1969-02-14

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from the Honourable Mr. Justice J. G. Ruttan and the Honourable Mr. Justice F. C. Munroe, both of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the two judges appointed for the trial of a petition pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate of judgment declaring that the election in the electoral district of Comox-Alberni, British Columbia, was void.
I also have the honour to inform the house that pursuant to section 69 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, chapter 87, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, I have issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report in French and in English of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).

Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I failed to catch your eye when you called for the presentation of reports by standing and special committees. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to revert to that stage so I might have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The house considers that the hon. member has tabled the report to which he referred.
[Editor's note: for Reports above referred to, see Votes and Proceedings.]



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy, in French and in English, of the Consensus drafted at the constitutional conference held at the beginning of this week.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of discussions among the various groups with respect to the third report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, which was presented to the house by the Chairman yesterday, and the motion for concurrence therein which appears on yesterday's notice paper. It has been suggested that it might meet the general convenience of the house if the matter were discussed today rather than on Monday or thereafter, which under the Standing Orders would be the first time it could be dealt with.
Therefore, I would like to make a proposal to the house which might enable us to deal with this report today without unduly inconveniencing the debate which will be taking place on the federal-provincial conference. I think there might be found to be agreement to having the motion of the hon. member for concurrence in the third report called between the hours of one and two today, that the debate on it take place during that period of time, and that if the debate be not concluded before two o'clock, it be adjourned to a future sitting of the house. I wonder whether there is general consent to that course of action being followed and, if so, I would ask that it be made an order of the house.

February 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party would be agreeable to this procedure, if it is arranged.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a slight difficulty in that the report has not been received in its entirety at this moment. Although the last issue of the English version of the report will be in by noon today, the French version of that report will not be available. I know some hon. members have objected to the fact that there had been a motion for concurrence in a report, although the committee evidence had not been received in full. But if hon. members are satisfied, we might proceed as suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ACT


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-170, to amend the Department of Transport Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Henry Goode: The purpose of this bill is to bring offshore oil drilling under the control of the Department of Transport in order that the department may protect the beaches and wildlife of our coastline against massive oil leakage such as the one recently experienced on the California coast.


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


Hon. Otio E. Lang (for Ihe Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill S-26 (from the Senate), to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products, be now read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT ASSOCIATIONS ACT PERMISSION TO SOCIETY TO BECOME FEDERALLY INCORPORATED

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill S-28 (from the Senate), to
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, be now read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the decline in employment opportunities, especially in certain parts of the country and in particular, perhaps, in connection with the reduction of recruiting activity on campuses and the decreasing prospect of students securing either temporary or permanent employment. I wonder whether we can expect the minister or one of his colleagues to make a statement at any early date outlining the measures which the government proposes to take with regard to these very serious problems.


Edgar John Benson: agree these are very serious problems and I should like to take the suggestion of the hon. gentleman under consideration.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: May I ask the minister-and this applies to all his cabinet colleagues-whether, when studying this matter, they would consider introducing a crash program to alleviate the heavy unemployment in the Atlantic provinces now running, I believe, at 10.1 per cent?


Edgar John Benson: We always take very seriously suggestions by the hon. member.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: In this regard, would the minister consider, too, reintroducing the federal shipbuilding subsidy which would be a great help in making employment opportunities available in the Atlantic shipyards used especially for the restoration of our fishing fleet on the east coast?


Edgar John Benson: This is a matter which would have to be brought forward by the Minister of Industry, and I shall take it up with him.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: May I ask whether the government is still considering providing some assistance to
February 14, 1969

Expo, which usually hires some 2,000 students in the Montreal area?


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
I should like to ask him what kind of assistance the government is considering to give to the city of Montreal to help them offset the high rate of unemployment which is plaguing Montreal, as well as the other Quebec regions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have anything to add to the Minister of Finance's statement, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the right hon. Prime Minister accept to grant direct subsidies to Man and his World, in order to fight unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to know if the government of Quebec and the member of the opposition agree that it would be a good use of the spending power and if so, under what conditions we should use it?


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister a further supplementary question?
Since he refuses to give assistance to alleviate unemployment, would the Prime Minister-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not what I said, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Would he say what kind of assistance is intended for Quebec?



HOUSING


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of housing and ask him whether he can now inform the house more accurately when we may expect the bill emanating from the report he tabled a couple of weeks ago.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I cannot say precisely when the bill will be ready, but so far everything is right on schedule and I anticipate no undue delay.


David Lewis: It is difficult for hon. members to know whether the Minister is right on

Inquiries of the Ministry schedule or not. Will the Minister tell us exactly what the schedule is?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As has already been indicated, I am in process of preparing recommendations to the cabinet on this subject, which I hope will be dealt with shortly. As soon as the cabinet has had an opportunity to consider them, a bill will be prepared as expeditiously as a bill can be prepared.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamillon West):: Inasmuch as it has been suggested that this house deals only with wheat, fish and corn, and in order to create some doubts about that proposition, may I ask when the minister will be prepared to make a statement as to the intentions of the government with regard to urban renewal schemes which have already been started? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because many municipalities are living in day-to-day fear about what may happen in the light of the ambiguity of recent reported statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a very good question, Mr. Speaker. The government will be considering its policy with respect to urban renewal at the same time as it is considering amendments to the act. An announcement will be made as soon as we have had the opportunity of reviewing our policy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, or perhaps it is a related one: In view of the fact that we have held our first national urban transportation conference, and since I know that the government will soon be making a statement on urban renewal, I am wondering whether at the same time it will consider making a statement as to the role it intends to play, or perhaps should play, in the matter of urban transportation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think this statement has already been made, so far as the present is concerned.



PRIORITY FOR LOW INCOME GROUPS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the cost of living was up again last month, and that this increase falls most heavily upon the low income groups, can the minister assure the house that in this new legislation priority will be given to housing for the low income groups?

February 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this always has the greatest priority when we make amendments to acts and adopt policies to meet the needs of all Canadians, and in particular those with low incomes.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
A few years ago the federal government and the R.C.M.P. launched an investigation which led to the discovery of the FLQ movement and of certain separatists responsible for bomb explosions. Now is the federal government ready to act with the same firmness and stubborness in order to find out if some Maoists, as we have heard, are responsible for this wave of terrorism which we have been experiencing in Quebec during the few last months?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the hon. member that the government shares his concern and that I have discussed this problem with the Solicitor General who is doing his duty in that connection.
We have naturally taken for granted that the police both of the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec are the first responsible in the field and have been doing an excellent job. We are offering them all the co-operation they wish for.


Mr. SSeven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: May I ask the Solicitor General, by way of a supplementary question, whether the R.C.M.P. has been called to assist in the investigation of the 53 bombings in Montreal. Have they yet reported to the Solicitor General?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there is an arrangement between the police forces as a result of which the Montreal police or the Quebec Provincial Police, as the case may be, co-operate quite closely with the R.C.M.P. in getting any assistance and help they need. That help has been available, is available, and is being used from time to time as the occasion requires.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, will the government not accept some responsibility for

investigating organized anarchy, or must we wait until someone is killed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY STANDING COMMITTEE

['If the hon. member reads Hansard, Mr. Speaker, he will see that I said, "were going on now" and corrected this to "which had begun". As the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated earlier this week, discussions have started and on-going steps will be reported in due course.\n[Translation)']
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government house leader.
I would like to ask him whether, in view of the serious disorders which are spreading throughout Canada, particularly among students, he would be ready to call a meeting in camera of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, in order to study this problem, together with the question of the presence of foreign agitators in Canada, and to make recommendations to the government as to what it should do to ensure order and security.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, within a few weeks this question and some related ones will be put before the standing committee on justice and legal affairs which therefore will be able to consider this at leisure.



Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that a sizeable number of students who were involved in the sabotage and destruction at Sir George Williams University were at the time of their arrest carrying and quoting from copies of Mao Tse Tung's little red book, and in view of the recently announced statements of Lin Pao that the correct policy of communists must be to encourage upheaval in all countries, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would inform the house as to whether, in the pending negotiations with Red China on diplomatic recognition, the government is insisting that the numbers of personnel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask a question but he should not make a speech. What he is doing now is making a statement rather than asking a question.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a direct question, and my question is simply this, whether or not in the pending negotiations with Red China the government
February 14, 1989

is insisting that the numbers of personnel in any diplomatic mission in Ottawa be kept in reciprocal parity with that of the Canadian embassy in Peking, and that all such personnel from China refrain from any involvement in political activity or internal agitation with students otherwise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit my question was timely and pertinent. In the interest of national security and stability will you not give the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer, Mr. Speaker?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that part of the question which is timely I will gladly answer. When we embark upon such negotiations concerning the establishment of diplomatic relations with any country we discuss the question of personnel and reciprocal arrangements. And these matters are part of the discussions going on now, or rather which have begun.


Robert Norman Thompson: My second
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, relates to the statement just made by the Prime Minister that negotiations are now taking place with Red China. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether Canadian-Chinese discussions have in fact begun? Has the Chinese government replied to the invitation from Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member reads Hansard, Mr. Speaker, he will see that I said, "were going on now" and corrected this to "which had begun". As the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated earlier this week, discussions have started and on-going steps will be reported in due course.
[Translation)



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada intends to create 1,000 summer jobs for Canadian students: Is it the intention of the federal government to set up a similar program and even perhaps consider a suggestion
Inquiries of the Ministry I made in this house with regard to the establishment of a compulsory or voluntary training service for young Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I have been trying to catch your eye, in the hope you would permit me to ask a question. I am not raising any objection but simply pointing a fact out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has caught my eye.



IMMIGRATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I first brought up this matter on November 13. In the absence today of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the necessity of the Canadian government taking action to keep out of Canada well recognized revolutionaries who are coming here and disturbing the peace in various universities and colleges. I ask, does the government intend to follow the course that was followed in the United Kingdom and also in France of keeping out individuals of communist inclination who advocate the overthrow of government by force. Secondly, in the case of students coming from foreign countries who, by their lawlessness here, undermine the rule of law, does the government intend to deport them to their own countries so that they will be able to do their work at home rather than in Canada. Their work here is to the detriment of our people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman has been waiting since November for an answer to his question perhaps he ought not to have asked it on a morning when the ministers he mentioned are not in the house to answer his question.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. Because of recent events I wanted an opportunity to ask my question this morning.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The second part of the question was dealt with by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration one or two days ago. As to the first part of the question, the right
5518	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman knows the policy of the Canadian government; it is the same as that followed by the government of which he was the head.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We try to prevent people who have an intention of committing criminal acts of one kind or another from entering our country. However, we have not reached the stage where we are able to read the minds of people who enter the country. We cannot exclude all people because some of them might want to speak in terms of revolution.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister whether he is not aware that Rubin and Stokely Carmichael boasted of the way they were able to enter Canada. I would also ask him if these student revolutionaries here on sufferance whether inspired by Mao's red book or any other book, are going to be allowed to carry on their illegal if not criminal activities with impunity? Should they not be deported?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government does not permit anyone to carry on illegal activities in Canada. In so far as our jurisdiction is concerned we are not, under the constitution, asked to administer justice for this land. It is the responsibility of the province to prosecute people who have entered here and have committed criminal acts.


John George Diefenbaker: For some reason the Prime Minister does not answer the question. What about officers of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the deportations that do take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Could the Prime Minister, in connection with this matter of immigration, give assurance to the house that only those who have been convicted of offences by our courts will be deported in accordance with the Immigration Act?


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister assure the house that the British tradition will be followed, which I expect the Conservatives will accept, allowing a wide range of freedom for immigration? England in the past-


An hon. Member:: Let us speak for ourselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

DEBATES	February 14, 1969



FINANCE


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Owing to the fact that taxes have been very much discussed at the federal-provincial conference, could he tell the house whether the Carter report and its recommendations have been taken into account?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that has been taken into account in the following way: the federal government, through the Minister of Finance and myself, has declared several times that the bill or the white paper dealing with that subject will be discussed with the provinces before being adopted by the government.



HATE LITERATURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Aihabasca):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Solicitor General or possibly the Minister of Justice. A day ago I dialed a Toronto telephone number, 532,4232, and listened to anti-Semitic and other forms of hate propaganda. I realize there is a Senate public bill now being considered regarding the distribution of hate propaganda. Would the minister make a statement as to whether any measures are being taken to prevent this, until the bill has been passed?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: If the hon. member would like to give me further details I will communicate them to the Attorney General of Ontario. It is within his purview to examine the facts and enforce the criminal law as it stands. The hon. member might also like to give evidence before the other place, where this matter is currently under study.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the government has increased the salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada by 50 per cent from $50,000 to $75,000, has the government increased the salaries of any other government officials by a similar percentage?
February 14, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the Order Paper.



PENSIONS


John Angus MacLean: I should like to direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation during this session of parliament to remove certain anomalies which exist in the pension provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We hope to bring forward during this session legislation to correct some anomalies and administrative weaknesses in the R.C.M.P. legislation, armed forces pension legislation and the Public Service Superannuation Act.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Solicitor General if there are any other pension provisions which the government might improve during this session? I am thinking of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act which has serious anomalies in it.


George James McIlraith: I do not believe there is any provision in the legislation now being prepared relating to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. I know that subject is of real concern and the act has many anomalies in it. Perhaps I could take the hon. member's question as a suggestion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister tell the house to what extent he is receiving protests in respect of Canada having diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and what is the Prime Minister's attitude toward this resentment?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister to give a policy statement. However, if hon. members feel the Prime Minister should answer the question, I have no objection.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I am only asking for information.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think I can give any useful information. There have been some protests and there has been a great deal of support.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. If previous questions have any effect, our penitentiaries may be overflowing with inmates. My question relates to the press release emanating from the minister's office in connection with judges returning to school. Would the minister consider having these judges visit our penitentiaries to expand their knowledge to know just what they are sentencing people to?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a suggestion to the minister which I do not think can be accepted as a question.



WHEAT-STEPS TO COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. In view of the fact the Canadian farmers are patiently waiting for the U.S.S.R. to accept the overdue balance of 150 million bushels of wheat on the last three year contract with that country, can the minister advise what steps, if any, he or his department have taken to encourage the U.S.S.R. to finalize the balance of this important agreement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of ihe Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, active steps are being taken. As the hon. member knows, negotiations are taking place. In the past it has not been considered useful to discuss publicly the steps that negotiations were taking, but I can assure the hon. member that active negotiations are being pursued.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence today of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I direct this

February 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Solicitor General. Do the R.C.M.P. assist the immigration authorities in checking on dubious immigrants to Canada and, if so, can the minister give us an assurance that the R.C.M.P. are keeping an eye on a colleague of the notorious student leader, Danny Cohn-Bendit, who is presently in the city of Halifax attempting to foment trouble there?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. As to the second part of the question, under the practice of this house I would not give any such assurance one way or the other.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the role and the activities of the R.C.M.P. and other police have been investigated in regard to the events which took place at Sir George Williams University this week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General wanted to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio-I refer of course to the one from the important city of Winnipeg (Mr. Richardson). My question is related to the welcome announcement just given by the Solicitor General that legislation regarding the pensions of federal superannuates is being prepared. On September 24 last the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) said that the government was continuing to consult with the officials of the Canadian National Railways concerning the pensions of retired employees of the C.N.R. Are these consultations continuing, and is there anything to report about an increase in the pensions of retired C.N.R. employees?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, consultations are continuing but there is nothing to report at this time.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house what the proposed increase in the salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada does to the credibility of both the Governor and the government in their pleas to the public for fiscal restraint?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is clearly out of order.


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has been talking to the people of Canada about fiscal restraint in every possible area, yet it has increased by 50 per cent the salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: The minister should be allowed to explain this to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for South Western Nova.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western
Nova): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question.
Does he intend to fill the Senate vacancies in the near future?
Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that this question is urgent, and I even doubt whether it is in order.


Mr. Comeau:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we are again running short of time, and so perhaps we might allow another member to ask a question.



INACCURACIES IN TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government house leader. I admit it is an unusual question but I do not know anyone else to whom I can address it. Can the government house leader inform us as to when the extraordinary situation relative to the phone books supplied to the Press Gallery and

February 14, 1969

Members of the House of Commons will be corrected and the phone books up dated? I ask this question in view of the fact that last week we received new inserts and discovered, sir, that members of parliament who were defeated last June, and who are no longer associated with the House of Commons, are given House of Commons phone numbers, while new members were not included. This also applied to civil servants. Can we have this most fantastic situation attended to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: That is government
efficiency.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the hon. member is inquiring about defeated members of parliament and he said defeated civil servants-


Harold Edward Winch: I did not say defeated civil servants-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will inquire about them.


Harold Edward Winch: -and I said it was an extraordinary situation.


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



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Does the shifting of Air Canada departures from Montreal to Toronto result from the delay in selecting a site for the Montreal International Airport?


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I am coming back to the question I have just put and I am turning it into a matter of privilege since it is extremely urgent.
In early February, an editorial was published in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member would perhaps like to put the question again and the minister will decide whether it should be answered.
Inquiries of the Ministry


René Matte: In that case, I would ask the minister whether the transfer of Air Canada departures from Montreal to Toronto stems from all this beating around the bush concerning the choice of a site for the Montreal International Airport.


Mr. Speaker:: After hearing the question for the second time, I still think it unacceptable, but it might be simpler to let the minister answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I did not understand the question either the first or the second time. I would be quite willing to listen once more, but I am not sure what the hon. member is referring to as being moved, or his allegation that something has moved from Montreal to Toronto. Perhaps if he would be a little more explicit I could help him.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the difficulty in this situation the minister might take note of the question when it appears in Hansard tomorrow.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF AVIATION POLICY

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the concern that has been expressed by the 224 members of the Air Transport Association of Canada is it the government's intention to announce this session a consistent federal aviation policy, with special reference to a policy governing mainline and regional carriers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there is a policy in existence which is being implemented at the present time. In respect to regional carriers, as my hon. friend well knows, there was a considerable period when it was not possible to implement the announcements made by my predecessor but these are now in process of being implemented, and I think the situation is improving and is being well received by the industry and the travelling public. There will, of course, be further changes in due course. A number of these are under study by the government, and particularly by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson). I do not imagine that there will be any immediate announcement, but within a reasonable length of time I have no doubt that we shall have other announcements to make to the House of Commons.
February 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



CASTLEGAR, B.C.-CONSULTATION BEFORE CHANGE IN SERVICE

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Were the municipalities involved in the operation of the Castlegar airport and other airports consulted by the Canadian Transport Commission before the decision was made to authorize B.C. Air Lines to operate local services on C.P.A.'s southern run?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question could easily be placed on the order paper. Perhaps if there is urgency about it, it could be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Randolph Harding: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



TELEVISING OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council related to a question posed yesterday by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster. In view of the considerable importance and value of the broadcasting of the three constitutional conferences that have been held in the last year and a half, and the considerable difficulties encountered in reaching some kind of decision on that question with respect to this house and its committees, would the President of the Privy Council give consideration to immediate discussion and possible experimentation with such a television service, with perhaps the initial discussion taking place in the special committee on procedure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will give that consideration, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government house leader. Noting the paucity of government orders on the order paper I wish to ask whether consideration is now being given to initiating steps for a thorough review of the Canada Elections Act by the appropriate committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks again at the notice paper he

will find there is quite enough business listed on it, but it would be our intention to refer all aspects of the Canada Elections Act to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Does the minister mean the whole act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if we refer only the whole act this would not encompass some additional suggestions that have been made to hon. members in a recent report; so I think it would be better to have a broader reference to the committee than just the existing statute.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to one asked earlier this morning regarding depressed conditions in the maritime provinces, and their need for further financial help. Would the Minister of Finance do what he can to encourage the maritime provinces in their current study of the benefits of establishing a Maritime union?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this of course is a matter for the maritime provinces. I understand they are carrying out such discussions and I believe they have commissioned an economic study in this regard.



THE SENATE


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Right Honourable Prime Minister.
I would like to ask the Right Honourable Prime Minister if he or his government thought of abolishing the Senate?



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, who is in charge of housing. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Parkdale informed the house last night he had been advised by the minister that legislation in respect of housing would be
February 14, 1969	COMMONS
ready within three weeks, is it the intention of the minister to bring forth that legislation within three weeks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale is an optimist, and so am I. Certainly everything possible will be done to prepare this legislation, but as I indicated earlier today it will take some weeks to draft it, after the government had decided on its policy. I know that my hon. friend, along with all members of the house, will give us every encouragement to move forward with this important legislation.


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to inform the house that yesterday in answer to the question by the hon. member for Broadview I said "a few weeks", not "three weeks".


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister check with the Minister of Finance to see whether this optimism will wear off on him too?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is an optimist, otherwise he would not be the Minister of Finance.


John Gilbert: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for Parkdale. I thought he said "three" instead of "a few".



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: moved:
That this house do now adjourn.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this debate is to permit hon. members of this House and particularly those in the opposition parties, to express their opinions about the whole process of constitutional review. Opportunity to state the position of the government was given me during the last few days. It is not my intention today to repeat what I said at that time. The importance of the conference, and of the work in which it is engaged, does require me to make a short report, however.
DEBATES	5523
Dominion-Provincial Conference
Those members who viewed the conference proceedings either actually, on television or through radio, are aware of the wide range of subjects which were considered, and of the even wider range of views which were expressed about those subjects. Notwithstanding the divergency of opinions, however, a considerable degree of consensus was reached as is evident in the final conference document which I have tabled today.
Obviously we did not in the three days of the conference acquire a new constitution, and no one ever suggested that that was possible. We did in those three days move a long distance toward a new Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I should be less than frank if I did not say that I would have liked the conference to have adopted the federal proposal for an entrenched bill of rights, but I am very pleased that on many subjects we made a great deal of progress. An examination of the documents which I tabled this morning reveals that an impressive number of constitutional items were advanced an appreciable degree. The conference agreed to continue with the constitutional review, and at an accelerated pace; it was affirmed that studies of linguistic questions be undertaken by a committee of ministers; the same proposal was accepted about the item concerning the entrenchment of fundamental rights and liberties in the form of a constitutional charter; the spending power will be examined as will the question of regional disparities; the structure and role of the Senate and Supreme Court, two of the institutions of federalism, were brought into review, and so was the concept of the National Capital area, which is one of the very important institutions of federalism.
I believe this shows a remarkable degree of concensus on a large number of questions of considerable importance. There is still another aspect upon which the conference was very successful. I have in mind the opportunity it gave to the people of Canada to observe on a close and intimate basis the complexities, and the varieties, of the problems which must be taken into account in shaping the future of this vast country. The frank expressions of opinions voiced by the heads of the various provincial governments were a dramatic illustration of just how theoretical and how academic are many of the treatises which purport to explain the constitution of Canada and which purport to explain the way in which Canada is governed.
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference
The conference was for both observers and participants an educational exercise of considerable importance. I believe we all learned much of the hopes and the complaints, the priorities and the interests, as well as the varying degrees of involvement of the several governments in Canada with this constitutional question. It permitted us all to understand better our mutual and individual problems.

As I say this, however, I do not intend to create an impression that our task is over. I am convinced that none of the provincial premiers want such an impression to be left. This conference established, if there were any need to establish, that all provincial governments are resolved, as is the federal government, to improving the economic opportunities of our people. It established that all provincial governments are anxious, as is the federal government, to improve the operation of our federal system. It established that all provincial governments are firm, as is this government, in a commitment to protect fundamental human rights. Of course, agreement has not been reached on the means to achieve this objective, but all heads of government have indicated their willingness to work towards a better protection of human rights. We all acknowledge that the grave difficulties we face are in part the result of oversight, in part the result of errors, but mostly because of our past inability to forecast future events. All omissions past and present were made in good faith. There has been perhaps some incapability to solve complex problems in an industrial society which is experiencing a unique type of federalism.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, in the Canada of 1969 good faith and understanding, fundamental though they are to the continued development of this country, are not by themselves enough. To them must be added other ingredients: energy, discipline, a sense of urgency. The exercise in which we have engaged ourselves-making modern our constitutional framework to permit a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities among the people of Canada-this exercise, is a complicated one. It demands of us the best that our imagination and our experience and our political skills are able to provide.
[DOT] (12 noon.)

There were some suggestions at the conference that Canadians face challenges more

pressing than the reformation and redrafting of our constitution, that our energies would be better expended in seeking solutions, for instance, to current problems which require no constitutional amendment. These arguments are persuasive because they are to a large extent true. It is of little use to draft a new constitution if in the meantime financial pressures upon the many levels of government become unbearable. It is to a degree illusory to speak in terms of a bold new plan for the future if we cannot ease the intolerable conditions of poverty in which too many Canadians now live.
These arguments, I repeat, are persuasive but they are not compelling; nor do I think that they were intended to be compelling. They were intended to remind us of a very important aspect of our labours, but they were not, I believe, made in the sense that constitutional review must take second place. For if we were now to abandon the long-run for the short-run, we would have overlooked an ingredient in our lives which we dare not fail to consider. That ingredient is the future.
Even as we examine our constitution and discuss the current pressures which bear upon all levels of government, we know that there are other pressures which have scarcely been defined, let alone brought under control. The longer these pressures are allowed to continue unchecked, the more difficult will be our task to deal with them. One such difficulty which comes to mind is likely the greatest challenge to the continuation of life on this planet, the problem of environmental pollution.
Our apparent disinterest or lack of action in regard to this problem, as reflected by the widespread lack of serious study and the infrequent attempts at effective controls, may well govern the quality of life in Canada in the last three decades of this century. This challenge of pollution of our rivers and lakes, of our farmlands and forests and of the very air we breathe, cannot be met effectively in our federal state without some constitutional reform or clarification. It is important that we know whic.h level of government is responsible and, if both, in what way they are ready to co-operate through the use of the spending power and other devices to permit these problems to be tackled properly.
I believe this is true of many other problems which are sometimes brought to the attention of this house, problems such as urban renewal of housing and urban transport. These problems cannot be dealt with
February 14, 1969

properly because the present constitution is either silent or vague about the level of government which has the legal competence to tackle them. Until the constitution is brought into the 20th century in some of these respects, governments are to a large degree powerless to solve the problems either by acting alone or in co-operation with other levels of government. These are current difficulties which face Canadians and are spawned by this technological age; they could not have been foreseen 100 years ago.
Many of the subjects that we discussed, such as the spending power, which perhaps seemed theoretical to many, are at the heart of all these questions. We are very often asked, as a government, to do something about a problem that is not under federal jurisdiction. We are very often asked by some to do something which can only be done through the use of the spending power, and then we are told by others that the spending power should not be used. So it is important to clarify these issues. The examples I have given are only a few of the many reasons why there is a great, pressing need for this constitutional task to be moved forward.
Another of the reasons, and perhaps more important still, is the temper of the youth of this country. There are in Canada today more than ten million persons below the age of 25. These young people are not content to permit the future of Canada to be fettered in any fashion by the failure of governments to proceed promptly and adequately with these various tasks and with the constitutional task which lies at the bottom of any action. Forty-nine per cent of the population of Canada will not accept a relaxed and casual attitude toward these preparations for our second century.
I trust that by saying this I shall not be accused of injecting an unnecessary note of alarm or crisis or panic into an otherwise contented country. I simply say that there is an urgent need for continuing progress, that we would be misleading ourselves if we did not recognize the mood of the country. We would be misleading ourselves as well if we assumed that we are now past the most difficult part of these discussions. The most difficult parts are still to come. We the government realize it very much, and we hope that the opposition will come forward with concrete proposals which will help us in our task.
Notwithstanding these caveats, I wish to say how pleased I am with the progress made at the session of the conference which was held this week. I wish to say as well that I
Dominion-Provincial Conference anticipate continued progress and at an acceptable pace. We are already setting in motion provisions for a meeting of the continuing committee of officials early in April. If there is agreement between the federal and provincial representatives of that continuing committee, I am sure we will be able to go on to the third stage of our conference in a very short period of time.

Mr. Speaker, after tabling this document which manifests the points of consensus achieved at the Constitutional Conference, I express publicly the indebtedness of the government to the officials and members of the public service of Canada who have contributed so much to this process of constitutional review. Their skillful assistance has permitted the Continuing Committee and the Conference Secretariat to contribute an immense amount of valuable and accurate material for ministerial decisions. I am sure that all members of this house join me in offering thanks to them.

The conference on the constitution is a continuing and established fact. In a period of just over 12 months it has met twice and it gives, as I said a moment ago in French, promise that it will meet more frequently in the future. Canadians will be the better for it.
Having made these general remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to sit down and listen to the opposition. Indeed, I am quite anxious to hear the opposition spokesmen on this very important subject. I hope they will not take all their time trotting out the usual cliches about failure and about zero performance. I hope they will not say on the one hand that we have been too rigid and unbending with regard to provincial demands-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and on the other hand that we lack leadership and that we weaken the federal government's position in the face of the onslaught of the provinces. We expect cliches and we do not mind them but we would really like to know what the opposition parties think about the constitution.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
For two years or more they have been urging that we get on with the task of constitutional reform. At various times some members have urged that a committee of the house be set up, or that there be a vast national
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference conference of all heads of institutions in Canada, as has been suggested by other members. We would like to know now what the opposition thinks about the Canadian government's attitude and about the purpose of the conference itself. Do they believe in a total review or do they believe in a piecemeal approach? What do they think about the monarchy and about the demands concerning the monarchy that have been made by some of the provincial governments?


James Aloysius McGrath: You are the government. What do you think about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have stated what we think about it. If the hon. member wants me to read the position papers of the federal government I will do it, of course, but it would be more useful if the opposition took a constructive approach. What do they think about the Supreme Court, and how do they think it should be reformed in a way acceptable to the provincial governments? How do they propose to deal with the suggestions made by some provinces concerning the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court? What do they think about the reform of the Senate about which we hear so much talk in the house? How would they deal with it? Would they abolish the Senate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would point out to the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that he is not reflecting the position taken by all the provincial governments. They do not want the abolition of the Senate; they want a Senate which would in some way reflect the provincial and regional interests in this country. What do the opposition think about this difficult problem? What do they think about the national capital, a matter on which we have made great progress?


An hon. Member:: You have the mandate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have taken a position on these matters which we have developed in conjunction with our caucus. We have developed it over a period of some months and now we want to know if the opposition have different thoughts on this because we feel there is a division of opinion on this subject. For example, we have made proposals concerning the Supreme Court, and they are quite clear. We have heard from the Conservative benches suggestions for a constitutional court which would be different and apart

from the Supreme Court. The Leader of the Opposition has not taken this position but apparently some members of his party from Quebec have. I would like to know the position of the opposition to use as a guideline.
What is the opposition's position on the charter of fundamental liberties which we want to put into the constitution? Do they agree with the position of some provincial premiers that there should not be such a charter and that we should leave these matters to the statute laws, or do they agree with the line of thinking which was so ably presented in the house a few years ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)?
What about linguistic rights? Here again we are in a very delicate and difficult area. There have been some taunts from the opposition on this subject but we have not yet obtained any constructive suggestions. This whole question brings us into the area of the two-nation theory which was put before the conference by the prime minister of Quebec in his brief. We know that this two-nation theory was expounded at the Montmorency conference of Conservatives a couple of years ago, and we also know that it does not mean the same thing to all members of the opposition. However, we from Quebec know that in the mouths of most of those who ran for the Conservative party in Quebec it means something quite different from what is meant by the Leader of the Opposition.
We would like to have some clarification on this subject, especially as I was told that a few days ago that eminent Conservative constitutional expert, Mr. Camp, said that at Montmorency the Conservatives hammered out a policy which is exactly the same as ours. I was very glad to hear that, but I am sure that this is not the message that got across to the province of Quebec when the Conservative candidates were speaking there last spring. This subject is all the more urgent as it was brought up again earlier this week in the brief of the province of Quebec. In that brief the Quebec Government also included provisions for a special status. We know that the New Democratic Party last year moved a non-confidence motion in the government because we did not support a special status. This is the time for the N.D.P. to state clearly what they mean provided, of course, they know what they mean.


An hon. Member:: You should know because you were one of them not so long ago.
February 14, 1969	COMMONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would die Prime Minister permit a question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Very gladly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1
assure him it is a helpful question. In view of the Prime Minister's desire to hear what the opposition has to say, would he stay in the house for the debate today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is usually my practice to hear the leaders of all the opposition parties in an important debate such as this and I plan to do so today with the proviso that I have to be in Quebec city by four o'clock and so will have to leave at 3 p.m. This engagement in Quebec was made last fall at the time when the constitutional conference was to have taken place in December. It was postponed through no fault or initiative of the federal government. But I can assure the hon. member that I will read Hansard if I miss any important part of the debate.
The matter I have been dealing with was brought into the conference under the heading of distribution of powers, and it is a very important next step in our constitutional debate. We will have to spell out the federal position on the distribution of powers between the federal and the provincial governments. We have not yet reached this stage although, I repeat, some of the provinces have made submissions on it, and therefore we will be anxious to hear the ideas of the opposition on this subject.
We dealt with two aspects of the distribution of powers: the aspect which one would call the spending power and the aspect concerning the taxing power, both of which are linked in a very immediate and direct sense to the whole question of regional disparities. Members of the house know of the tough debate at the conference on the spending power and know as well how we came to the conclusion that a great deal more thought must be given to the use of the spending power. It was obvious that some provinces objected to uses of the spending power which were recognized as essential by other provinces.
For example, some provinces objected to medicare because they said it was a bad use of the spending power, whereas the same provinces pressed for and urged upon us the hospital insurance scheme, which is exactly the same use of the spending power. Some of those who objected to the federal use of the spending power were the very same ones who urged us, for instance, to solve the problems
DEBATES	5527
Dominion-Provincial Conference of housing or pollution and in some cases to come to the aid of Expo in Montreal. Are these areas where the federal government should intervene with its use of the spending power? If so, does it mean we should only use the spending power when the provinces desire that we use it and never when we decide it is good for the country? And does this mean that the federal parliament need not exist, or can only exist as a tool of the provincial governments? We have spelled out our position on some of these issues. We are now asking the opposition to give us the guidance they think they have to offer.
* (12:20 p.m.)
I believe I have asked enough questions. We have indicated the position taken by the federal government on most of these matters in the booklet which was tabled last Friday-"The Constitution and the People of Canada." I just want to remind the opposition before I sit down that it is their duty under the parliamentary system to criticize, and we accept that criticism, generally, in a happy frame of mind. But it is also a duty of the opposition parties to provide plausible alternatives to the policies with which they have disagreed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Will the Prime Minister permit a question? I know it is sharp but that is because of the way in which he has taunted the opposition. May I ask the Prime Minister when he will cease to be a professor and become the leader of this house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I apologize to the house if the house believes I am lecturing it. That is not my intention. I do not believe it is the role of a professor to taunt and I do not think the hon. member himself thinks it is. I do not know how he can accuse me of speaking like a professor and at the same time of taunting the opposition.


David Lewis: It depends on the quality of the professor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am prepared to sit down, Mr. Speaker. I urge the leader of the New Democratic Party to give us his ideas in whatever way he desires, in a professorial tone or in his usual demagogic tone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
5528	COMMONS
Dominion-Provincial Conference


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: He
hasn't got much of an act to follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Let it come from the heart.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am afraid it has to come from the heart, Mr. Speaker. I do not think anything has happened since I came to Ottawa- and I speak with some emotion-which has discouraged me so much about the future of our country in so short a time as the speeches made by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sorry if I seem to speak with some emotion. I am very disappointed. I have felt a great deal of concern during the past year about the tendency of the Prime Minister to approach certain great national problems in terms of confrontation rather than reconciliation. We have, unfortunately, seen a further example of that this morning.
It is my belief that in order to make progress, let alone solve the tremendous problems facing our country, we shall need the good will and the understanding of everybody in the country and especially of every member of this house. Whatever our contribution may be, we should be invited to make it. We should be presented with every opportunity to do so. I say in all sincerity that it is a tragedy for this country when the Prime Minister stands in this house and taunts the opposition, which is not serious in itself but serious only in the light of the subject involved.
I have always tried to approach the constitutional question with restraint and with responsibility. I have always felt strongly it ought not to be a partisan issue in the ordinary sense of the term. I have no intention of responding to the Prime Minister in kind, though I might enjoy doing so, as would my followers behind me.
In all seriousness, it is now the responsibility of those who sit in opposition to undo the damage which has been done by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They should have thought of that before they began interrupting me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

DEBATES	February 14, 1969


An hon. Member:: Take your ball and go home.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let your leader speak.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the Prime Minister is suggesting he was provoked into making some thoughtless remarks which he would now like to withdraw, we would provide him with every opportunity to do so. But I was under the impression he was reading from a prepared speech.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will withdraw if the questions asked during my speech are withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Come, gentlemen, let us try to get things back to a point from which we can have a reasonable discussion. I say in all sincerity we are not off to a very good start. I did not come here this morning to find fault with the conference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: rights. I regret that the conference did not reach any real agreement on this matter. I regret there was no agreement of a general nature. Surely we are not going to consider any opting-in program as a satisfactory solution in this area.
At the conference there was no serious coming to grips with problems such as the division of powers, the use of federal spending powers, and operations of provinces outside the country. I was sorry to see this last matter was not discussed seriously because I think there is a continuing danger that isolated events may escalate the heat of the current controversy. I had hoped the matter would be seriously discussed by the Prime Minister and the heads of all provincial governments with a view to reaching solutions in a rational atmosphere. It is best to discuss the matter when there is no particularly strong controversy in the air. We should not wait to discuss it until events overtake us willy-nilly and we are in the midst of a controversy.
The conference recognized that there are difficult problems facing the country in terms of living together, but it did not deal with them seriously. There was not much progress in areas involving linguistic and basic human rights. We must not hide from ourselves the importance of coming to grips with some of the many fundamental and difficult problems facing this country. We must really come to grips with them and with problems relating to federal spending powers and the general division of powers.
For two reasons I have dealt with the atmosphere in which the conference met and with the importance provincial premiers attach to their day to day and month to month dealings with government. First, the discussion of these relationships took so much time that not much time was left for an indepth discussion of the country's constitutional problems. That was one unfortunate result of the prevailing atmosphere. Second, because of the existing atmosphere, when constitutional matters were discussed the provincial premiers could not give them their undivided attention. Short-term difficulties, if one cares to call them that, were constantly on their minds and affected their handling of subjects at the conference. Therefore they could not devote their deepest attention to questions involving constitutional matters. Certainly it is of the utmost importance to avoid this sort of atmosphere in future. In this way, when the federal government and the provinces set up machinery for consultation there can be a
Dominion-Provincial Conference realistic discussion of priorities before the next federal budget is introduced and before the provincial budgets of 1970-71 are introduced. Most of the matters of short-term importance discussed during the conference can be dealt with.
e (12:50 p.m.)
I hope the Prime Minister and his colleagues will not cut existing cost-sharing programs or, on the other hand, commence new cost-sharing programs without serious and meaningful consultations with the provinces. Under the circumstances it was inevitable much time would be spent discussing the grievances of the provinces and the manner in which the federal government had exercised its spending power. I express the hope that, whatever difficulties we may have with our constitution, constitutional discussions in the future will not be hampered by feelings of distrust or bad feelings that may arise from poor federal-provincial relations in other areas. It is important that there be progress.
The government oi the province of Quebec served notice that the next time it wanted serious discussion on some of the matters it considered basic. I say that these problems will not be solved by confrontation nor will they be solved if we adopt a rigid conception of the constitution. The constitution we develop must be related to Canada as it is. It is not good government to try to put Canada into some abstract conception. It is necessary and vital that any constitutional changes to be devised enable us to live and work together.
When these changes are discussed, whether it be in the house, in a committee, in the federal-provincial conference or in other places in the country, we will keep in mind the good advice given by the Premier of Nova Scotia at the conference that we have to be prepared to pay a certain price for confederation. If I have a definite idea which is divisive I will not attempt to force this idea on others. We all have to be prepared to pay a certain price for confederation. We must be prepared to make a serious and continuing effort involving genuine reconciliation and confrontation.
This is one of the reasons we are suggesting a parliamentary committee be established. There are many questions now being discussed concerning the powers of government, the powers of parliament, the relationship between the two houses of parliament, the proposal to put in writing some of the conventions which govern parliament and the
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference government. It is important that we have genuine consultation between the government and the house and between members of the house. Participatory democracy should prevail in this area. This alone is sufficient reason for establishing a committee. It is particularly relevant because of the proposals put forward regarding the other place. We would be prepared to discuss these proposals very frankly with the Prime Minister. I have no hesitation in endorsing the general principle that the government is putting forward in connection with this reform, but I believe it would be very helpful if there were a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to engage in meaningful discussions regarding these reforms.
Furthermore, it is rather strange that constitutional discussion has been going on across the country, including in the provincial legislatures, but there has not been any opportunity for the parliament of Canada to confront these problems in a formal and continuing way. The Prime Minister did not expect to produce a new constitution in three days of meetings with the provincial premiers. We do not expect to get very far in producing a new constitution with only one day of discussion in this chamber. I earnestly suggest it would be very helpful to have a committee established. There should be discussions among the party house leaders as to the terms of the reference of the committee. It should not be restricted and confined to discussing only those matters previously discussed by officials. We have suggested this on numerous occasions, and I think this is an opportune time to proceed with it.
Some of us have recognized for a long time that this whole problem is exceedingly complicated and sensitive. It does not lend itself to oversimplification or sloganeering. I say this issue must be free of narrow partisanship. It does not lend itself to political one-upmanship either among federal parties or at the federal-provincial level. At this stage in Canada's history it would be very easy to arouse suspicion and resentment. It would be a very simple matter to divide this country very deeply and permanently. That is not my purpose and certainly not the purpose of the loyal opposition in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We would be very happy to discuss in a continuing way any matter the Prime Minister would like to refer to a committee and we would be happy to hear his

views on the constitution. He is in no doubt as to where I stand regarding the constitution. He may have pretended to be in doubt during the last election campaign and again this morning. Those remarks were not made to seek enlightenment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly did not get any enlightenment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is more urgent now than it ever has been to face and resolve the problems of our federalism, not merely because time is running out but it is urgent also as in this last year there has been a discernable tendency away from reconciliation. Positions which were becoming flexbile have begun to grow hard, and the attitude of the Prime Minister will not make them grow softer.
We all know enough of Canada to say that if our various parts are determined to be insular and intransigent, then our future is in danger. Yet we all also believe that if there is a will to unity we can achieve a strong, distinctive and creative unity in Canada. We have a particular responsibility here. We are the parliament of all of Canada, specially charged to bring the parts of Canada together and keep each strong. If hon. members opposite want to engage in a partisan debate we would not be happy to do so but would be prepared to do so, and the blood would certainly not be on this side of the house.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am afraid that, as in the case of the taxpayers, it would be the blood of Canadian citizens we would really be shedding. This Canadian debate has been renewed now almost for a decade. It has returned here for a day, and a few of us will be able to express our hopes and attitudes. We as individuals and as an institution have a larger continuing responsibility. That is why we urge the government to make it possible now for members of this parliament to participate formally and over a period of time in the working out of a consensus, a consensus which we will have to work very hard on in order to achieve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has completed his remarks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes.


David Lewis: If he has, may I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
February 14, 1969



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, if the house gives
unanimous consent I move for Mr. Laflamme, seconded by Mr. Forest:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be now concurred in.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, now that the report of the standing committee on privileges and elections has been tabled in the house and that the moment of truth has come, I am indeed very happy of the evidence given before the standing committee of privileges and elections and of the report resulting from it. That report clearly indicates that the charges laid against me by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on December 10 last, and reported on page 3734 of the official report of the Debates, were false and unfounded.
Those most serious charges-


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for St. John's East, on a question of privilege.

The hon. member for St. John's East on a point of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I wish to state that at no time did I make a charge against him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You are weasel-ing out now.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, those most serious charges reflected not only on my personal integrity but also on my honour as a member of parliament. We can appreciate the seriousness of those charges if we read the remarks made by several other members, following the charges laid by the hon. member for St. John's East.
Privileges and Elections
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said, and I quote:
The present situation constitutes a dictatorial act that is dangerous to democracy and will destroy democracy.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-that great specialist, anxious to ensure that the speaker would not make light of his remarks said, and I quote:
-there has been a deliberate omission of a resolution carried in the committee.
Would you please take note of this, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-I am sorry he is not here at the moment-that great defender of human rights, took upon himself the right to go still further in his accusations of dishonesty against me.
Mr. Speaker, those accusations have been made in this house. A thorough enquiry has just been made in that respect which shows clearly that those accusations were untrue and dishonest.
Did the hon. members who participated in the debate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) give any thought, in acting as they did, to the tremendous wrong they could do to me and to the reputation of this house? To say the least, they acted in a shameful and irresponsible way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gustave Blouin: They were perfectly aware, Mr. Speaker, that such dishonest statements would be spread by the whole Canadian press under big headlines.
The unfortunate thing about all this is that the present debate will not be mentioned in the newspapers, let alone come under big headlines. After all, there is nothing shameful or sensational in the present discussions and the reputation of an ordinary member is of little importance to some journalists. So, I ask of those who still have some sense of honour to make good for the wrong they have done to me by using in their newspapers as much space to publish the true facts about this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, an attack on the honour of this house was made for political and party purposes. I am anxious to see what the members who made such accusations will do to make good for the wrong they have done to me.
5534

February 14, 1969
Privileges and Elections
Let me say again that I am very happy about the evidence collected by the committee on privileges and elections. However, the behaviour of the members involved and the improper reports published by some unscrupulous journalists are a bad omen for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my first observation is one of regret that the government house leader was unable to agree yesterday to ask for leave of the house to move concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections when we could have had a full debate on it at that time. Nevertheless, half a loaf is better than none and we are grateful that those of us who dissent from the third report have at least this opportunity, albeit a small one, to make some references to it.
I am also grateful that this hour has provided the hon. member for Manicougan (Mr. Blouin) with an opportunity to make a statement. I say to him sincerely that I am genuinely happy to see he has recovered, genuinely glad to see he is back in the house and able to defend himself because it was for me one of the regrettable aspects of this whole affair that it had to be conducted in the hon. member's absence, an absence caused by illness. As I say, I am glad the hon. member has now recovered and today is back here able to speak for himself.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I repeat what I said during the course of the hon. member's remarks, when I felt obliged to interrupt him, that I at no time laid a charge against him personally. Anybody who reads my question of privilege which was raised on December 10 and which can be found at page 3735 of Hansard will see that I made no personal charge against the hon. member. Perhaps it might be worth while to quote what I said:
My question of privilege is based on the fact that the resolution adopted by the committee on November 28 was, in my view, deliberately omitted from its report to the house on November 29-
If the hon. member feels that constitutes a charge against him personally, I regret that very much. That was my feeling then, and I felt very strongly about it.
Even today there remains on the order paper a motion for concurrence in the second

report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. It still appears under the name of the hon. member for Manicouagan, and no motion for concurrence has been made. I found it strange, as I find it strange now, that during the interim after the report was submitted to the house concurrence was not moved. I do not blame the hon. member for Manicouagan. I think he has been very poorly used in this instance.


An hon. Member:: By you.


James Aloysius McGrath: I think he has been very poorly used in this instance by the house leader and his colleagues. I heard no voice raised in his defence in the house when he was in hospital.


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


James Aloysius McGrath: I heard no one get up and
raise a defence for the hon. member, and I think the hon, member was badly used.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you read Hansard?


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe now as I believed at the time that my resolution which was passed by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on November 28 constituted a part of the committee's second report and was in fact omitted when the report was tabled before the house.
It might be worth while to review the reason I felt obliged to move the motion in the first instance. The committee at the time was conducting, under a reference by the house, an examination into the main estimates of the Canadian Transport Commission. Several members of the committee, including myself, were examining a decision made by that commission, the effects of which was to disestablish or do away entirely with rail passenger service in an entire province, not just on a branch line. Up to that time the Canadian Transport Commission was considering the abandonment of branch fines, and the entire rail transportation system of a province cannot under any circumstances be considered a branch fine. I did not move my resolution for any frivolous or mischievous reason.


An hon. Member:: Oh, please!


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member who interrupts presents himself to the house as an expert on fisheries and on almost everything else. If fie will control himself and listen to my contribution for a few minutes, perhaps
February 14, 1969

he may understand the argument I am trying to make in a reasonable way.
The resolution was presented alter an examination of the estimates and after questions put to the chairman of the commission as to wfiy it felt obliged to make the decision in the first instance to allow Canadian National Railways to abandon rail passenger service in the province of Newfoundland and replace it with a bus service. This decision was made by the commission shortly after the June 25 election; I believe it was brought down on June 27. I leave it to hon. members to suggest the import of that date.
The whole question of the withdrawal by the C.N.R. from passenger service in Newfoundland was a matter of great concern during the election campaign. The maintaining of the service became a policy of our party. Every Conservative candidate who ran in Newfoundland had as the main plank in his platform the maintenance and upgrading of rail passenger service in Newfoundland. Consequently those of us from Newfoundland who sit on this side of the house felt then, as we do now, that we had a mandate from the people of Newfoundland to do everything possible to have this unjust decision set aside.
It was in carrying out this mandate that we availed ourselves of the first opportunity presented to us to object to the withdrawal. This first opportunity was presented during the examination of the estimates of the Canadian Transport Commission. It was with this in mind that we moved the resolution in the committee.
Hon. members will recall that preceding the reference to the committee we availed ourselves of another opportunity presented to us to debate this matter in the house. This took place during our consideration of the annual C.N. financing bill. It was at that time that the government house leader gave the undertaking that we would have an opportunity to discuss this matter in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and to question the president of the Canadian Transport Commission. He also undertook to provide an opportunity for us to examine the officials of Canadian National Railways when he referred the annual report of the C.N.R. to that committee.
I point these facts out in order to indicate to the house, and to the hon. member who feels obliged to defend his honour in this regard because, as he has said, he feels charges were made against Jiim in a shameful and irresponsible way, that this is a very 29180-350J
Privileges and Elections serious matter. We feel we are discharging our responsibilities as members of parliament for Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: Irresponsibilities.


James Aloysius McGrath: We feel we are discharging the solemn undertaking we gave to the people of Newfoundland during the last federal election campaign. There is nothing partisan about this. We are just fulfilling a solemn undertaking which we made, and we are continuing to do so. That is why we examined very exhaustively and intensively the estimates of the commission as well as the president and his officials. We were trying to determine what prompted this decision and why the commission felt obliged to go against the recommendations of the people of Newfoundland.
The government of Newfoundland opposed this decision in a brief presented to the commission. The Newfoundland Liberal members of this house during the last parliament opposed the decision in a brief tjiey presented. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) can substantiate that. Those hon. members presented a brief to the commission in complete opposition to the instant withdrawal of this service. I think their recommendation was that the phase-out, if there was to be a phase-out, of the rail passenger service should take place over a period of at least five years; in other words, operate the bus system in the province concurrently with the rail system for five years and at the end of that time review the whole picture. That was a reasonable request.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I do not know why the Canadian Transport Commission felt obliged to go against popular opinion, to go against the members of parliament from Newfoundland, to go against the Newfoundland legislature, to go against the Newfoundland government, to go against the Newfoundland railway unions, to go against organized labour in Newfoundland. I believe we were entitled to have an answer to this question. It was for this reason particularly that we conducted the examination that took place in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which culminated in the moving of the resolution which was adopted by the committee on November 28 and was the substance of my question of privilege to the house on December 10.
I think it is worth reading into the record the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which dealt with

February 14, 1969
Privileges and Elections this matter and in respect of which a motion has been moved for concurrence.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is in the
record.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the hon. member will bear with me, I will read the parts that I think are relevant to my remarks. I will read the conclusions of the committee:
Your committee reports that the reason for the omission is that it was never moved and concurred in that the said resolution adopted by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be part of its second report.
I dissent from that statement. I said so in the committtee and I do so at this time. Anybody who has read the transcript of the evidence, especially volume No. 6 for November 28, given before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and more particularly anybody who was present at that time, would agree with my contention that the drafting of this report omitted or gave no consideration to the substance of my resolution, to the substance of the debate which preceded it, but instead chose to confine itself to purely technical grounds. I do not accept that part of the report and I shall refer to the evidence to show why. I read from page 107 of the evidence of the committee, volume No. 6, for November 28. I quote my own remarks from that page:
My motion is that the committee recommend to the house-
This left no doubt as to what I was trying to do.
-that this particular decision not be implemented until this committee has had a chance to go to the Atlantic provinces.
Preceding that, at the outset of the meeting on that day, November 28, the draft version of the second report was read to the committee. It contained the recommendation to the house which is now before the house and is on today's order paper. It contained the recommendation to the house that the committee be empowered to undertake a study of transportation in the Atlantic provinces.
In asking for this power the committee had in mind requesting the permission of the house or the government-I forget the particular technicality involved-to proceed with a continuation of the aborted trip of the committee last winter. The committee was called back last winter because of a crisis in the house at the time. The committee was going to ask whether the same terms of reference

could be applied in order that it could undertake a study of the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces and in fact go to the Atlantic provinces to examine the transportation difficulties at first hand.
It was with this second report in mind that I moved my resolution at the conclusion of that day's sitting. In the preamble to my resolution I stated what I had in mind. I stated- and this is taken from the evidence as reported at page 107 of the committee's proceedings.-that I clearly intended this matter to come before the house in the form of a recommendation to the house because parliament was supreme in regard to it. I clearly intended that the recommendation would be made to the house that this decision not be implemented, that is, that the buses be phased in and the trains phased out, until the committee had had an opportunity in connection with its proposed study of transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces to go to N ewf oundland.
Hon. members know, and the house leader knows from his experience, that the conduct of inquiries in committee and the conduct of committees generally is less formal than proceedings in the house. Formal speeches are not made in committee; prepared speeches are not made. It is a sort of dialogue, if you like; it is a give and take. That is why I was perhaps not prudent enough or careful enough-


Mr. Anderson:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) is making his usual unintelligent observation from his seat.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I merely
agreed with the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps I was neither prudent enough nor wise enough at the time to put my motion in written form. I suggest that neither was the hon. member for Manicoua-gan prudent or wise enough at the time to insist, as is now done in committees, that my motion be put in written form, because if that had happened perhaps this whole matter could have been cleared up. In any event, I did not do that. This is why my motion, which appears at page 108 and which forms the substance of my question of privilege, does not contain the words "recommend to the house''.
February 14, 1969

But clearly the hon. member lor Manicoua-gan must admit, as must any hon. member who was on that committee, that this was the intent of my motion. I did not move my resolution and have it adopted by the committee in order to have it hang in the air or die in limbo, where it now happens to be. I moved my motion to have it brought before the house so that parliament would have the opportunity to decide on this matter, so we would have an opportunity as members of parliament from Newfoundland to carry out our mandate in this house. I did not do it frivolously or mischievously. My resolution unfortunately did not contain the words "recommend to the house", but that was clearly the intent of my motion, that was clearly the import of my motion. I will read the motion as it appears at page 108 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 6 of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
That the Canadian Transport Commission be requested to postpone the implementation of its decision to abandon railway service in Newfoundland until such a time as the committee travel to Newfoundland to study the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces.
Clearly any reasonable man would know what I had in mind. My motion referred directly to the recommendation of the committee, approved by the committee, that the house empower the committee to study the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces. I submit that anybody who would hide behind technicalities is merely being the handmaiden of the house leader in this regard.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has suggested that in some way I was trying to direct the chairman of the committee. He has previously said, and I presume he was sincere, that he was not accusing the chairman of misconduct. Now he says that the hon. member was hiding behind technicalities. I suggest that is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


James Aloysius McGrath: I did not accuse the hon. member for Manicouagan of hiding behind technicalities. I accused the drafters of this report of doing so. It is a natural thing to do if there is a controversial subject involved to stick to the letter of the law and ignore the spirit. That is precisely what they did. I suggest they have lost the meaning of the whole
Privileges and Elections thing, as is evident from the report of the committee. The house leader took exception to what I said when I suggested they were perhaps obliging him in some way by doing this. I will refer to the first time that my suspicions were aroused. I directed a question to him on December 6 which can be found at page 3587 of Hansard. I asked the house leader what became of my resolution, why it was not in the second report now before the house. The house leader said in his reply:
I have not studied this: I am advised the resolution was passed hut that it was out of order.
Surely that would arouse the suspicions of any reasonable member of the house with regard to a resolution that dealt with a controversial subject, and it would indicate that the government did not want this matter brought before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: There was an interjection at that time also.


An hon. Member:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have limited time only. The hon. member made his contributions in the committee and perhaps he could speak here before the debate is over. I refer to the hon. member who asked the question. He was a member of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so he will have knowledge of this. The house leader went on to say:
Under the circumstances I take it that it is null and has no effect, but I have not examined the question.
I say to the house leader that we requested he be called as a witness before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. We made our request through the usual channels. We made that request at the first meeting of the committee and we further submitted it to the steering committee at its first meeting. My recollection is that it was agreed to at that time. Yet at the last public meeting of the committee the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), who was the chairman of the committee, ruled that he saw no reason to call the President of the Privy Council before the committee.


An hon. Member:: Rightly so.


James Aloysius McGrath: I think it is regrettable because it leaves this matter up in the air, and I refer again to the remarks of the house

February 14, 1969
Privileges and Elections leader at page 3587 of Hansard. What prompted him to say that and on what authority did he say it? Was he suggesting that because I was not a member of the Liberal party but was a member of the opposition I had no right to move a resolution in the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is that what he was suggesting? That has been the conduct of the Committees ever since. Any time an opposition member moves a resolution, confusion ensues. They say, "we cannot accept it", or they use tactics that prevent the resolution from coming to a vote. Is that the way the committees are to conduct themselves? We hoped that the house leader would have found an opportunity to appear before the committee.


Mr. Cafilc:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has indicated that every time an opposition member makes a motion in a committee it is never allowed to come to a vote and is never accepted. I submit that this is simply untrue.


James Aloysius McGrath: My time is limited, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will take into account the interruption of the hon. member who has risen on a pseudo point of order.
I submit that the house leader knew that this was a controversial matter because questions had been directed in the house on the first day of the present session to his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Helly-er). He knew that this was a matter of some controversy, and I submit that he manoeuvred to keep the matter from coming before the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Now the hon. member is imputing motives to me when he says I manoeuvred the matter. I put it to the hon. member, is it not a fact that his colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), acknowledged there was no necessity for me to appear before the committee?


James Aloysius McGrath: My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, does not have the authority to speak for me in this regard. He might have been expressing an opinion in the course of his examination but he certainly was not speaking for me.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Was it not
agreed by the committee?


James Aloysius McGrath: No, it was not. If it was I withdraw agreement, but according to my recollection it was not because the subject came up at the last meeting of the committee.


An hon. Member:: You had better read the minutes.


James Aloysius McGrath: I submit that the matter was of some urgency on November 28 because Canadian National Railways, under the authority of the Canadian Transport Commission, was to start implementing the decision to phase out the trains on December 6. The phasing in of the buses and the phasing out of the trains is now under way. My motion was urgent then but it is more urgent now. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is going to the Atlantic provinces on Sunday and will be visiting Newfoundland. Under its terms of reference it will be examining the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces. Would it not have been better if this house had directed it to examine the decision of the C.N.R. and the authority given to it by the Canadian Transport Commission allowing it to phase out the passenger service?
We have heard a lot about delegated authority, but here there is to my mind a flagrant abuse of parliament. Are we to hand over the entire public transportation system and its future to the Canadian Transport Commission without allowing parliament a chance to voice its opinions thereon? Is that the way this country is to be governed? I submit to the house that public transportation built this country to what it is today, and it is still important. As a consequence, it is a matter of great concern to this house but not to a body of bureaucrats with delegated authority such as the Canadian Transport Commission.


An hon. Member:: Another insult.


James Aloysius McGrath: If hon. members knew, as does the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), how strongly the people of Newfoundland feel about this matter, if they knew how strongly the labour movement in Newfoundland feels about it, they would realize how important the rail passenger service is to the people of Newfoundland. I put it to hon. members that 57 per cent of the electorate voted against the Liberal party on June 25, and I suggest that this is one of the reasons. I point out to hon. members the experience with the buses travelling in Newfoundland this winter and the difficulties they have encountered in what has been a relatively mild winter. If hon. members knew this, they
February 14, 1969

would realize the importance of the rail passenger service to Newfoundlanders. How can you move a sick person from east to west on a C.N. bus without the proper facilities over a distance of 600 miles and sometimes taking as much as 20 hours? These are the real problems that our people are worried about.
We do not want to keep our trains, however colourful they may be, for sentimental reasons. We want to hang on to our trains until such time as the system of transportation in Newfoundland is improved to the point where we can do without them. We have not arrived at that point today. All we have in Newfoundland to replace our rail service is an inadequate trans-Canada highway which was hastily built to fulfil a political promise in 1965 and today is below the standards of the trans-Canada highway in other parts of Canada. As a consequence it constitutes one of the most dangerous highways in the whole Dominion of Canada. Yet the trains have been removed and Newfoundlanders are to become totally dependent on a bus service. What would the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich do if a decision were made to abolish the railways in his province?
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)


David Anderson: A direct question has been asked. Would the hon. member allow me to reply to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


James Aloysius McGrath: What would other hon. members do in such circumstances? What would the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo do if the C.N.R. were to decide to do away with the coastal service in his constituency?


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know as a matter of information whether there is any limit to the amount of such talk that we have to endure and, second, whether the hon. member is really speaking to the motion before the house. We are not debating the problems of Newfoundland and its railway system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are still a few minutes left to the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: It would appear to me that hon. members opposite have now lost whatever regard they had for Newfoundland. That is understandable, bearing in mind what happened on June 25. I can understand why the hon. member does not want to hear this. But
Privileges and Elections I can tell him that it is of great concern to his friend the Minister of Defence Production. It should be of great concern to everyone because the buses are not working. Having seen the buses in operation over the past two months we feel more strongly than ever that this decision should not be implemented. Parliament should live up to its responsibilities to the people of Newfoundland and see to it that our people continue to enjoy their rail transportation system as long as the total system of public transportation in Newfoundland remains inadequate as it is today.
Ontario has a bus system and a railway system. Quebec has the same. Every other province can have a bus system and a railway system. Why set this precedent in Newfoundland? Does the president of the Canadian Transport Commision want to do away with the railways in British Columbia? He is obviously a very powerful man. Does he want to do away with the railway system on Prince Edward Island? It was with such fears in mind that we felt obliged to conduct a debate on this question, to carry out an investigation in the transport committee and to move the resolution which was moved on November 28. We felt strongly about it then and we feel even more strongly about it now in the light of our experience of the operation of Canadian National buses in Newfoundland in the past two months.
In view of the importance of the subject matter, in view of the outcome of the debate which took place in the committee, and in the light of the background I have tried to outline, I find I cannot support the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I cannot support the conclusions reached in the report. If I were to do so I would be supporting the thesis that from now on every time a resolution is adopted by a committee there has to be a further resolution calling for the original resolution to be presented to the house. To me, this does not make sense. When a committee adopts a resolution it is obviously instructing the officers of the committee to incorporate it in the committee report and to place it before the house without any further specific instruction. This, it seems to me, would be the logical course to follow. I do not know why the government should be worrying about it now. We have begun to operate under the new rules and this being the case the government will never again be defeated in committee. From now on they are in a position to slip new members on

February 14, 1969
Privileges and Elections to these committees without submitting a motion for the formal approval of the house.


An hon. Member:: So can you.


James Aloysius McGrath: But whom does this advantage? It is really to the advantage of the government. They were defeated in committee on November 28, notwithstanding their majority on the committee and in the house. But it will never happen again. In future, when a committee meets without a majority of government members present the whip will merely note the absentees, go to the clerk's office, have the names of the absentees removed from the list of committee members, and replace them by hon. members who are able to be present. So everyone on the other side of the house will be happy. What a farce the committee system of this house has become! If they continue in this way committees will become merely rubber-stamps for the government party.


Mr. Deachman:: You agreed with it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Important as my resolution is to the people of Newfoundland, there is a principle at stake here involving the way in which committees of the house are to conduct themselves during the remaining years of this parliament. This is a matter of real concern. I submit that my resolution is of historic significance in this regard because that was the last time a member of the opposition will ever get a resolution through in committee.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said to the hon. member for Manicouagan. I believe he was poorly used in this affair. I levelled no charge against him personally; I was sorry he was absent from the house due to illness when this matter was under discussion. As to his friend, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), the chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, I compliment him on the way in which he conducted himself in the committee. I compliment him on the way in which he conducted the committee, although I disagree with his report. If we had more committee chairmen like him there might be some hope for the committee system even under the new rules.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I sat on the committee on privileges and elections and I attended three or four sittings devoted to the study of the

matter raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
It is obvious that today the hon. member has not impressed the members of this house any more than he impressed the members of the committee on privileges and elections.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the committee on privileges and elections sat at the request of the hon. member and that its terms of reference, which he had himself suggested and which were approved by the house on December 10 last, were clear and precise.
The question was simply and solely to determine the reason, valid or not, why a certain resolution which had been passed by the committee on transport, on November 28 last, had not been included in the second report which was adopted at the beginning of the sitting and which was tabled in the house the next day, that is on November 29.
Now, the terms of reference of the committee on privileges and elections required that it merely determine whether the normal, regular, legal procedure had been followed in that instance.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
Now, as well in the committee as in this house, the arguments of the member were completely off-base. The committee of privileges and elections was not supposed to discuss or deny the importance or urgency of the matter brought up in the resolution of the member at the end of the sitting of the committee on transports; nor was it supposed to interpret the intention or the professed intention of the hon. member who presented the resolution. In any event, the member is no rookie; he has been sitting here for several years and he should be expected to know the rules.
Now, the committee on privileges and elections sat and heard the chairman and the secretary of the committee, as well as the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons, Mr. Ollivier. After having heard those witnesses, the committee readily came to a conclusion, which was obvious to almost all the members of the committee, except two, that there was no question of privilege, and that said resolution had been omitted in the report merely because to include it, it would have been necessary to make a proposal to that effect, and this was not done. The committee, after having heard the witnesses, reached that obvious conclusion.
February 14, 1969



In this particular instance, the regular, normal and legal procedure based on an immemorial practice was followed, and our friends across the way can only blame themselves if they do not know the procedure, or did not know what they were supposed to do in the committee. Surely it was not the responsibility of the chairman to tell them what they had to do. But what is even more amazing is that subsequently they did not even bother to ask the chairman or some other person about what was to be done. All they did was to blame the chairman of the committee, who had only done his duty in presiding the committee meeting.
On December 10, charges and innuendoes were made against the integrity and efficiency of the chairman by the use of terms-and I refer the hon. member to the official record in Hansard-such as "deliberate omission", "reprehensible conduct", "hanky-panky", etc. Now, as the hon. member has not brought forward any evidence to support his charges, I believe he should resign, according to the practice in this house, or at least withdraw his words, instead of merely congratulating the hon. member-who was really ill-on his recovery. In fact, I think he should set an example for other members who, on that occasion, went a bit too far and were too hasty in their assertions, without knowing the main issue.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion for concurrence of the committee's report, a matter that involved no difficulty whatever and as the report is short, logical and precise, it should receive the approval of this house.
The hon. member did not deal with procedure in his argument, but he availed himself of that opportunity to talk about the importance attached to that question by the Newfoundland people. Obviously, the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), has ably presided over the meetings of the committee and brought the discussion into its true perspective, according to the terms of reference proposed, for if we had gone off on that side-issue, we could easily have replied to the hon. member that if the question was of such interest to him, nothing prevented him, as well as the other members of his group, to appeal from the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission.
Or, if they were interested that much, why did they not refer again the question to the committee on transport which had hearings on the following days? However, I do not
Privileges and Elections intend to discuss this matter further since the report of the committee did not deal with that point. But if we had engaged in such discussions, we could have given some very easy answers.
Speaking of the report, the hon. member hinted at some undue pressure. Now, the chairman and the secretary of the committee gave clear evidence before the committee that they had never met anybody, that the report had been tabled, according to the rule, on the chairman's desk, that they had not been subject to any pressure on the part of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald)- whom moreover they have never met about that subject-nor on the part of anybody else, and that the proceedings had been carried on as usual, as they have been carried on for several years, in any committee.
A while ago the hon. member also talked about the President of the Privy Council. Indeed, there was some talk that he should appear before the committee, as suggested earlier, but that request had been withdrawn by the honourable member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who admitted, after Mr. Ollivier told him that it was he who had informed the President of the Privy Council, that he doubted that the resolution was in order.
When the President of the Privy Council made a speech on December 6 and 10, he made quite clear that he had not looped into the matter, but that he had been informed of the irregularity and of the illegality of this resolution, and it was indeed.
The President of the Privy Council did not testify; not because he had something to hide, but only because all the members of the committee had agreed, at a certain time, that, following the evidence of Mr. Ollivier, it was useless to hear the President of sthe Privy Council. And even then, it would have been outside the scope of the terms of reference, because those events happened long after the question of privilege mentioned by the honourable member had been raised.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the problem was very simple. The committee on privileges and elections had to decide whether the regular and normal procedure had been observed. Following the evidence given, all the members of the committee except two ruled that there was no question of privilege, that the regular procedure had been observed, that the president of the committee had performed his duty, and that, consequently, he was in no way to blame in all this. I hope that the

February 14, 1969
Privileges and Elections honourable members who attacked him will withdraw their remarks.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple question that was discussed in committee, and I suggest that the motion for concurrence of the report of the committee should be agreed to by the house.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that members on the government side of the house would be considerate enough to give members of every party in the house an opportunity to speak. It has been very apparent that they want to take up the time of the house to tell their version of what happened. It is only fair that the opposition should have equal time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: There will be another day.


John Leroy Skoberg: It is apparent from the noise on the opposite side of the house that some hon. members are not aware of the facts. It appears that the hon. member for Manicoua-gan (Mr. Blouin), the former chairman of the committee on transport and communications, took an unfair advantage. I was particularly surprised at his attitude to this issue. The hon.. member referred to a statement made by one of my colleagues, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who had pointed out that if there was nothing wrong in what had been done the government members of the committee on privileges and elections would be able to show that that was so and the matter could be cleared up. If there is nothing to hide, why would any member be concerned whether or not the motion was passed at the time?
I am very surprised that the hon. member has taken issue with statements that appear in Hansard for that particular day. In all fairness I think we should look a little further at the transcript of evidence that is before us. The chairman of the committee was not present when a statement was made about the intent of the motion that had been moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). As reported on page 107 of the committee report the hon. member for St. John's East said:
My motion is that the decision of the C.T.C. allowing C.N. to abandon rail passenger service in Newfoundland-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being two o'clock, pursuant to special order

made earlier this day the proceedings now before the house must be interrupted. The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at one p.m.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE HOUSE DEBATE PROVIDED THROUGH PREARRANGED MOTION TO ADJOURN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that this house do now adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for York South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in view of the fact that many members may think that the bells will ring at two o'clock as usual following lunch hour, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is not here and also other hon. members, I wonder whether we could have the bells rung for a few minutes to remind hon. members that the house is in session?
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): I think hon. members are agreed to this.
And the house bells having been duly rung: * (2:00 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Prime Minister has not been able to return to the chamber yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
said he would be here.


David Lewis: Nor will that performance of the Prime Minister change my intention, supported by my colleagues in caucus this morning when we discussed this issue, to express my party's general position and hopes on some of the more important aspects before us under the heading of constitutional revision. Obviously I cannot cover them all. Let me say this, however, in replying to the Prime Minister. He challenged opposition parties to give answers to questions. I see the Prime Minister has just entered the chamber. Probably he had as hasty a lunch as I had, and I can understand his being a few minutes late. He challenged the opposition to give answers to questions. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Canada, which includes the Prime Minister and other ministers, has refused until now to give answers about the most important constitutional problem before this country. If the Prime Minister points to the paper which was tabled just before the conference, let me say this. That paper dealt with the structures of government and with some important structural problems; it dealt with bilingualism, which is important, and with the entrenchment of human rights, which is also important. But it did not deal with what the Prime Minister himself said was the most pressing problem, namely, the division of power, the extent of the federal spending power, and the like. I say it does not lie well in his mouth to taunt members of the opposition and say they ought to give answers to these problems when, so far as the public is concerned and so far as the members of this parliament are concerned, we have not heard even the suggestion of an answer from him.
At the conference which concluded on Wednesday and which I observed with interest throughout he did not suggest any answer to the problem of spending powers. He simply said to the provincial representatives, "You tell us what they should be and how you want them reduced, increased, confined or limited." At no point did he give an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not remember that it was three of the provinces which during the last month themselves demanded that the subject be put on the agenda although it had not been dealt with by the continuing committee of officials and therefore was not expected to be a subject of discussion between the governments?
Dominion-Provincial Conference


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I agree. I agree on both parts of the right hon. gentleman's question. I agree with the implication of his question that he did not understand the problem enough to put it on the agenda, and he had to be asked by the provincial premiers to do so. I agree that because it was put on at the last minute no one expected it to be discussed. I say the partisan job he did this morning was not only unbecoming of him but thoroughly unfair. It was unfair of him to ask members of the opposition to provide blueprints for the constitution in a one-day debate when, with the assistance of a continuing committee and a large staff which has increased by more than 100 per cent, he has not yet found it possible to answer these important questions himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I also say, in reply to the Prime Minister's unbecoming taunt, that these matters would have been discussed in depth had he and his predecessor agreed to the appointment of a parliamentary committee for which members of the opposition have asked for four or five years. No one speaking for 20, 30 or 40 minutes in any debate can make satisfactory suggestions as to what the constitution should be like. No one has sufficient knowledge at his fingertips to assist the Prime Minister in the way he suggests we ought to assist him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He would not listen, anyway.


David Lewis: If a committee had been established and had met in the course of the last two or three years many of these subjects would have been discussed in depth and many suggestions would have come from both sides of the house. I am glad the Prime Minister has now agreed to the establishment of such a parliamentary committee. I express the hope the Leader of the Opposition expressed, that the terms of reference will not be restricted only to those subjects on which the continuing committee has already reported, as the Prime Minister suggested the other day would happen. If that is the case, again we will not have the opportunity to discuss partition of powers, the extent of federal spending power and all the other basic social and economic questions about which the constitution must be concerned. That is where the kind of discussion the Prime Minister rightly wants could have taken place earlier and will take place if the reference to the committee is not too restrictive.
February 14, 1969


In view of the loss in co-operative climate since February, 1968, it would have been unrealistic to expect firm agreement, even in principle, on matters of great concern to everyone at the conference. I emphasize the fact that on the real problems in depth discussion and confrontation have not yet taken place. They are in the future. The difficulties are by no means behind us. They are ahead of us. I am sure the Prime Minister will readily agree that is the case.
I am not discouraged by the fact that Canada has problems and conflicts. History shows any country without problems is probably dead, and one without conflict is probably dying. Progress is made from the solution of problems and conflicts which continually present themselves in society. I do not expect that at any stage of human development a plateau will be reached where there will be no problems and no conflicts. That is inconceivable.
Every member of this house, I am sure, wants this country to resolve our present problems and conflicts so that we may reach a higher plateau for the endeavour of our people. A total review of the constitution is essential in order to meet our needs today and in the future. We reject the notion of a piece-meal patch-up here and there, which would not take into account the development of a modernized industrialized society. The development of our society is becoming increasingly urbanized, and new problems arise for the overwhelming majority of our population, even those who are wealthy, and particularly for the poor and near-poor.
Our position, Mr. Speaker, is unequivocal. After some years of study and discussion there should be a new constitution which would strengthen and not weaken the capacities and powers of the Canadian government and parliament to care for all the people of Canada. It must strengthen and not weaken the federal government and the federal parliament to enable them to establish minimum and equal standards across Canada in income, public services, educational opportunities, health and welfare, decent housing, clean air, and unpolluted water for Canadians in every part of this country regardless of their background and origin.
I have stated this national objective in uninspiring and simple words. This national objective will not be achieved by reducing the federal spending power. The attitude of the Prime Minister regarding the Canadian
February 14, 1969
constitutional position has been a concern of mine for some years. I say this in order to exchange views, Mr. Speaker. He invited hon. members to tell him how that spending power should be limited. We are worried that the policy and intention of this government may be to compartmentalize the powers in the present constitution and to carry over the compartmentalization of those powers into the new constitution, thereby reducing the capacity of the federal government to be a strong central government in the meaningful sense of that term, reducing the capacity of the federal government and parliament to use their spending power in order to assist the people in every region of Canada to achieve minimum national standards in all the areas I have mentioned and many others I have failed to mention.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In this context one cannot avoid being distressed at the rather flippant and callous attitude of the federal government in saying to the provinces, "If you want money, go ahead and tax yourself." There are at least four and probably five provinces in this country that cannot tax their people any more, and could not get any more out of increased taxes because they do not have the base on which to tax. You cannot get taxes out of people with an average income of just about 50 per cent of the average per capita income across Canada, or very close to 50 per cent, which is the case in all the Atlantic provinces.
Premier Smallwood, in one of his delightful interventions at the conference, pointed out that he already taxes the people of his province in certain areas-sale taxes, gasoline taxes, and one other which for the moment I cannot recall-at a rate higher than the rate in the richest province of Canada, Ontario. So to say to at least half of our provinces, "Go ahead and tax yourself," is really to utter unattractive nonsense. Surely it cannot arouse the enthusiasm of the people in those provinces about a federation, a kind of federalism that tells them to do what they cannot possibly do and therefore condemns them to a standard of living, to a standard of services, a standard of opportunity and a condition of life that must fall below that of the average in Canada.
I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister and his government intend that. I am not suggesting that for one moment. I am aware of their intentions in the realm of regional planning and regional development. We probably may disagree with the particular plan
Dominion-Provincial Conference they have in mind. It would be unfair if I did not recognize that they had that in mind, but that does not negate the harm done to the unity of the country by the flippant and callous remark, "Go ahead and tax yourselves."
In the same context and the same way I do not think it helps the future of this country and the strength of confederation for the federal government to insist that the Medical Care Act contains a provision which limits it to five years, and to indicate to every province and, indeed, to the people of the country that when it suits the federal government's purposes it will withdraw from present joint programs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You voted for that act.


David Lewis: Of course I voted for it. Mr. Speaker, I have voted in the years I have been in parliament and my colleagues who have been here longer have voted many times for many unsatisfactory pieces of legislation produced by the right hon. gentleman and his predecessors because we were determined to get at least a little if we could not get all that was necessary. So of course we voted for it, and we would vote for it again if it were presented to us because we believe in the necessity of medicare across Canada, and even with that limitation it was better to have the statute than not to have it.
I think the provincial governments are not wrong when they plead with the federal government that its unilateral withdrawal from present joint programs should be abandoned, and that the federal government should carry on the work it has done in those spheres in which it has so far participated.
Having said that we believe in a stronger federal government and parliament, I hasten to add that we are fully aware, my colleagues and I, that the size of our country, and the diversity of its people also make necessary stronger provincial governments, and that it is impossible to run this country, whether it is a medicare plan, a housing plan or anything else that is involved, all from Ottawa. We believe that it is necessary to decentralize the choice of policies in many instances, and certainly to decentralize the administration and the carrying out of policies through the provinces and indeed through the municipal governments within the provinces. It was because of our realization that a modern society requires a strong central government, and that a country like ours also requires strong provincial governments, that we developed

5546	COMMONS
Dominion-Provincial Conference the attitude toward our constitution and constitutional arrangements which called for a flexibility in the constitution and in the constitutional arrangements. Our policies called for a readiness on the part of Ottawa and on the part of the provincial governments to enter into different arrangements and different agreements with Quebec, in particular, if this is necessary in order to make progress and, indeed, with other provinces if the situation makes that kind of solution desirable.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not withdraw from that position. I realize that some members of my party, in the last election and at other times, have expressed themselves in terms that go beyond those I have just stated. We have differences of opinion in our party, as the Prime Minister has in his and as the Leader of the Opposition has in his, and it is as true for a party as for a country that a party that has no differences of opinion is dead and that if it has no internal conflict it is dying. But we do not retreat as a party from the position we have put to the Canadian people, the position that if you insist that in every case every province must be treated in exactly the same way the result may well be immobility for Canada. The result may well be in certain instances an impossibility for the country to go forward.
If you have nine provinces willing to enter into a joint plan with Ottawa and one province which for good reasons does not wish to do so, we say that in that situation it would be to immobilize Canada to refuse to make the kind of flexible arrangement which that situation would require. I remind the house that this is what we did with the Canada Pension Plan. We have a Canada Pension Plan and we have a Quebec pension plan. Every Canadian is covered by a pension plan and no one in Canada is hurt. Unless we had been prepared to make that kind of arrangement no Canadian would have been covered by a pension plan, which certainly would have been a thoroughly undesirable result.
I want to go to another point which has been mentioned neither in the paper which the federal government tabled nor in any of the remarks of the premiers at the conference that ended last Wednesday. Without entering into an ideological controversy, I think it is recognized that in a modern society it is impossible to run things without a great deal of just, viable and conscientious planning by all levels of government. It is impossible to run Canada if only the federal government plans its affairs, and if every provincial government plans its affairs without relationship

DEBATES	February 14, 1969
to the plans of the other levels of government.
I suggest that one of the urgent needs in the new constitution is for us to establish, right in the document, consultative and planning machinery that would take in all 11 governments in Canada. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to carry through a meaningful fiscal policy in this country when half of the revenues are collected and half of the total expenditures are made by the provincial governments and the municipal governments across Canada. It is impossible for the governor of the Bank of Canada to have a useful monetary policy with the support of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) if every level of government, without relationship one to the other, is able to go to the market as it pleases, when it pleases and without knowing what the total effect on the monetary policy is or may be at any given time.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I think the next step forward as a federation interested in serving our people is a constitutional provision for permanent machinery for consultation and planning in respect of the economy and services to our country. On occasion, agreement will not be reached and I appreciate that. The constitution will have to make provision for the results of possible disagreements, but very often-I hope most often-agreement would be reached and every section of Canada would therefore fit into a national plan, with national purposes and national objectives.
Our party is determined that Canada should be a nation which speaks to the world in two official languages but with only one voice. We support the position that the constitution must guarantee this indespensable character of the country in the community of nations. But to say that, I suggest, is not enough. Our new constitution will also have to provide a viable solution to the real problem in respect of the part which provincial governments may play in areas of international concern which fall within their provincial jurisdictions. It is not enough merely to insist that Canada must have a voice somewhere.
If the organization deals with matters concerning labour, as the I.L.O. does, or matters concerning education, urban renewal, housing and the like-matters which are either exclusively at the moment, and may continue to
February 14, 1969
be, within provincial jurisdiction, or concurrently within federal-provincial jurisdiction- then, we must find ways of having the provinces directly represented at conferences where these subjects are discussed. They must participate in the decisions and go back home to implement the conclusions of such conferences within the spheres of their jurisdictions.
Therefore, I say there are two parts to the solution of the problem of international affairs, whatever the precise details may be. One is to define the establishment of Canada as one nation in a community of nations, and the other is to find a useful part for the provinces to play in international exchanges
which concern matters jurisdictions-			within their


Mr. Peters:: framework.	And	within	the	Canadian


David Lewis: framework.	And	within	the	CanadianI want to say	that	as far as	reform of the	
Senate is concerned, we are still of the opinion that there should only be an elected parliament in this country and that no part of it should be appointed. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government white paper urge that members of the Senate should be appointed by the provinces as well as by the federal government, and thus make the Senate more representative of the provinces, I am left rather unimpressed. What this proposal will mean is that Senators, instead of being appointed by one government and, therefore, if they feel any responsibility at all to a government will feel that responsibility to one, they will be appointed by 11 governments. There will be little claques of senators, each claque representing a particular government and a particular point of view. There is no sense in that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
none of them responsible to the people.


David Lewis: There will be none of them responsible to the people, and we see no sense in that. We still feel that the Senate ought not to be part of our parliamentary system. If there is going to be one, and I am not qualifying my personal position that there is no need for the Senate in Canada, then we ought to find some way of electing its members so they will be responsible to the people rather than merely to the governments that appointed them.
Dominion-Provincial Conference


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he realize that this proposition of the federal government, which he says has no sense, was supported by all ten provincial governments?


David Lewis: I realize that, Mr. Speaker, and I would have been surprised had they not supported it because the proposal gives them a chance to make a few more appointments, and every government likes that. It may well be that, as a result of an agreement between the federal government and the governments of the ten provinces, some such amendment to the constitution should be made. I do not think such an amendment would destroy our country, but let me say this: If that is done it will be, in my opinion, and I am using strong language knowing the meaning of the word, a betrayal of democracy. If the Senate is given even more powers than it now has, as is also suggested in the white paper, this is what will happen.
I do not think I need to say very much more. Many members of my party have made similar statements and I made my position quite clear at the time the resolution which preceded the official languages bill was introduced. I said that we favour this piece of legislation. However, there are two points I should like to make which have arisen since the introduction of that resolution and the bill. The first and most important is that there is a great need for explanation and clarification across Canada as to the meaning, the import and the implications of the introduction of the official languages act within the federal sphere. There is need not only for explanation and clarification but also for assurance that no one now in the federal service who has given many years of service to Canada will suffer as a result of the introduction of this act.
Again, the situation has not been helped by the hasty action which has been taken in certain spheres in Ottawa. As the result of the introduction of bilingualism into the civil service, some people were victimized. I think the introduction of bilingualism in Canada must be made without arousing new prejudices, without increasing the differences that exist, and without calling forth further resentment. It is extremely important, and I am sure members of the government will agree, that this ought to be done without loss of time. We must clarify what the act is intended to do, its implications, and cease any more actions by any agency of government which makes

February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference the lack of one of the official languages a disadvantage to senior civil servants.
Again, I do not think I need to spend more than a few seconds in reiterating our support of the notion of a charter of human rights and our support of the entrenchment of such a charter in the constitution of Canada. We can see no harm in it, and I can see no logic in most of the articles I have read and the speeches I have heard against it. Many members of my profession, when I am not in parliament, oppose the idea of entrenchment and are tied to the old-fashioned notion of the supremacy of parliament. They contend it must not be interfered with, and I disagree with them. I agree with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and all my colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who has spoken and written about this a great deal, that there are basic human rights which no legislature ought to be able to touch. I agree that such rights should be entrenched in the constitution of our country so that they cannot be abridged either by the federal parliament or a provincial legislature.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I have tried in my remarks, as the first speaker for my colleagues and my party, to deal with some of the basic problems that face us. I repeat what I said, that the problem of the division of power and the use of federal spending power has hardly been touched by the conference. It has, if I remember correctly, not yet been touched by the continuing committee. Therefore, the really vexing conflicts in this country still remain to be confronted, let alone solved. But I have great confidence that we will in the end succeed. We will succeed, particularly, if we set for ourselves some common national goals and objectives, if we become more concerned about what a particular power will be used for and less concerned about who will wield it.
Anyone who knows Canada cannot doubt its potential greatness. I detest nationalism when it is chauvinistic, narrow, bigoted and believes in its superiority over others. But I believe in a nationalism which seeks greatness based on respect of others as well as respect of self. In one sense the nation state is to the world community what the family unit is to the nation. In that sense, I am proud to be a member of this country and a Canadian nationalist who resents control exercised over


our destiny by multi-national corporations abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: One of the constitutional objectives ought to be to regain control of our economy and our economic destiny in this country. In this sense, also, all of us want to see Canada achieve its full potential of great social and cultural work and play a part in the painful and anxious search for world peace and equality of conditions among all nations. Therefore, it is our belief that we cannot escape the need for a total review and revision of the fundamentals of our constitution. We cannot escape a stronger central government in Canada playing its full role in the attempts to solve the new urban problems which affect the quality of life of most Canadians.
No doubt it will take time, but if we succeed in finding such national objectives as I have indicated, national objectives of value and of meaning to all our people, the time and effort will not only preserve Canada as one federal nation but will strengthen and heighten its human achievements at home and its place in the world. I humbly say, Mr. Speaker, that I know of no task which more justly demands our dedicated attention.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, to analyze and bring about conclusions on the discussions which took place during the federal-provincial conference.
We should like to make some constructive suggestions but in the few minutes available to us, it is rather difficult to attempt to rectify a situation or a constitution which we all wish to see modified, and to make all the necessary suggestions.
At this time when everyone wants to amend the constitution-this situation has prevailed now for a few years-within the provincial and federal governments, unfortunately bombs are exploding in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.
This leads us to ask ourselves whether Canada would not, unfortunately, be late in its desire to amend the constitution and bring about solutions to the problems facing our young people, our provincial governments, our municipalities and our school boards? At the present time, are our public bodies patient enough to wait for solutions to problems which date back many years and which
February 14. 1969	COMMONS
unfortunately we have been too slow to rectify?
I should like to make a side comment concerning a study on taxation and the problem around which the attention was particularly centered during the federal-provincial conference. After three days of conference on the theme of the new constitution for Canada, the financial and fiscal issue was the main topic in the newspapers and on television and radio. In spite of the importance of the taxation question, what strikes us most is the total omission, concerted so to say, of the Carter report, which included the conclusions of the recent royal commission of inquiry on taxation.
Public opinion had to let that Commission's report fall into oblivion even at the federal-provincial conference, where the taxation issue enjoyed all the publicity it could get. In fact, that question calls for the attention of all public administrators who are all fighting against a lack of funds.
The six volumes of the Carter commission's report contain 2,600 pages of closely printed text. The cost of such an inquiry was estimated at $3 million and was paid through public funds; this represents about $1,385 for each page of the report.
Why must we, two years after the submission of that commission's report, bring all that question up again in another form, namely the sharing of powers between the different governments as to taxation and taxes, while not even one of the commission's recommendations has been implemented up to now by the federal government.
That federal-provincial conference received much publicity before it began and had thus raised great expectations about an early solution. The conference is over, and unfortunately, the Canadian people wonder what problem it may actually have solved.
After the conference, an honourable senator who sat with me in this house for many years wondered what benefit this conference might have brought forth. It is illusory, he said, to suggest that this conference, or any other for that matter, did solve the problem of the constitution.


John Napier Turner: What senator?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The Speaker of the Senate.
I asked him then if he believed that this conference had brought about any good results. "Yes", he answered me, "it will have given Canadians, thanks to television, an
DEBATES	5549
Dominion-Provincial Conference opportunity to see what happened at the conference and to become aware of the problems we knew existed before those meetings were held."
The TV coverage of the meetings of the conference enabled all Canadians to become aware of our constitutional problems. In this regard, an honourable member asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday whether he intended shortly to televise the debates of this house, because that would enable all Canadians to see what is going on in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, those who have been in the house for several years agree with a senator that nothing much was accomplished at federal-provincial conferences, apart from acquainted the public with problems that administrators already know about.
We all knew and we still know that our problems are ever increasing and becoming more and more serious. In the meantime, the bad feeling subsists and the Canadian people rightly ask themselves the following question: Will the governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, which have allowed, for the past hundred years, the constitutional problems to arise in our country be able to correct them?
Some reforms are necessary, we agree but before going ahead, we should seek the causes of the present unrest and realize the mistakes made in the past regarding the constitution. In fact, every year, governments make a mess of it. How do we know that what we want to reform today will be more respected tomorrow?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In my opinion, the basic flaw in our present constitution is the division of powers among the provinces even though those powers are clearly defined in the constitution. But once again money is the source of trouble. Still, we were supposed to pay much more attention to the question of languages at the last federal-provincial conference.
I noticed that during the three days of the conference, the representatives of all the provinces spoke the same language with the federal government: the dollar language.
All provincial representatives spoke of the money problem and, yet, there is talk of bilingualism and biculturalism. The formalists know their responsibilities in matters of road construction and health, because the constitution allots the money to federal government. This government was given the means to
5550	COMMONS DEBATES	February 14, 1969
Dominion-Provincial Conference assume provincial responsibilities, while the provinces were given only the responsibilities.
So long as the Canadian constitution will not allow the provinces to assume financially the responsibilities assigned to them, so long as we are at grips with the constitutional problem, so long as there is a quarrel between the ten provinces and the federal government, the provinces will have nothing but responsibilities while the federal government will have the money.
Nothing during the last federal-provincial conference allows us to hope that the Canadian government will be able to do something to enable the provinces to achieve their own aspirations.
On the second day of the conference, while attending the discussions I heard the Ontario premier, Mr. Robarts, refer to what the Alberta premier, the hon. Mr. Strom, had said the day before, that is, that the Bank of Canada should be used to achieve the economic development of the provinces.
That was a suggestion from the premier of Alberta, and the premier of Ontario took it up, giving the Prime Minister of Canada to understand that it might not be a bad thing to look more carefully into the suggestion of the premier of Alberta.
Then, the premier of British Columbia pointed out that the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky had already stated that nothing in the policy of the Bank of Canada prevented an assistance to the provinces, but that, on the other hand, the present government's policy was not in keeping with the wishes of the premier of British Columbia, as was suggested by the premier of Ontario, after the statement by his Alberta colleague.
It is easy to speak of taxation and reform, but as long as the provinces remain in an economic bottle-neck, that is in a financial ghetto, as long as the provinces are compelled to build bridges, hospitals and schools because the federal government does not assume its financial responsibilities, they will have to pay the interests on the costs of four bridges, five highways, four or five hospitals, and we shall not get out of this jam, financial and economic, we shall be fettered by this strait-jacket. That is how the provincial representatives see things. This is so true that at the last federal-provincial conference, all the provinces found a common language, the language of the dollar. Eleven governments, including ten provincial governments, were trying to "stretch" the buck, to "lengthen" it,

and unfortunately, so far the federal government has not put forward concrete solutions in the financial field.
The hon. Eric Kierans, a former Revenue Minister in the Quebec government, said on May 7th 1964 and I quote:
Quebec wants Ottawa to make its financial policies more adaptable.


John Napier Turner: That was long ago!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The Minister of Justice says "That was long ago". Well, we have been awaiting reforms from the federal government for a long time and they are not forthcoming. In fact, what the Postmaster General said when he was the Quebec Minister of Revenue still holds true today and reform is just as urgent as in 1964.
He said, in a statement reported in Le Devoir of May 7, 1964:
"It cannot be otherwise, when a province implements a development program such as ours and finances its increased expenses mainly by way of borrowings.
The policy of the Bank of Canada in respect of Quebec's needs should be designed in such a way that the terms of credit-
Nothing has changed, and yet that was said long ago!
-would be made much more flexible to reduce the cost of our borrowings".
When we look, for example, at one single item, housing for 1969, we see that the CMHC mortgage interest rate is 9| per cent. Well, in that field also the federal government has put the provinces and housing in a financial dead end, so that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) had to study for months to try to deal with the housing problem. However, the 12 per cent tax has not been withdrawn, and this has given a deadly blow to construction in all provinces and paralysed residential housing development.
Mr. Speaker, the centralizing tax policy of the federal government is no solution for the monetary problem faced by the provinces in 1969. As far as constitutional problems are concerned, the Ralliement creditiste suggests that the constitution of Canada should be the property of Canada and that it could be amended by Canadians and not by others.
At the federal level, Canadians should be able to feel at home everywhere in Canada, which implies that both official languages be recognized throughout Canada.
Economically, the federal government should withdraw from fields over which it
February 14, 19G9	COMMONS
has no jurisdiction. In accordance with the present constitution, it should hand over to the provinces the powers of taxation which rightly belong to them, that is personal income tax corporation income tax and estate taxes. The provinces would then be able to assume their responsibilities and to build a society to their image.
Federal government action in fields which are the responsibility of the provinces has become impossible and is the source of constant conflicts.
The Ralliement creditiste favours negotiations between the federal government and provincial governments, with a view to drafting the basic documents which will be used to set up a new constitution.
This morning, the Prime Minister asked us to make suggestions. But we have been making suggestions for a long time now, only not many of them have been put into practice. Here is what the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec is suggesting, as an answer to our constitutional problems.
It is federalism which offers to French Canadians the best opportunities to organize their economic life. However, the kind of federalism we have known until now should be changed:
(a)	the constitution of Canada (the British North America Act) should be amended or redrafted in order to clearly define responsibilities at every level of government, to allow every level of government to levy taxes according to its needs and to provide for a machinery which would prevent efficiently trespasses of jurisdictions-
From various governments.
(b)	Taxation policies of federal as well as of provincial governments should be reached only after consultations, these should take place at the official level and on a permanent basis.
However, at the last federal-provincial conference, the right hon. Prime Minister was the target of several attacks, because the federal government had interfered on several occasions in the affairs of the provinces, through implementation of several of its programs.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
And I go on with the statement of the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec.
(c)	Monetary and tariff policies of the federal government must be set up in consultation with the provinces and those consultations must be official and permanent.
Here is also what the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec states, and I consider this to be a lever to bring about our economic expansion, from the federal and
DEBATES	5551
Dominion-Provincial Conference provincial point of view, regarding the responsibilities, and I quote:
(d)	The Bank of Canada should facilitate the financing of the provinces and, through the latter, the financing of municipalities and school boards.
Then, after the Creditists have made their views known for several years in the house or outside-the chamber of commerce finally came out with one of the main recommendations Creditists have never stopped making, namely to use the Bank of Canada to relieve financially the provincial governments, municipalities, school boards or the various public bodies. And I go on:
4.	French Canadians must be convinced that their self-achievement depends basically on their leadership in all fields of economic and social life.
5.	English-speaking people in Canada must show that they accept fully French-speaking Canadians as partners and not hamper their access to executive positions, either in the public or in the private sector of the economy and administration of the country. It is mainly a question of attitude which manifests itself in concrete everyday actions at the government or corporate level, regarding spending policies, professional services, promotion, advertising and so on.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Chamber of Commerce thinks about our constitutional problems today. For years everyone has been blaming, and rightly so, the central government, the federal government, because of its centralization, because it intrudes, too often, unfortunately, without consultations, in provincial matters.
But, in time, more than one villain may be discovered. We can also blame some provincial governments, like the Quebec government, for instance, who enter into agreements, and then, afterwards, cry for autonomy. Quebec needs money, probably more than all the other provinces. However, it still allows the federal government to levy taxes, and then hopes that they will be handed back by Ottawa.
The provincial governments of Quebec and of the other provinces, have, since July 17, 1947, according to chapter 58 of the revised Statutes of Canada, signed agreements, and I quote:
Dominion-provincial tax rental agreements:
An act to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces pursuant to which, in return for compensation, the provinces agree to refrain from levying certain taxes for a limited period.
That act was approved on July 17, 1947. At the time, it was a rental of provincial taxation powers to the federal government. That rental by the provinces of their own fields of
5S52
February 14. 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference taxation to the federal government has been renewed from then on.
It is strange to note on November 4 and 5, 1968, there was another federal-provincial conference in Ottawa. The Minister of Finance, (Mr. Benson) asked the provincial delegates for a five-year renewal of the authorization to levy taxes for the provinces.
It is a well known fact that the agreements referred to were lapsing on December 31, 1968. We thought that the Quebec government would oppose the renewal of the agreements, since, for twenty years, the two traditional political parties had been vying with one another to obtain from Ottawa the return to "la belle province" of her tax fields.
Therefore, we could expect that our officials at the conference would oppose the rental of these tax fields for another five-year term, but, oddly enough, what happened was just the opposite.
On November 6, 1968, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) asked the Minister of Finance whether he had obtained unanimous consent from the provincial delegations on income tax collection for another five-year period. The minister's reply, to be found on page 2484 of the official report, was as follows:
No one disagreed.
That is, opposed the renewal of the agreements.
Now, on the one hand, the federal government took over tax fields that belonged to the provinces, the provinces having agreed to rent them for a while. On the other hand, now that the federal government has taken over such tax fields, the provinces would like to receive the amounts collected in the form of taxes.
We believe that conflicts between the federal and provincial governments concerning taxation powers will not be solved before some time. Therefore, it is incumbent on the federal government to settle the problem, since it has now sole jurisdiction in financial matters.
Provinces can levy taxes only in accordance with the constitution, while the federal government has the right and duty to make available to the provinces the money they need to insure their own development.
I have here yesterday's issue of Le Droit, and strange enough, on the first page, one can read:
Cry of distress from the Maritimes.
(Mr. Rondeau.]
On the right of the first page, there is also: $10 million for Tunisia.
While the provinces beg for assistance from Ottawa, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) offers millions to Tunisia. Assistance is still being given to foreign countries, to Tunisia, as has always been done. Last year, we made loans under the assistance program to developing countries in the amount of $163 million. On the other hand, the government says it is unable to help the provinces which are now facing an economic problem.
Creditistes have for a long time denounced the federal government's lack of foresight in money matters. Our opponents always answer us: But money must be found somewhere. Here is what Social Credit has always advocated because there are several ways to govern a country and to put money into circulation. I quote:
-there may be differences of opinion about the order of priority, but we shall not dwell on them. There are two or three main methods which could be briefly mentioned.
In his testimony before the banking and commerce committee in 1939, Mr. Graham Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, made the following statement:
A government may find money in three ways: by taxation, by borrowing people's savings or by combined action through a vast monetary policy, namely by loans which create additional funds.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I should now like to quote a proposal about government financing.
The procedure today, when the government needs more money to meet its expenses than the taxes collected is to borrow it from the people, from chartered banks or finally in New York. Loans obtained from chartered banks are exactly the kind of borrowings referred to by Mr. Towers which "create additional money".
Let us not forget also the fantastic amount borrowed abroad to be used for the development of our natural resources.
It is still a mystery for many who wonder: How come a country, such as Canada which has tremendous natural resources and manpower is compelled to borrow foreign capital to develop those resources and make them available to its citizens? It is still a greater mystery to note that provincial and municipal governments, in order to build roads, schools and other public utilities, must go on foreign markets to obtain the funds required to carry out their projects in Canada.
But the greatest mystery still, is to see a sovereign government, our own Canadian government, which has the unique and exclusive authority to regulate, control and issue money, handing over such sovereign prerogatives to profit making private institutions, and then ask them-those banking
February 14, 1969

institutions, its own creatures-for the money required for the general benefit of the country. This is beyond understanding!
Creditistes state that before borrowing from private banks and from outside the country, the government should first of all get from the Bank of Canada the money it needs from time to time, in addition to the tax revenues, to help finance Canadian development, particularly in the public sector. Why, in fact, should Canada borrow from chartered banks and afterwards tax the people to pays for the interests, while it could obtain the funds (without interest) from the Bank of Canada, which is a public institution established bv parliament to regulate and control the circulation of money and credit in Canada?
In his report to the Twentieth Century Fund on economic problems in the United States, Stuart Chase, on page 105 of the book "Where Is the Money Coming From" quotes the National Resources Planning Board as follows:
The day when the charges on the federal debt will become oppressive, we shall have to think seriously of creating through a modern banking system and our Treasury institutions a debt free from interest.
On the same page, Stuart Chase adds:
If the government borrowed only from its own central bank, without interest, there would be no interest charges at all. There would be capital redemption and the principle that too much money must not be introduced in the system would be safe.
This is exactly what Creditistes have been claiming for several years. A study of the history of Canada over the last century, reveals that new borrowings do not help pay off the debt. It must nevertheless be paid back. Interest rates must be reduced. This could only be done by replacing gradually our interest-bearing indebtedness by some money obtained at the "cost price" from the Bank of Canada.
These are, Mr. Speaker, concrete solutions to the economic problems of the provinces and the country, for which we would like to hold our constitution responsible, that constitution that we have been hacking up today, for the purpose of making the dollars more elastic, of allocating them among the provinces.
I have in hand another article which shows beyond doubt that Canada is not faced with an economic problem, in view of its wealth, but rather with a financial problem.
I also have a newspaper clipping which shows the kind of prosperity that not only Canada, but also several other countries of the world, would enjoy were the riches more evenly distributed.
The author is referring to the spending done by different governments throughout the world, following the 1939-1945 war.

Every family could be provided with a $24,000 house and $8,000 worth of furniture, plus a cash bonus of $40,000 throughout the whole of Great
Dominion-Provincial Conference Britain, U.S.A., Russia, Canada, Australia, Ireland, France and Belgium.
I continue:
In addition, every city of over 200,000 people in all those countries, could be given cash grants of $50 million for libraries, $50 million for schools, and another $50 million for hospitals, had the money spent by these countries for military purposes between 1939 and 1946 been devoted instead to community and private development.

Mr. Speaker, if, during the war, we were able, and other countries were able, to spend an average of $24,000 for the war, we could have given a $24,000 house to each citizen in all those countries.
We could have given $40,000 in cash to some citizens of those countries. We could also have given $8,000 worth of furniture to each one of them. We have spent that much during the war. There are statistics to prove it.
Today, because this is no longer wartime, the provinces are divided, there is disagreement between them, they are like ten dogs fighting for a bone. There is fighting around the taxation platter.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is no solution, even if we were to change our constitution. Even if we achieve those reforms seriously, even if we do not allow the provinces to discharge economically their respon-sabilities, as clearly stated in the constitution, we will keep quarrelling, and having federal-provincial conferences without getting more results than what we had this week.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my comments with an explanation of the economy. I borrow it from a president of the United States who has been considered-and rightly so-as one of the greatest: Abraham Lincoln. He said, and I quote:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of the government. The monetary needs of increasing numbers of people advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the government. Such needs can be served by issuing national currency and credit through the operation of a national banking system. The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary, by taxation and otherwise.
Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit
February 14. 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference
from circulation by taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest as the means of financing government and public enterprise.
The government should create issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity.
By adoption of these principles the financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master, and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

Mr. Speaker, money will always be the prime concern of our governments, so long as they will not accept their responsibilities, for the constitution-and it is clearly stated- allows the provinces to assume their responsibilities. We are in favour of a study of our constitution, but we should first ask ourselves why the constitution has been so badly mishandled until now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate touching a matter of such basic importance to our country. We are talking about the fundamental law of the land. People do not realize generally how important the constitution is in the lives of our citizens. As an observer at the recent conference, I was struck by the fact that even some at that conference did not understand the relationships existing between certain subjects under discussion and constitutional problems.
There are two ways of looking at the constitution. To illustrate my meaning I can do no better than repeat what Aristotle, the first philosopher to define a constitution, said. He first defined a constitution as the organization of a state in respect of its offices, and especially in respect of that particular office which is supreme in all issues. That was a juridical definition on the basis of which the Greeks, and later many others, devised classifications of constitutions falling into three good and three bad forms. Again in his "Politics" Aristotle gave us another definition of a constitution, when he said that a constitution is the way of life of a citizen body.


This, it seems to me, is the most profound meaning of a constitution. That is the meaning of our constitution, and it is most necessary for our people to realize this today.
It is true, of course, that in some quarters of this country people are dissatisfied with the juridical concept of our constitution. But it seems to me that the dissatisfaction of some of our people goes beyond that. Some people feel that the constitution, which was originally made in 1867 and drafted in legal or juridical language, does not respond to the desires and aspirations of minority groups in Canada today. Not only the French Canadian group but many other minority groups in this country look forward to the enshrinement of their basic rights in a bill of rights.
In a booklet, "The Constitution and the People of Canada", which was released last week, the federal government has outlined proposals for a new constitution. I do not propose to read all the objectives set out on page 48. The first of those is:
To establish for Canada a federal system of government based on democratic principles.
If you like, you can call that democratic federalism. Federalism does not mean, as some seem to think, that the central government is all-supreme and that our orientation in all federal matters must be in the direction of Ottawa. Federalism is not the same as centralism, nor is it the same as the sum total of provincial rights or regional needs and aspirations. Federalism involves a balance between the central needs of our people and the various needs of the regions. The constitution drafted in 1867 struck that balance imprecisely when defining positions as between one government and another. Obviously, there is a considerable overlap in the exercise of federal and provincial powers. For example, the federal power under section 91, subsection 27, of the British North America Act with respect to criminal laws and procedures is very, very broad, and has been so interpreted by the courts. This power touches on matters considered by the provinces as coming within their jurisdiction. Of course, even broader is the general power to legislate with respect to the peace, order and good government of Canada. Similarly, section 92, subsection 13, vests the right to legislate with respect to property and civil rights in the provinces. That language might encompass practically every matter with which a provincial or federal legislature might be asked to
February 14, 1969

deal. There are conflicts built into the constitution which cannot always be solved judicially. When they are not direct conflicts, the courts have held the view they result from concurring powers. Until the constitution is reformed, both jurisdictions must be allowed to exercise the powers which are validly theirs.
* (3:30 p.m.)
On this point I did not quite understand the position of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). Unlike the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), whose suggestions were not concrete but of a general nature, and unlike the propositions of the speaker for the Creditiste Party which although concrete were irrelevant, the suggestions of the hon. member for York South fell somewhere in between. His propositions apparently are more concrete and less irrelevant than those of the two other opposition spokesmen. Today, I understood him to say he does not want the spending power of the federal government limited. Dealing with the same subject last Thursday in this house, he supported the provincial requests for "bread", and stated the time had come for placing at the head of the constitutional discussions the role of the spending power of the federal government. Was this subject to be placed on the agenda merely so that the provinces could be told the federal government would not make any changes in the spending power or was it to be put on the agenda with the possibility of some genuine give-and-take? I understand it is this give-and-take attitude to which the hon. member now objects. Perhaps what he means is that the equalization payments should be increased. In this sense he would want the spending power freely used, and in other senses not used.
If this is his meaning I would submit the question of equalization payments is not a constitutional question. Does he propose to write into the constitution a criteria of equalization payments which, I submit, according to the experience of the last 20 years in Canada would surely become a new rigidity which we would desire to get out of the constitution.
Section 91 (1a) of the British North America Act gives to the federal government power over public property. The money which the federal government collects is public property and it is entitled to spend it as it wishes. An issue arises where the legislation is not a mere spending enactment, as it is for example in the Family Allowances Act, but is an

Dominion-Provincial Conference exercise of the taxing power or combined taxation and a scheme of disbursements, such as the Unemployment and Social Insurance Act of 1935 which was found to be unconstitutional by the Privy Council.
If the federal government does not use its taxing power in a specified way, it does not fall afoul of the rules which the court has laid down for its use. In general, the federal government is entitled to spend as much money as it desires for whatever purpose it desires, even should that purpose be provincial. This is not only the judicial interpretation; it is the practice of governments of Canada, a practice which has been objected to in various instances by the provinces, but which has been accepted as a general use of valid federal power. Some provincial spokesmen at the constitutional conference did not understand this. Spending power was treated by them as if it were an unconstitutional intrusion. Some premiers suggested a new constitution is not necessary, that we should live up to the present one. The truth is that it is being lived up to. The present constitution gives this vast power to the federal government. If the provinces want to see the federal government use its spending power in a different manner, a constitutional arrangement will have to be made to restrict the exercise of that power.
A more serious problem, Mr. Speaker, arose at this conference respecting the provincial approach to the constitution. The province of Quebec, from a cultural point of view, sometimes makes claims that it in effect is the national state for people who live in that area. In economic terms, the Premier of Ontario made a similar assertion, that the province of Ontario is an entity for all purposes, and that when citizens of Ontario pay taxes to the federal government somehow this money should be credited to the government of Ontario. I submit this is entirely wrong.
Under a federal government citizens are citizens not only of the particular province in which they live, but citizens of the country as a whole. It is as citizens of Canada that they pay these taxes to the government of Canada. No province has the right to a fiscal equivalent when they do not take advantage of a federal program which may be offered to them. It is not possible to go beyond federalism in this way, and escape its bounds. Federalism cannot be restricted entirely to its provincial dimensions or entirely to its federal dimensions. Perhaps the balance in the constitution is not satisfactory. If not there should be concrete proposals to change it.
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference
But while it is not possible to go beyond federalism in the economic realm, there is one way to go beyond it. That is with respect to the proposal of the federal government for the entrenchment of certain basic human rights in this country, political, legal, egalitarian, and not least of all linguistic. From discussions at the conference it would appear the provinces have almost reached agreement regarding the entrenchment of the political rights of citizens in this country. They are willing to go beyond federalism, beyond the jurisdictional divisions between the federal and provincial governments, to guarantee to the citizens of this country certain rights which no government, national or international, would be able to take away from them. It is my hope that in the continuing discussions of the constitutional committee this opening toward the possibility of entrenchment of some human rights will be pursued. There appears to be more disagreement in the other areas of legal and egalitarian rights. It may be the government will have to consider an opting-in formula which would allow certain provinces to join with the federal government in a bill of rights applicable to their district.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
On the linguistic question, I am unable to see the validity of any of the arguments which have been made against the official languages bill. Section 133 of the British North America Act provides very specific guarantees for the use of the English and the French languages, but it does not limit the use of the English or French languages to those situations set out in the section. There is no tradition of judicial interpretation any more than there are words in section 133 that would suggest there is to be a limitation on the use of either language. If it were desired legislatively to expand the use of any language beyond the bounds of the guarantees in section 133 there would be no constitutional difficulty. Similarly, with respect to section 91(1), where again there is a language guarantee, the guarantee appears to be no broader than that in section 133 because that in section 133 is the only guarantee which could be incorporated in section 91(1).
But despite the fact that I believe the linguistic rights bill to be fully constitutional, I think we must applaud the restraint of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in agreeing to negotiate with the provinces on this subject, and in not pressing this issue. People's deepest fears are often revealed not so much in
[Mr. MacGuigan.l

the arguments they make but in the fact that they make arguments. There is no doubt that there is a certain uneasiness among many of our fellow citizens about the effects which an official languages bill, and other bills of that kind, might have on them. It is well for us to proceed slowly in this area, and to seek ways whereby these people can constantly be given reassurance. The federal government has no intention of acting precipitously in a way that would deprive people of rights that they have, even though it is interested in expanding the rights which some of our other fellow citizens may have.
With respect to the problem of employment, this might be an area where we could establish the office of a linguistic ombudsman who would be concerned with all cases where people felt, rightly or wrongly, that their right to employment might be infringed by the actions of their superiors. This might give a feeling of security to the little man who faced the prospect, in his mind, of losing his job.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and with respect to the constitutional committee, it seems to me that it ill becomes members of the opposition to charge the government with failure to produce at this point a more complete statement of the positions which it adopts. The federal government is acting in accordance with the plan it proposed at last year's conference, to proceed step by step to deal with certain problems, and then with others, a plan being followed as well by the continuing committee of officials discussing this matter at many meetings during the year. We have before us in this house a set of proposals which have been made by the federal government which cover many of the problems that have to be dealt with in reexamining or in redeveloping the constitution which this country will need for the next 100 or 200 years.
When I think of how the constitutional committee will function, I am somewhat concerned that it will not be aided by the imprecise notions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on this subject, or the irrelevancies of the spokesman for the Credi-tiste Party, or indeed by what I feel to be the anti-federal rigidities of the spokesman for the New Democratic party. And yet, with the consideration by the committee of concrete proposals by the government of Canada, I am hopeful-


David Lewis: Would the hon. member permit a question?
February 14. 1969	COMMONS


Mark R. MacGuigan: Not at the moment.


David Lewis: It is merely about what you have said now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor has indicated that he will not accept a question at this time.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Well, Mr. Speaker, since I get the gist of the hon. member's question, and it is about the language I used, I will take the question now.


David Lewis: Did I hear the hon. member say I was susceptible to anti-federal rigidities?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, that is the phrase I used. I consider the hon. member's centralist position to be anti-federal because it does not give the balance required. Indeed, I was listening very closely to him.


David Lewis: I wish the hon. member had heard as well as listened.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In conclusion, I would say that despite these concerns and reservations about the functioning of this committee, I am pleased that members of this house will have an opportunity to express themselves in the committee during its deliberations. I know there is no member of this house, from whatever party he may be, who will not put his country above his party or himself on questions of this kind.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that in the few minutes allowed to members of the house to discuss such an important subject as the constitutional reform, it will not be possible to reach a consensus.
However, I think we have an opportunity to make a few concrete suggestions in answer to the invitation given this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his brief statement.
Before I came to the house today, Mr. Speaker, I read the proceedings of the debates on confederation. I refer to the volume reporting the debates of the 3rd session of the 8th parliament in 1865. On page 53, there is a statement made by the hon. Mr. Currie. I should point out that this dates back to 1865. This volume contains also the speech made by hon. Mr. Brown, and I quote:
"On a survey of the whole case, I do think that there is no doubt as to the high advantages that would result from a union of all the colonies, provided that terms of union could be found just to
DEBATES	5557
Dominion-Provincial Conference all the contracting parties, and so framed as to secure harmony in the future administration of affairs. But it were wrong to conceal for a moment that the whole merit of the scheme of union may be completely marred by the character of its details."
Mr. Speaker this statement was made over a hundred years ago and it illustrates plainly that those who were busy outlining a new constitution foresaw that serious problems would arise, and that every province should be aware of its responsibilities within Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to revert briefly to the remarks made this morning by the right hon. Prime Minister.
I regret deeply the tone and the attitude of the Prime Minister, when he spoke of such a vital and important question as the revision of the constitution through the constitutional Conference. At one point, the Prime Minister, speaking of some provincial responsibilities, said, among other things, that the provinces could not shoulder the financial burden of air pollution control.
If the Prime Minister wanted to illustrate the dangers of air pollution he certainly has proven to the house that air pollution during the discussions is not less prejudicial.
The Prime Minister-I am sorry he is not here at the moment,-has been, to say the very least, pretentious, arrogant and insulting to the members of the house. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, whose main plank in his political platform was Canadian unity, could have been expected to act this morning in a more responsible manner.
The Prime Minister said that he was anxious to hear the members of the opposition and then announced in the same breath that he had to leave for Quebec and meet "Le Bonhomme Carnaval" and other V.I.P's participating in that celebration. I understand of course that the Prime Minister has obligations, but in my opinion, when for the first time in history the House had to discuss a question as important as the new constitution, the Prime Minister might have made a point to delay his departure.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

I know he has explained, but he is still away. We expected more this morning from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) than the provocative and cynical argument he presented. The Prime Minister has asked the opposition to bring forth points of view and make suggestions, but he refused to accept those
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference suggestions even before the invitation. He has been reported in news comments and communiques to the effect that he would not accept the establishment of a house committee to study the constitution. How can the opposition discharge its duties, and how can opposition members make concrete suggestions to the government, when the Prime Minister tells the country through the medium of the press that he is not ready to accept opposition suggestions? This is just another way by which the Prime Minister imposes his view on this parliament and the country as a whole.
We have read the manifesto distributed by the Liberal party, during the last election about the just society. I believe the Prime Minister should have read this manifesto before stating this morning that he will not consider the acceptability of a house committee on the constitution. I suggest the Prime Minister should read paragraph E of this manifesto which was distributed throughout the country. It has the picture of the Prime Minister on the front with the words "For Canada; the just society" Let me read what paragraph E states in part;
Parliament's procedures must be reformed. Greater importance must be given to parliamentary committees so that members of parliament may play a more effective role in our legislative process.
That is a quotation from the main manifesto, the vademecum or biblical literature that the Liberal organization sent out through the country during the last election. The election is now over. It is difficult to understand the members of the Liberal cabinet and Liberal members across the way because I do not believe the government has any intention of living up to the promises made to the people of this country during the election campaign.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is imperative to say a few words about the climate that prevailed at the constitutional conference and also in the House of Commons this morning.
At the Conference held this week, the Prime Minister was in the driver's seat; the provinces had to follow his lead in the debate; and he would not accept from them any position, any decision nor any recommendation that was contrary to his own views.
In fact, to my way of thinking, this was not a constitutional conference in which the elected representatives of the people were taking part, but rather a meeting between the premiers of the different provinces of Canada.

And we all know that the premiers are after all no more than the representatives of political parties. By no means do I wish to question the qualifications, the integrity or the objectivity of any of them, but I merely want to mention that there were at that conference table elected party representatives, so that the opposition of each of the participating provinces was excluded.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that so important a conference does not concern only the parties in power in the provinces, but that it must certainly concern also the opposition parties, whichever they are. The same applies both to the federal government and the provincial governments.
After the statement of the Prime Minister, we heard-and I felt most proud of it-the comments full of dignity made by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, who surely taught the Prime Minister a bit of wisdom by tackling this matter with restraint, with objectivity and with all the earnestness required by a question as essential as the constitutional conference.
What astonished me and every other hon. member-and I think this applies to all opposition parties-was the request made by the Prime Minister, not to the government members who are responsible for the administration, but to opposition members, to express, publicly or otherwise, their views on the Senate, on monarchy and on the government's proposed constitution. He asked whether opposition members agreed with the provincial premiers. What is the attitude of the opposition on linguistic rights? What are their suggestions? What is the position the Progressive Conservative opposition on the two-nation policy?
The Prime Minister was then asking the opposition to outline his administrative program.
I am greatly surprised at this attitude on the part of the Prime Minister, because ever since he has been sitting in this house as Prime Minister as well as Minister of Justice, he has never asked opposition parties for suggestions regarding the organization or the preparation of the agenda of the constitutional conference.
It is only after the conference has practically fizzled out that the Prime Minister, in an attempt to conceal the few positive effects obtained, appeals to the opposition.
But among the questions asked by the Prime Minister, some cast doubts upon the sincerity and the concern of the Progressive
February 14, 1969

Conservative party about the affairs of the country.
I was especially surprised when the Prime Minister suggested that the opposition should speak out, for example for or against monarchy. He undoubtedly forgot that not so very long ago, the young Liberals of a certain Ontario riding, the name of which I forget, had passed-some government members remember it-a resolution to abolish monarchy in Canada. It must be admitted that the resolution was defeated.
This was not an initiative of the Conservative party, but one that originated from young Liberals of an Ontario riding. When the Prime Minister asked his question this morning, I wonder if he was not putting it to the young Liberals rather than to the Conservative party. This was a roundabout way of imputing to the opposition attitudes which do not square with the facts. He also tried to place the opposition in an ambiguous position when he accused the Progressive Conservatives of promoting the two Nation theory. It was highly wise or clever of him to speak in English on that occasion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

I think I should repeat what the Prime Minister said this morning. He said the opposition should say whether two nations form one Canada, because we know that "nations" means one thing in French and something different in English. What the Prime Minister did not say this morning was that during the last election campaign he was trying to convince the people we were attempting to divide this country by preaching for two nations because what we were actually doing was preaching for two Canadas. I think the argument was dishonest at that time and is no more honest now when it is brought into the house in this way.

Mr. Speaker, on this side, we have always been true to our principles. On the occasion of the Montmorency conference, to which the Prime Minister has referred this morning, indeed, we spoke about two nations, but we did so exactly in the same sense as the Prime Minister, the Progressive Conservative party has never preached division by advocating two Canadas. And if I stress the point, it is due to the fact that, like many other people, I had to refute the fallacious argument, the false propaganda to that effect that was
Dominion-Provincial Conference spread across the country during the last election.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also asked the opposition this morning to define its position on the linguistic question, and he then explained his own approach, as he had done at the constitutional conference, and I quote:
Those who believe that we want to impose the French language throughout the country are mistaken. What we want is to set up bilingual regional districts.
However, Speaker, if we refer to the brief entitled: "For a just society in Canada." We find this at paragraph 6, under the heading "bilingualism".
From now on, every citizen will be able to resort to one or the other languages to deal with the federal administration.
Mr. Speaker, no specific details are given in this brief regarding the bilingual districts the Prime Minister referred to this morning and those he referred to at the Conference.
So, we must ask ourselves whether the Prime Minister is really playing a political game or whether he is in earnest when he wants to settle the linguistic problems of Canada.
That problem has certainly not been solved. We have confidence in the goodwill and the good faith of our Canadian fellow-citizens; we are well aware that, when that question will be submitted to bodies whose task it will be to define a policy, that language provision will surely receive the support of the Canadian people, with a view to building a united Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the constitutional conference held this week has been, in my opinion, less productive than the two previous ones. In fact, I think that the conference which has most contributed to develop a sound basis for the drafting of a new constitution was, not the one which took place this week, nor the previous one held in February 1968, but that convened by the premier of Ontario (Mr. Robarts) in November 1967.
At this last conference, the premiers were not obliged to comply with instructions or imperatives, as required by the Prime Minister, but it was attended by representatives who were discussing together their needs and their problems and were endeavouring to put forward solutions.
Of course, if one refers to the constitutional conference in February 1968, when the present Prime Minister was Minister of Justice, it is obvious that that conference was
5560	COMMONS
Dominion-Provincial Conference perhaps more of an electoral manoeuvre than anything else, since it allowed the Minister of Justice to become the pretender the then prime minister's crown and to set forth some electoral arguments on TV. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of disappointment to see that after discussions that lasted for three days, the last constitutional conference did not make it possible to make fair decisions in order to enable provinces to discharge the responsibilities assigned to them by the Canadian constitution.
Of course, the dilettantism shown by the present Prime Minister has been one of the main obstacles to the success of this constitutional Conference. Almost all observers are unanimous, except of course some premiers whose political allegiance was stronger than the constitutional argument and who became the admirers of the Prime Minister.
On the whole, it can be said that this conference did not bring any solution to the most pressing and most urgent problems of our country. At first we expected the linguistic issue to be the main concern of the delegates but we quickly realized that the provinces had more pressing needs and that it was the monetary and financial problem. The question was whether the central government would keep its control over the powers and rights of the provinces, or whether it would realize that the provinces had their own needs and that they are faced with tragic situations.
We only need to read to-day and yesterday's papers to realize how tragic is the unemployment situation in the province of Quebec. We know that 40 per cent of the Canadian unemployed are found in that province.
At the present time the province of Quebec is faced with financial problems as serious as those of the Maritimes. In Quebec the unemployment rate reaches 8.9 per cent while it is over 10 per cent in the Maritimes. The province of Quebec should have not been made the centre of attention in this conference because it came to request from this federal government and to put before it the same problems which other provinces have stressed for so long. But the federal government turned a deaf ear.
This morning, the right hon. Prime Minister put questions to the members of the opposition and requested directions on a possible approach; may I too ask the right hon. Prime Minister some questions to which I invite him to reply.
[Mr. Valade.l
DEBATES	February 14, 1969
We should like the government and the right hon. Prime Minister to tell us whether future federal-provincial conferences will have the same structure as the last one? Are premiers only and members of elected political parties to be invited?
We want to know if the right hon. Prime Minister intends to always keep the upper hand?
We would like the Prime Minister and the present government to tell us whether they intend to control and to further intrude-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allocated to him has expired.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does
the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to rise on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the house that the present debate was initiated by the right hon. Prime Minister. It is a very important and interesting debate. However, the time set aside for discussions was very short indeed. We could only listen to seven or eight hon. members, I would therefore express the wish that we might pursue.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue):
That this house will not adjourn at five (5) o'clock, pursuant to standing order, but that the debate will continue until six (6) o'clock.
In case this motion should be out of order or should not meet with unanimous approval, I would like Mr. Speaker, to ask the leader of the government to make some suggestions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member has risen on a point of order. May I remind him that it is out of order to move a motion of this kind at this stage?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house, I could end my remarks in a few minutes.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Unfortunately, we do not have the unanimous consent of the house.
February 14, 1969

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been in the house today, particularly on the government side of the house, welcome this debate in parliament on some of the fundamental issues relating to the constitution and the legal underpinning of Canada. I subscribe to the view that the elected representatives of the people should have an opportunity to pronounce themselves on these issues from time to time to Parliament assembled.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that he will consider the appropriateness of a committee to study this issue. It is true that in recent years federal-provincial conferences, either among heads of government or among various ministers of the Crown, ministers of finance, attorneys general, ministers of health and so on, have constituted what has been called by some commentators a third or fourth level of government. When these conferences are televised to the people, there is almost an atmosphere of the Athenian city state. I believe, therefore, that it becomes incumbent upon the representatives of the people to ensure that they are not bypassed, and that they fulfil their mandate to their electors.
Last week it appeared that the federal and provincial governments were approaching each other in a spirit of confrontation. I think the achievement of the conference was that it ended in a spirit of limited concensus and on a basis of universal personal goodwill among the participants at the conference. That in itself is no mean achievement.
The federal government went into the three day sessions with two main attitudes; the first was an attitude of urgency. We felt that there should be impressed upon the provincial governments, and indeed upon the Canadian people, a renewed sense of urgency for a total review of the Canadian constitution. We believe that this is just as necessary now as it was last February or as it was in November, 1967 at the "Confederation for Tomorrow Conference" sponsored by Premier Robarts. We felt that the threat of separate status, special status or separatism was just as great now as it was then; that the scepticism of many Quebeckers toward the option of confederation was just as pronounced now as it was then. We felt that the sense of responsibility that was apparent last year among the English speaking majority of Canada to accept a consensus on language and on consti-

Dominion-Provincial Conference tutional issues, after the last election which gave the present government and Prime Minister a majority in parliament, seemed to have changed into a state of complacency which had diluted that sense of urgency which we thought should be restored. We also believed that the federal impulse or thrust in the country, and particularly the federal thrust in Quebec, should retain the initiative and that this was paramount if the special status or independentist solutions in Quebec were to be finally quelled and defeated before public opinion or in polls. This could only be done if the federalists in Canada and in Quebec could show progress in moving toward a new Canada which was as meaningful to French Canadians as it was to English Canadians, a Canada in which equal access to the services of the government, particularly the federal government, in either language, was guaranteed in the law and hopefully within the constitution. Within the ambit of that objective, I think that the conference showed some significant movement and I think added to the federal thrust in the province of Quebec. So, within that scope and ambit the conference accomplished its purpose.
The other attitude with which we entered the conference was one of flexibility. It had become apparent that whereas the federal government had on its agenda the matters of fundamental rights, objectives of the constitution, language, and the revision of some of the federal institutions of government, the provinces were interested in some of the more immediate problems, particularly fiscal. We had made up our minds to allow a discussion of the fiscal issues, preferably under the umbrella of the constitution, and so we opened up for discussion the federal spending power and the provincial taxing power within the general context of the division of powers under articles 91 and 92 of the constitution. It is true, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), has pointed it out, that we were more interested in the medium and long term solutions to the problems facing Canada-and they are not insurmountable problems by any means.
It seemed to us that the root of the fiscal situation in terms of tax revenue and in terms of spending obligations lies fundamentally in a review of the division of the sources of revenue and the division of the responsibility for spending the money obtained.
The provinces went into the conference with money on their minds. The Atlantic provinces came to it with, to my way of
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference thinking, quite a justifiable interest in eliminating regional disparity, the gap between the rich and the poorer provinces of Canada. The province of Nova Scotia particularly, wanted the principle of the elimination of disparity and the narrowing of the gap in regional equality enshrined in the constitution. We are moving toward a discussion of that point of view. Within that ambit also, considerable progress was made and, I think, considerable satisfaction given to the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces.
Finally, on the provinces' minds was a feeling that there had been insufficient consultation on the part of the federal government in its initiation of some shared cost programs and in its withdrawal from others. I will not go into the merits of that; the Prime Minister has dealt with it and we dealt with it at the conference. I want to say that the arguments came forth strong and clear, and without going into them, I would just remind the provinces that participatory federalism-a term used by Premier Robarts-is a two way street. Certainly, those provinces with a larger fiscal leverage than the others should be expected to have it operate in reciprocal ways, if this principle is to be followed.
I think that the constitutional conference saw a frank and very useful discussion of the constitutional review process and of some of the major issues involved in that review. I concede that any analysis of what was achieved at the conference made from such close proximity in time can only be rather subjective. I may say, however, that a real degree of movement in the process of constitutional review was achieved and a number of matters were designated as having priority. Talks are now to continue and to commence at the ministerial rather than merely the official level. All the governments agreed that ministers should now be responsible for a closer supervision of the course of discussion, and to my mind that denotes progress. I think also there was a general feeling that the constitutional review had to proceed at an accelerated pace. This feeling came both from the provinces which do not feel that major changes are needed to the constitution now but that we should build on the base which already exists, and from the provinces which feel we should entirely rewrite the constitution. This desire to advance the process will, I believe, make detailed discussion easier and enable us to show some real progress in a number of key areas.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I wish to talk briefly about bilingualism or language as it was dealt with at the conference. Because of the attitude of the four western provinces toward the official languages bill, Bill C-120, a good deal of attention was focused on this subject. There was also a briefer discussion about the possibility of entrenching certain language guarantees in the constitution. We stated that the government was committed in principle to the bill. We believe that equal access in certain regions of the country to federal services of government is essential to national unity and that Canadians are entitled to use their own language and to feel at home in all parts of Canada. We hope this would contribute to the greater mobility of French-speaking Canadians across the country.
We believe that law is necessary in order to convert symbolism into reality. Many provinces feel that because of the goodwill which is now apparent in Canada, and the progress which has been made, an official languages bill would, by its enactment, make progress more difficult. I should like to say that rights can only be recognized by law, and no amount of goodwill can substitute for that. So, we hope we shall be able to proceed with the bill. I believe the bill when enacted will be evidence of good faith on the part of the English-speaking majority in Canada and of the French-speaking majority in Quebec.
I shall not repeat the constitutional arguments because they were made ably in this house earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). We believe this bill does not constitute an amendment to the British North America Act with regard to the use or extension of the French or English languages. It does not offend section 133, because that is not a limiting section; if it were it would limit the extension of the English language as well, and that would be an absurdity.
It was agreed at the conference in connection with the official languages bill that I should meet with the attorneys-general of those provinces which wanted to discuss the constitutionality of the measure, or certain sections of it. We have been in touch with those attorneys-general and on Monday in Victoria at 11 a.m. I shall meet the attorneys-general of the four western provinces.


