February 8, 1988

assessing risk remains a matter of human judgment to a large extent and human judgment is not infallible. Despite the difficulties which will always remain, I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that this Government has done and will continue to do what it can to improve the process.
First, as Flon. Members know, Bill C-67 was passed in July of 1986. That Bill allowed the parole board to intervene and prevent the automatic release to mandatory supervision of patently dangerous inmates. Up until July 31, 1987, one year after the legislation was passed, 346 inmates had been referred to the National Parole Board for detention hearings. Of these inmates, 81 were ordered detained, subject to yearly review until sentence expiry. Seventy-two were given residency conditions, 65, one-chance mandatory supervision and 110 were released under "regular" mandatory supervision.
Second, the Parole Board is at this time implementing on a trial basis decision-making policies that will focus on undue risk. Third, the correctional service is implementing a case-
Adjournment Debate
management-strategies approach aimed at reducing and controlling the risk posed by paroled offenders.
In addition, in response to the Ruygrok inquest, certain measures such as information co-ordinators were speedily introduced and other longer-term measures have recently been proposed to the Solicitor General (Mr. Keileher) by a sentence-management review conducted by ministry officials. We are striving daily to find ways of improving our performance. To the extent the inquiries into this tragedy reveal any necessary corrective measures, they will be undertaken in addition to those to which 1 have already referred.
In closing, Madam Speaker, let me again express my deepest sympathies to the relatives and friends of those three victims who so tragically lost their lives.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, February 9, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers