1970-01-27

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the growing number of lay-offs in the automobile industry and the great economic importance of this industry, I ask the minister what information he has from the automobile industry as to the extent of the lay-offs this winter in the Canadian aspect of this industry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have recently had meetings with the heads of the automobile industry and reference was made to this in our discussion. It is well known that there is a levelling in growth in that industry at this time. The lay-offs that have taken place in the recent past have been justified either by internal restructuring or by the need to reduce excessive inventories.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any estimate of the extent of lay-offs to be expected and has he any assurance that the lay-offs that are effected will be fair and pro rata under the automobile agreement as between Canada and the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I believe it is so, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot be very specific today. I will look into this matter more closely and will give a more precise answer Thursday.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister attempted to get an assurance from the heads of the automotive companies that they will give advance notice to workers who are going to be laid off of not less than two months before such lay-offs take place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand the practice has been to that effect in recent times in the automobile industry, but I will have another look at the record.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question. Will the minister take this problem into account in the negotiations in connection with the Canada-United States automotive trade pact and attempt to reduce the differential in prices in order to reduce inflation and provide for greater possibility of sales?


Jean-Luc Pepin: All these factors and many others are being taken into account in our negotiations with the United States. If one is concerned with differentials, one should be encouraged by the progressive reduction in the prices of automobiles and in the reduction in the productivity differentials that existed between the two industries at the time the pact was negotiated. One should be rather satisfied with the progress made in these areas.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is on the same subject. In his examination of the problem, will the minister look at the agreement to see if there are any guarantees that the Canadian government could invoke under the agreement to prohibit the export of unemployment in view of the fact that there are many reports of very extensive lay-offs in the automotive industry in the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have used all the guarantees that were available in the agreement and in the letters given by the companies to the government in 1965. The general idea is that these guarantees now constitute a floor under which production cannot be allowed to fall. However, as hon. members know, there is no guarantee as to employment; it is by increasing the Canadian value added that further employment is generated.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister will appreciate that since decisions in these matters are made in Detroit, the volume of production, either here or in the United States, is subject to decisions made outside Canada. That is why I am drawing the minister's attention to this question of a guarantee
January 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry in relation to the non-export of unemploy- Mr. Pepin: I say yes to that, Mr. Speaker, ment. May we have a statement on this par- but the figure is wrong-it is not as high as ticular aspect at the first opportunity?	that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On this particular subject the presidents of the automobile companies in Canada have assured me that decisions being taken in this industry in Detroit or anywhere else are now made on the basis of economic returns. This is cheering information, because it was one of the purposes of the automobile agreement that decisions should be made on such a basis. The hon. member smiles, and I can understand why he does so. We try by every reasonable means available to us to make sure that decisions are taken on the basis of economic return; we insist as much as we can-sometimes even more.



AIRCRAFT-POSSIBLE LAY-OFFS-HAWKER - SIDDELEY APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister with respect to possible lay-offs in the aircraft industry. Has the government made any decision with respect to the application of the Hawker-Siddeley Company for financial assistance to enable them to put into production the DHC-7 which could put Canada in the forefront in exports of this particular type of aircraft? Has any decision been reached in this regard and, if not, when will one be taken?


Jean-Luc Pepin: A decision was made some time ago, Mr. Speaker, and a program is now in progress in my department to encourage the next phase in the development of the DeHavilland and the STOL aircraft. However, the company has experienced some difficulty arising from the slow development of the use of the STOL aircraft in the world. As hon. members will appreciate, production has to be tied to the use of this aircraft, particularly in the United States; we can only go as far as markets are available for this aircraft. There is in my department now a rhythm of implementation of this program which ties in with the development of potential markets. I am well aware of the importance of this development in terms of the well-being of the aircraft industry in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the government decided whether or not to accede to the application for some part of the $50 million needed to put this plane into production if feasibility studies warrant it?


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Would the minister make a statement soon as to the number of senior people in the public service employed in western Canada in the national parks branch and other departments who have been laid off? Will he also tell us how many of these people will be transferred to other jobs?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is aware that there is a very active program in an endeavour to find alternative positions in the Public Service for those in particular jobs which have been declared redundant. This program is continuing and will continue. Whenever a man's position is declared redundant another position will be sought for him if one is available. There will be no termination of this program. Therefore from that point of view I am not able to say how many will be laid off or how many will be found alternative positions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the minister's answer do I take it that his policy is to try to find alternative positions but if there are none then even these senior public servants who have served this country will be laid off permanently?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question as asked appears to be argumentative.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase it. I did not mean to be argumentative.