An hon. Member:: Pretty cold out there.


John Napier Turner: Premier
Bennett assures me there are tulips growing
February 14, 1969

there and that the unaccustomed snow has disappeared.


An hon. Member:: It might warm up.


John Napier Turner: Well, it is true that Premier Bennett is back there. In any event, I shall be meeting with the attor-neys-general, Sterling Lyon of Manitoba, R. Peterson of British Columbia, D. V. Heald of Saskatchewan, and Edgar J. Gerhart of Alberta in the Empress Hotel on Monday morning. I shall attempt to allay some of their fears about the constitutional aspects of the bill, and some of their fears about the effects of the bill. I am going out there committed in principle but flexible as to changes in detail they may have in mind in terms of phraseology, and so on.
I told the conference that the effect of the bill on the life of the average Canadian living in the four western provinces had been exaggerated. I think its effect on the everyday lives of English-speaking Canadians there will, in practice, be fairly limited. Our officials discussed with the attorneys-general of the other provinces the possibility of a meeting. The attorneys-general of the Atlantic provinces and of Ontario have indicated that they see no urgency about meeting with me at the present stage. I am arranging, however, to visit Quebec City in about ten days' time to discuss with the Prime Minister of the Province of Quebec the aspects of the bill which cause him difficulty. When our discussions have been completed I shall, of course, be reporting to the government and I hope we shall be in a position then to proceed with the bill on second reading at an early date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister a question? Could he, on his return, make a report to the house?


John Napier Turner: By all
means. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) understands the position we take. If we fail to reconcile our differences over the constitutional aspects of the bill, the discussions are without prejudice and the government has reserved its right to proceed with the bill in the House of Commons. If it is challenged by the provinces in a provincial court of appeal, we shall resist that challenge and I suppose our recourse will then be to the Supreme Court of Canada to which the measure would be submitted under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act. Hopefully, this may be avoided.
Dominion-Provincial Conference [Translation]
Despite a certain agitation in some provinces with an English-speaking majority, the good will which has been steadily growing in the last few years, is an overwhelming proof of the new tolerance and of the new desire to grant rights to French-speaking minorities.
At this stage of our history it would be ironical and even tragical, if the province of Quebec, where all minority rights have always been respected, refused at this time to support our bill. I was very happy to get in principle, the support of Mr. Bertrand during the Conference. He made a few reservations about what he called the terms of the bill, that is the bilingual districts. I have not quite understood his argument yet.
In the province of Quebec, a few political reasons will make it somewhat difficult to reconciliate a certain priority of the French language in Quebec with the equality of the rights of the English minority there, but I do not think that this attitude-if it should materialize-will prevent the inclusion in the federal law of a guarantee for the rights of the English speaking minority. Even if a certain priority is granted to the French language in Quebec, there will be no conflict as to the principle of equality of the official languages in the federal legislation.
I hope that no discussion concerning the importance of the French language in Quebec will be detrimental to the adoption of the principle that has already been accepted in Quebec since Confederation, that is the equality of both languages.

On the question of language rights entrenched in the constitution, the conference, as I have said, agreed that the matter should be considered in the light of section 133 of the British North America Act. This provision, as hon. members know, is the one which provides for the use of the French and English languages in connection with federal and Quebec institutions and the publishing in both languages of acts of parliament and of the Quebec legislature. I think it is fair to say that the goodwill displayed by all of the provinces, even by those which appeared disinclined to entrench language rights at the present time, was most encouraging. I would hope that proceeding from an analysis of section 133, and the recommendations of the B and B Commission, the ministerial committee will be able to define the issues and reach some tentative agreement which can be
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference placed before a subsequent meeting of prime ministers and premiers.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I expect the same will be true in the field of human rights, the entrenchment of which is also to be the subject of, discussion at the ministerial level. I think it would be fair to say that the entrenchment of political rights in the constitution would meet with but little opposition from the provinces; that is, if I have interpreted the statements made at the conference correctly. If one is to judge by the statements made, the main areas of difficulty and disagreement are those concerned with legal rights, egalitarian rights and economic rights.
I think it would be unwise and unrealistic to expect in this or in any other subject matter which has been moved from the official level to the ministerial level for discussion, that rapid progress can be achieved. I see extensive consideration being given to all aspects of these matters, and it is right that this should be so because we are dealing with a fundamental document that concerns our lives as Canadians. This being so, I certainly hope that ministers will be able to report progress in the definition of issues, and perhaps some consensus, to the Prime Minister and the premiers when next they meet.
I am not going to deal again-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order,
I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired.

Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I will just take two minutes, Mr. Speaker. I want to give the other hon. member the opportunity to speak if I can. I am not going to deal with the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope it was clear from the conference that there is quite a difference in view that must be reconciled between the federal government and the province of Quebec.
We foresee many long months of discussion and negotiation, but the second session of the constitutional conference left me with a feeling of movement, with a feeling that the provinces are now concerned with constitutional review, and that they will work with


us, despite the differences in approach to various subject matters, to make this review successful and meaningful. I think that all those present at the conference were conscious of our 100 years of living together and developing together. They were also conscious of the necessity for our examining the basic law in this country with a view to ensuring that it meets the needs of the future.
I think one of the best aspects of the conference was the educative value of the conference to the people of Canada. I do not know how many school children were allowed by their teachers to watch the three days of sessions, but I would say they would have learned more in three days about Canada, its various interests, conflicts and differences, than they would ever learn by reading textbooks for three years. They heard differences of opinion; they heard differences in approach; they saw differences in need. But I believe that the children of Canada saw no difference in motive. I am sure that they are shrewd enough to understand that the motive of everybody there was to fulfil the common expectations and hopes of those of us who live in the northern half of this limitless continent, with all the blessings of nature that it has received. If our children have not come to realize that we are the most fortunate cluster of people on the face of the globe, then they really did not understand the conference.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to ask a question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 6 (5) (a), I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue):
That the sitting continues until six o'clock today in order to carry on the present debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
motion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere is in accordance with the provisions of standing order 6(5) (a).
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 14, 1969	COMMONS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed to the said motion will please rise.
And more than 10 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I
declare the motion lost.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, since there are only about 20 minutes left and I should like to give another hon. member an opportunity of contributing to this debate, I shall try to make my remarks very brief.
This is a subject in which, despite the natural tendencies for the members of this house to be partisan-and I think it is proper for us to be so on many occasions-we all endeavour to be non-partisan because the future of Canada is clearly involved when we discuss our constitution. I need hardly say that we in this party are willing and anxious to play our part as a constructive opposition in the building of a new constitution which we think is essential to the future of Canada.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked the question: Where do you in the opposition stand on the question of a review of the constitution? Do you want total review, or do you want something less than that? We in this party are quite clear in our answer to that question: we want total review. That does not mean, of course, total change. It does not mean that we have to jettison everything we now have. But in the sense that we do want to look at the whole picture and not at part of the picture, we stand for total review.
Sometimes people downgrade the importance of constitutional discussion. They say that we should be worried about bread and butter issues. No issue is more deeply concerned with bread and butter matters than a constitution, even though it is often framed in legalistic terms. It not only defines the powers and responsibilities of government but determines whether government can function effectively and do the tasks which the people elected them as servants of the people to do. Therefore, the constitution, which is the fundamental law governing and directing all the other activities of governments, is a matter of supreme importance.
Another matter that I think we must never forget is that a constitution has educational and should have inspirational value. It should be a document of which Canadians can be proud, to which they can look as a succinct
DEBATES	5565
Dominion-Provincial Conference statement of their aspirations and purposes in the formulation of a federation. While I do not for a minute doubt that the Fathers of Confederation and the drafters of the British North America Act, which is our present constitution as amended, did an excellent job in 1867, the fact remains that the constitution then drafted, even though since amended, is now antiquated, inadequate, obsolete and uninspiring. I think I could justify each one of those adjectives.
For this reason it is necessary for us to look at the constitution from beginning to end in order to make it an expression of Canadian thinking and of Canadian partnership, if I may use that expression, which is appropriate to the present time.
One aspect that was discussed at the constitutional conference was the entrenchment of a charter of human rights in our constitution. 1 want to bring the enthusiastic support of this party to that proposition. There are basic political rights that should be protected by parliament and by legislatures. It is no good saying that we can depend on commonsense, that we can depend upon our parliament and legislatures. The plain fact of the matter is that we are human beings, and under the stress of certain emergencies parliament and legislatures sometimes do foolish things. I do not have time to go into them but they are things which, though well intentioned, may cut into the basic human rights of individuals. There is no reason in the world why we should be afraid of the sober second thoughts resulting from any examination the Supreme Court might make of the fundamental law laid down in the constitution. Therefore, I most earnestly hope that those governments which perhaps have misunderstood the purpose of this charter of human rights, as constitutionally entrenched, will take a second look at the matter and agree that all Canadians should be protected by such a charter, which ought to be part of their constitution.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We take a similar view with regard to language rights. Those rights are set out in the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The proposed amendment to the British North America Act which would enlarge and clarify basic language rights is an act of simple justice. It should be included in our constitution, and we give it our full support.
The time has come for me, in this part of my speech, to talk of the most important issue confronting any federation, the question
February 14, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Conference of the distribution of powers and resources between the central and local or provincial governments. We must review that. In the case of Canada, this review must include a review of spending powers. The federal government repeatedly has intruded into spheres that ought to come under provincial jurisdiction. A times, it has seemed that the central government has exercised excessive power, and it might be beneficial if this matter were examined. It seems to me that the basic task which confronts the continuing committee, this parliament and all those concerned about this matter, is a review of the main functions of government, and what government can do as the servant of the people, about housing, pollution, health and the 101 other things with which governments deal. We must review those functions and determine whether those functions are most effectively carried out at the federal or provincial level or in co-operation between the two levels.
Some aspects of government obviously come under one heading. Defence, obviously, comes under the federal government, and is an aspect of international affairs. Most, if not all, aspects of international affairs come under the federal government. The field of education, in a bilingual country like this, may come under other levels of government. Some aspects of our national life will come under the domination of a variety of powers and governments. All these government activities must be reviewed and looked at. But the rub will come when it is found that there are different points of view in different parts of the country in respect of this matter. I think there are excellent historical and other reasons why a province like Quebec, representing a special culture, a distinct language and different background, should want a degree of decentralization in order to control certain aspects of its own life which do not come into play in the rest of Canada. We must evolve a constitution which respects the right of the people in Quebec to say, "We want to protect our own culture and rights by having legislative jurisdiction over certain social matters." But at the same time we do not want to deprive the other provinces of the opportunity to work together on a national scale in order to carry out some purposes they may think are important.
It is for these reasons that we in this party have spoken about a special status for Quebec. It is not that we want special privileges for one province, namely, Quebec. Rather,


we put forward our views because we recognize there are different requirements and needs in different parts of the country. We are not dogmatic. We do not contend we have all the answers.
I suggest that the rub will come when we get down to cases and talk about the distribution of powers and distribution of money. It is high time we got on with the job. I agree with what the Prime Minister said this mom-ning, that delegation of responsibility or power, whether from the federal to provincial or provincial to federal governments, is not the answer. Nevertheless the concept of delegation must be examined. Rights or powers that can be acquired by delegation and then withdrawn are not good enough. Such a system does not work. Any system of delegation must be flexible if it is to meet our needs. Above all we must avoid rigidity, since with rigidity our federation will not work.
In this party we do not stand for any hard and fast solutions. I do not know whether the Prime Minister was being rhetorical when he asked us to explain our beliefs to him in this relatively short debate. We have ideas. We have looked into the matter and feel we can contribute to the solution of our problems. But we are not giving out any hard and fast solutions at present.
I submit that there is an urgent need to set up this parliamentary committee which has been mentioned. I, for one, have been urging the establishment of this committee as long as I have been a member of the house. I corresponded with the former prime minister and talked to him about it. He was always in favour of it, but the time was never opportune. He agreed it was a suitable idea, and good that Members of Parliament should discuss among themselves in committee these problems; he also said the committee should be set up at a timely moment. I say that no moment is more timely than the present. Specific issues could be referred to that committee, and discussions with all levels of government could be held.
I conclude by saying that I believe nowhere is the duty of discussing changes to our constitution greater than it is in parliament. This parliament is a representative body of Canadians and there is no other equally representative body of Canadians. Not only are we representative in the sense we are elected to represent our people; but we come from every region, from every background and profession, and from every social level, as it were. If we, in this chamber cannot,
February 14, 1969

through our committee, work out a real contribution to our country's constitutional problems, I wonder who can. Where can those problems be worked out? It is wrong to say you could work out problems in watertight compartments, or in caucus only. Of course, you could tackle it that way, but we think that those discussions should take place here, where members of our committee could make constructive suggestions. I am not saying we must agree with each other; it is unlikely that we shall agree. But I am sure that if we disagree, as we are bound to, we shall disagree on a higher level, as it were, than others in this country could. We could disagree having available to us a great deal of knowledge which may not be available to others.
Confederation was forged by ordinary, elected members, similar to those in this chamber. They were the ones, and not the academics, the scholars, civil servants or bureaucrats in the London colonial office, who worked out our constitution. It is our job, whether we are in opposition or in government, to contribute to this process of constitution making. I therefore hope the government will set up the committee as quickly as possible and give it a large measure of responsibility in this matter.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on our nation's constitution. I was surprised and disappointed to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say that he did not think the position of the party to which I have the honour to belong in respect of the monarchy was clear. I submit he cannot point to a single policy of this party that would have the effect of removing or weakening that institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: This position can be contrasted with the actions of his government in downgrading the monarchy at every opportunity. For example, I am referring to matters such as omitting all reference to the monarchy in the throne speech, stopping ceremonial salutes to the royal family and to the Prime Minister's statement that he does not believe in attacking symbols important to other people. What other meaning can be attached to that statement than that the symbols of the monarchy are completely unimportant to him.
With respect to the Prime Minister's comment about two nations, I wonder whether he has now forgotten ordering the withdrawal of
Dominion-Provincial Conference a Liberal party advertisement at Calgary, an advertisement which accused this party of supporting a two nation policy. That was last June.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The first point that springs to my mind in this debate has to do with the procedure for amending our constitution. Over the past several years there has been a great deal of effort spent on attempting to arrive at a method of changing our constitution. In spite of all this effort, no agreement has been reached. Surely, the basic ingredient of any constitution, if it is to be a living document, is an amending procedure. Until this problem is solved, how are we going to achieve a new constitution even if all other points are agreed upon? Surely, no one would be so short-sighted as to accept a constitution which, no matter how perfect it might be now, would be frozen forever more?
My second point is whether what the nation witnessed earlier this week was not just so much window dressing, or a vehicle to titillate the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) academic propensities. In other words, to put it bluntly, do we really need a new constitution?
Our constitution is the product of several hundreds of years of experience and I submit should only be dismantled or changed with care. The present debate in the country on the subject of our constitution seems to be based to a large extent on the principle that it should be changed for the sake of change, and that after we change the constitution many of our problems will be solved. As a result, a great many expectations have been raised which cannot be satisfied by a new constitution, even if it were written by that person often referred to by the Prime Minister as the "Holy Ghost" himself. To my mind, the Prime Minister is using this entire constitutional question as a smokescreen to cover his government's lack of executive action in meeting the real problems of today.
No one has successfully demonstrated, as far as I am concerned, that the present constitution is holding up social advances. I would like someone to name one social change that could not be achieved because of our present constitution. It is also well to remember that this country fought two world wars and a world depression which resulted in vast social changes under our present constitution. How can it be said to be inflexible?
In this connection, during World War II the provinces turned over their entire tax
5568	COMMONS
Dominion-Provincial Conference sources to the federal government under a tax rental agreement. The provinces were able to operate on that basis, allowing the country to participate in the war. Our constitution is only as inflexible as the parties to it. It has been the attitude of the federal government over the past few years which has made the constitution appear inflexible and worse than it really is. What is lacking today is political consensus between the federal and provincial governments, and no amount of fine draftsmanship or high flown phrases will cure that problem.
I am opposed to entrenching civil rights in a written constitution because then we would have a transfer of policy roles from the legislative branch of our government to the judicial. I submit that our courts are not equipped for this role and in many instances the United States Supreme Court has demonstrated the weakness of this theory. Some countries seem to have shown a propensity to change their constitutions with regularity once the first step has been taken. Examples which come to mind quickly are Venezuela, Greece and France. These examples demonstrate, I think, evidence of national disintegration rather than virility.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would say the problems facing the nation today, irrespective of the efforts of the continuing constitutional conference, are and remain, inflation, housing, Indian affairs, agricultural marketing and regional economic disparity. No amount of constitutional manipulation will produce the political consensus necessary for the solution of these problems.
It is refreshing to hear the Prime Minister say there will be no more medicare programs. What I cannot understand is, if he recognizes this program to be a mistake, why he persists in perpetuating it.
In my opinion, if the federal government would put its own constitutional and fiscal houses in order, the pressures would be reduced. Then, real progress could be made in first determining how we want to amend our constitution and, secondly, in determining what changes are really necessary for the prosperity and happiness of our citizens.
DEBATES	February 14, 1969

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere) Mr. Speaker, we are no longer Frenchmen from France, nor Englishmen from England. We are Canadians living in Canada, and we are proud to do so. Canada, as such, is 100 years old. But long before 1867, the territory now known as Canada was peopled by Frenchmen coming from France and, soon after, by Anglo-Saxons.
Slowly, a cultural and linguistic duality grew, committing the two founding peoples to a perpetual duality, unless one or the other disappeared. In this regard, it seems that the English element does' not want to disappear, no more than the French element. The new Canadians, who left their country of origin to settle in Canada, must also be taken into account.
The duality of a country such as Canada manifests itself through the respect of the two elements, the French and the English.
After 100 years of confederation, Mr. Speaker, Canada must face the vital necessity, the moral obligation, of taking stock of itself, and finding its place in the modern world behind which we often trail.
From here on, we must shape Canada as we want it and not as it would be imposed upon us; not by starting everything from scratch, by rejecting the past, but in an essentially positive perspective, turned towards the future, towards progress.
The past no longer belongs to us and the present is fleeting. We must build the future of this country, of our fellow-citizens and our own, because the future and the economic progress of our fellow-citizens alone can gratify our needs and our hopes. Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?


An hon. Member:: It is five o'clock.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is "four" o'clock?


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 17, 1969