An hon. Member:: It comes naturally.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us a statement within the next few days as to the number of people who at this stage have not been placed in alternative jobs and have served as senior public servants in this nation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can make a statement as to the number of senior public
January 27, 1970

servants for whom positions have not been found and who have been laid oil if the hon. gentleman would indicate to me what he means by senior public servants.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of an answer he provided yesterday to a question which appeared on the Order Paper. The answer revealed that RCA Victor Corporation of Canada has received 493 contracts from the Department of National Defence since 1962. Will the minister assure the House that he will investigate the conflict of interest position of Mr. J. B. Houlding who is simultaneously the president of RCA Victor of Canada and a member of the Defence Research Board.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, technically speaking the contracts referred to here were not given by the Defence Research Board.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the appropriate minister who is responsible for awarding such contracts.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will ask his parliamentary secretary to give the answer.
Could he tell us if the ice-breaker C. D. Howe was sold to Marine Industries Ltd. or to any other company?
If so, what was the sale price?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to suggest to the hon. member that this question could easily be placed on the Order Paper.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The C. D. Howe is equipped with hospital facilities which cost one million dollars. Before scrapping her, it would be time for the minister or his parliamentary secretary to tell the House whether she has been sold.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not have the information requested by the hon. member, but I shall ask the department and keep him informed about this matter.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the first minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received a written complaint from the retired coal miners pensioners union at Sydney Mines regarding the manner in which benefits are being paid? In view of the constant complaints, and knowing the Prime Minister has a particular interest in this problem, would he cause an investigation to be carried out into all the ramifications of this subject?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication that I have received such a complaint but it is conceivable that it has arrived at my office and has not been delivered to me. I will take the question as notice and if the complaint warrants such an investigation I will consider the matter.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether, when investigating this particular set-up in Devco, the Prime Minister would also investigate the purchasing policies of this crown corporation?



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he prepared to ask the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to look into the activities of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in northern Ontario?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I do not control this, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question which has already been asked in a number of forms in recent days.
January 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, because oi the strong reaction in northern Ontario against the agency reporting on ice and water conditions, will the chairman of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works undertake to call before the committee representatives of the United States Army Corps of Engineers to ascertain whether Canada can formally supply the information required?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have the impression that the question asked by the hon. member relates to one asked before. I do not like to be unfair to the hon. member for Thunder Bay who asked a question which I suggested had been asked previously. The minister might like to reply to both questions at this time.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not control the procedures of the committee, but I certainly see no objection to the committee requesting their presence. I am sure that through the good offices of the Department of External Affairs we could determine whether or not the engineers would be willing to appear before the committee to clear up any problems that might exist.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask the minister if he would be prepared to have called before the committee some of the persons who brought this matter to his attention so that further information might be obtained?


John James Greene: I would certainly have no objection to that.



RAPESEED-PROVISION OF BOXCARS FOR ADDITIONAL, QUOTA

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Wheat Board has recently announced an additional five bushel quota for rapeseed, have efforts been made to provide boxcars to handle this quota at places where rapeseed is available?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the program for boxcars involves the demands not only for rapeseed but other grains. Due consideration is given to the demand for cars for rapeseed at the ports in deciding the allocation of boxcars.



UTILIZATION OF LAKEHEAD TERMINAL SPACE

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. Following the debate on available space at the Lakehead terminals in which the opposition pointed out to the minister the necessity of assisting farmers in their financial difficulties by filling the space as soon as possible, has the minister come to any decision in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the decision in regard to filling space was clear before the opposition made any point of the matter. The space will be filled methodically and effectively and is being filled at the rate of several million bushels of grain a week.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio is a follow-up to the question I directed to the acting minister last week in the minister's absence. Has he now had any consultations with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in view of the concern expressed by that organization that space at the Lake-head would not be filled by the opening of navigation and that this would hinder the loading of boats for export?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking to the president and other members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on other matters and we did give some attention to this issue as well, including the ability of the Wheat Pool to handle the number of boxcars programmed for it to the end of the period. It appears they are confident of their ability to handle cars in accordance with the schedule. Reports of loading indicate that the number of cars from Saskatchewan has increased rather markedly recently and this will be reflected in unloadings available for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminal.



PROVISION OF ONE-BUSHEL QUOTA

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. How soon may all those points-nearly half of the delivery points on the prairies which are still on the unit quota-expect to receive a one-bushel quota?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to put a specific date on it but the movement of grain from the unit quota points is very rapid and I
January 27. 1970	COMMONS
would expect to see the opening of the one-bushel quota across the prairies very quickly, as well as a move to two fairly rapidly thereafter.


Mr. Horner:: It could have been two months ago if you had filled up the terminals.



FINAL PAYMENTS FOR 1968-69 CROP YEAR

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of recent statements by the minister to the effect that "there is no reason at all for farmers to be optimistic about receiving a final payment", is the minister in a position to announce whether there will be a final payment and, if not, when will he be making this announcement to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to add at this point to the discussion of a few days ago about the wheat pool. However, I think I should add, for the benefit of the hon. member for Crowfoot, that we could hardly fill the space available for grain before it was empty and 44 million bushels of grain were moved out in December.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister indicate what steps have been taken by the government to accommodate the request by the Director General of the World Food Program that Canada modify its $30 million effort in terms of the type of commodities to be provided to this program?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's interpretation of what Mr. Aquino said is completely inaccurate.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Despite my voice being a bit raspy I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has made the allegation that I have interpreted something inaccurately. I did not interpret anything. I simply asked the minister whether the government planned to modify its contribution to the world food program inasmuch as the Director General has
DEBATES	2863
Inquiries of the Ministry been asking for a modification of Canada's efforts. The minister has implied that I am misrepresenting the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



TYPE OF APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON POLICY

Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the government intend to make further appointments to the advisory committee on oil policy in order to offset the heavy representation of international oil companies on that committee?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention at the present time of changing the make-up of the committee which has a balance of people who have very expert knowledge in the fields of production, transportation and marketing of oil products. It is a highly expert committee. Other interests will be considered, of course, outside the scope of the advisory committee, but we feel it is very well cut out to do the job required, that of giving expert advice from the private sector to ourselves in the area of possible policy-making.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider appointing additional independents to that committee as quickly as possible?


John James Greene: There are, of course, representatives of the independent oil industry specifically nominated by IP AC on the committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise why six, I believe, of the ten members of that committee are citizens of countries other than Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question as asked is argumentative.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the very serious differences of opinion between the United States and Canada regarding oil pollution by Canadians
January 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry on our side of Lake Erie, would the minister state whether or not he has been in contact with the United States authorities on this question?


John James Greene: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



TAX RELIEF AS INCENTIVE FOR REMEDIAL PROGRAMS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with pollution and in view of the fact that many industries have announced programs involving millions of dollars in the battle against pollution, is the minister giving serious consideration to the granting of tax relief as an incentive for such programs? I ask the question particularly because in Hamilton an announcement has been made by Stelco and Dofasco that they are making commitments in respect of this type of program to the extent of $68 million.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon.
member is asking the minister to make a policy statement which perhaps should be made on motions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I thought I had indicated in my question that I was seeking a statement on motions, I would ask now whether the minister would be prepared to make such a statement on motions?


John James Greene: I think that the policy of the government is very clear within the ambit of the Canada Water Act, that is, that the polluter must pay.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No fines, no standards, no nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister cannot make a statement now.



DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: In the
absence of the Secretary of State perhaps I may be allowed to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Has any decision yet been taken to refer to a standing committee of the House, either the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs or the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the results of the study being carried out by the interdepartmental committee on distinguished service awards? [Mr. Rynard.l


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: May I say, to reply to the question directly, that the answer is no.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that decorations of a given grade will not under any circumstances, solely by reason of being uniquely Canadian, take precedence over Commonwealth awards that have been awarded to Canadians in the past?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, may I say, to the extent that I can speak about the Canadian awards that are now granted, that they do not take precedence, for instance, over the Victoria Cross or the George Cross. I believe it is to be assumed that whenever the new awards are recommended a classification will be made. I am sure that the precedence of the awards now in existence and worn so proudly by veterans and military personnel will not be altered.


John Angus MacLean: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very brief. In other words, the minister is saying that Commonwealth awards will not be categorized as foreign awards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of his exchange of views during the past few days with the British Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister in a position to confirm, deny or comment on reports of theft, looting and rape of Biafrans by Nigerian soldiers?



POLLUTION


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he tell the House what action his department is taking in accordance with the report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and
January 27, 1970	COMMONS
Northern Development which urged immediate investigation and research into the action of hydrocarbon pollutants in the Arctic waters?


John James Greene: The research in
respect of pollution in the north is carried out by my department, by the Department of Transport and by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Fisheries. Certainly the subject matter to which the hon. member refers is very much under our surveillance at the present time.


Paul St. Pierre: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can he advise us what action his department is taking as a result of that committee's recommendations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will recognize that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to the fact that a number of departments are concerned. I do not think it would be in order to direct a separate question to each minister concerned.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the questions that have been put by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin and other hon. members this afternoon to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, would the Government House Leader consider bringing forward government order No. 62 with all due expedition, to wit, this week?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I answered that question last week by indicating that we could undoubtedly deal with this matter more effectively in the form of legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the fact that members of all parties are so anxious for this matter to be brought to a vote, would the President of the Privy Council reconsider his decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have to bear in mind the fact that so many people in this country are anxious for us to get on with our legislative program.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is our legislative program.


Gerald William Baldwin: We dealt with seven bills last Friday.
DEBATES	2865
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There have been a number of supplementary questions on this subject and many members are anxious to ask questions.



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: have a question for the President of the Privy Council which I am sure will not interfere with the legislative program.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: What legislative program?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In light of the fact that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry is holding its organization meeting later this afternoon, would the minister agree to an immediate reference to that committee of the licensing proposals with respect to Pacific coast salmon, to which proposal the Minister of Fisheries indicated his agreement last October 30?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that the first items of business to be dealt with are the three fisheries bills to which second reading was given last week. However, I will take the suggestion of the hon. member under consideration.



REASON FOR LOSS OF ORDER BY DAVIE SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the loss of an order to build some 24 freighters worth $50 million, which involved the employment of 1,000 people by the Davie Shipbuilding Company Limited of Sorel, could the minister explain to the House why the Export Development Corporation could not provide the financing?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this type of information should be given by way of a statement on motions.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I reword my question, Mr. Speaker? Is it a fact that the Davie Shipbuilding Company lost this order for 24 freighters?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to be difficult but certainly the question as asked is still not
January 27. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry in order. However, perhaps the minister might like to give the House the information sought by the hon. member.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is a difficult question to answer because the Export Development Corporation is very much master of its own decisions. In this particular case they have assessed the project and have found it impossible to accept on economic grounds as well as in view of "standards", on "prevailing philosophy" which exist in the world on matter's such as the quantum of financing; the level of interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the minister but the minister's philosophical reply makes it evident that my interpretation of the situation was correct and that the question should have been asked in some other way.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a question for the Minister of Finance but in view of his absence, which I regret very much, I will direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Windsor West. Has he anything to report to the House following the undertaking by the Minister of Finance last week that he would check into the increase in Quebec-Ontario truck rates authorized last week to see whether any representations could be made by the government in light of the government's policy of restraint?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: I will take this question under advisement and attempt to provide an answer for my hon. friend at an early date.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In light of recent reports that in Metropolitan Toronto alone some 15,000 families are on the waiting list for public housing and there are probably as many more in need of housing, is the minister going to announce soon the government's policy in respect of expanding the stock of public housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: In 1969 through our two low-income housing programs we are committed to 27,659 self-contained units, which was twice the figure of any previous year's performance. If I can book time with the House Leader I will be making a statement on the 1970 capital budget of CMHC early next week. I can tell the House in advance that it will show even further emphasis on the provision of low income housing during 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MANPOWER


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it arises from answers he gave earlier when he indicated that the results of the summer employment program for students last summer were being studied. Is the minister in a position to say whether he can make a report on motions on this important matter and, if so, when we may expect to receive such a report?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I promised the House some months ago that I would make such a statement, and I will try to make it as soon as possible.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is he in a position to indicate to us whether gold mining grants will be renewed or increased in an effort to help mining regions attain economic and social stability?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as this matter comes within the purview of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, may I suggest that this question be directed to him.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the minister has understood the question. Is he in a position to indicate to us whether gold mining grants will be renewed or increased in an effort to help mining regions attain economic and social stability?
January 27, 1970


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this
matter is now under consideration by the officials of my department and I have not received a report yet.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Gu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who, according to the roster, was to have been present today; in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. In view of current reports from the United States that the tremendous grain boxcar shortage may result in legislation to rectify the situation, can the minister advise the House what steps, if any, he is taking to make sure that Canadian boxcars now in use in the United States are being returned to Canada within the prescribed time limit?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. The minister, who is presently in Newfoundland on business, will answer the question when he returns to the House, probably on Thursday.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Parliamentary Secretary is advising the minister would he also transmit this question to him? Would the minister consider a materially increased daily rental or demurrage charge on Canadian boxcars being used in the United States in order to ensure the speedy return of our rolling stock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since union correspondence with the government indicates that the purchasing policy of Devco in some cases is creating a safety hazard, if there is a responsible minister will he investigate this matter in view of the Prime Minister's lack of interest in his just society?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Churchill.



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the minister's statements concerning the source of pollution in the Saskatchewan River, in which he attributed the source of the pollution to the Interprovincial Co-operative downstream from Saskatoon, and in view of the statements by a representative of this industry that it is not the source of the pollution-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. We are running short of time.


Robert Simpson: Has the minister anything further to add to the statements which he made?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any statements attributed to company representatives. However, I have seen confirmation of my statements from other sources.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister say if he is ready to report to the House as to the disposition of the Polish sailors who jumped their ship in Halifax before Christmas, seeking political asylum in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have examined these cases and in light of all the circumstances have decided to permit these seamen to remain in Canada under minister's permit.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.


Steve Eugene Paproski: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might wait until tomorrow to put a supplementary question because there are so many members of the House who wish to ask questions now.
January 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to thank the minister.


Mr. Forresiall:: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question may I also thank the minister very warmly for his decision on this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. As the result of a government decision is the Department of National Defence now preparing a potential peacekeeping force for Nigeria from Mobile Command's complement at Camp Petawawa?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Winnipeg North. I apologize to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. I realize he has been trying to ask questions, and on reflection perhaps I should allow him a supplementary.


J. Michael Forrestall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would not have thought ill of you if you had not. May I ask the Minister of National Defence what was the purpose of the immunization process, the needle process, that members of this group were subjected to if it was not for them to go to Biafra-Nigeria?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Defence. It is related to the question of my colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax-East.
I would like to know whether the Canadian government has made or is making representations to the United Nations to have a peace corps formed and sent to Nigeria, more particularly to Biafra. If so, would Canada be a participant?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the matter has been considered and I must say that it does not seem necessary to me. To my mind, the civil war is really over.



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has his department been able to find a method by which Dr. K. J. Koller, who came to Canada at the time of the Hungarian revolution and was a research scientist in his department, can be kept on staff?


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



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It deals with the decision to close full-time offices of the Veterans Land Act administration branch which have been helping veterans in the field outside the big cities. Does closing the full-time VLA office at Drumheller, Alberta, and the drastic reduction of services there represent a decision by the minister to reduce the amount of help that the government is giving veterans generally across the country?


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


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Ten o'clock.



AIRPORTS


Mr. George Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the head of his Montreal regional office has recently been appointed works co-ordinator for the Sainte-Scholastique airport and would he give us a definition of the duties of this person?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question could also be placed on the Order Paper.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would ask
January 27, 1970

you to repeat the reasons why my question was ruled out of order, since I did not hear them.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion I made to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie was that his question should be placed on the Order Paper. If there is some urgency, the hon. member could notify me and the question could be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion, there is some urgency, because construction of the airport in Sainte-Scholastique is about to start, as recently announced by the government, and since it is quite an important item of the estimates, I think that the House is entitled to receive an answer.



REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF QUOTA SYSTEM CHANGES TO COMMITTEE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the minister has established a committee to formulate changes in the quota system for grains marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board, will he refer the proposed changes in the quota system to the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Otto Emil Lang: I will certainly give consideration to that representation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the three fisheries bills which the Government House Leader had slated for consideration either tomorrow or Thursday were disposed of last Friday-parenthetically I might say that this happened when he was away; in fact, we did seven bills on Friday-could the minister tell us what we will be doing tomorrow?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the first question that comes to my mind is how is it possible to do seven bills in one day but only one bill in six days?


Gerald William Baldwin: It depends on the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister was away.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I remind hon. members that I was away on several of the other six days as well, but not-


An hon. Member:: Not enough.


Donald MacInnis: Why are you away so much?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am prepared to undertake to be away from the House if this is the only thing that prevents the opposition from getting down to business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, for tomorrow we will call the second bill dealing with the Company of Young Canadians, and I understand there is a disposition to pass it in one sitting day. Following that I propose that we might call on Thursday-and it is for this reason I sent a note to the hon. member suggesting a House Leaders' meeting later today-government order No. 14, the report stage and third reading of the Railway Act amending bill, to be followed by government order No. 19, the amendment to the Canada Student Loans Act, to be followed in turn by government order No. 12, with respect to the Small Businesses Loans Act, and this to be followed in turn by the amendment to the Quebec Savings Banks Act. The business to follow would be the motor vehicle traffic safety legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Oxford rising on a point of order?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and wish to direct my remarks to the Government House Leader. So that a number of hon. members will not have to spend unnecessary time and labour on reports, can the Government House Leader assure the House that, in view of the fate of the recent report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the forthcoming report of the Standing Committee on
January 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which is studying the proposals of the Minister of Einance, will not suffer the same fate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is a point of order. When replying to a question earlier today about the world food program the Minister of Agriculture, perhaps inadvertently, left the wrong impression with the House, that impression being contrary to what has been stated by the Director General of the World Food Program. I am wondering if the minister would make a statement on motions in order to clear up the situation so that the House may be aware of the actual truth?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Replying to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the question I raised had to do with whether or not Canada had been specifically requested to change the content of its aid. That, of course, refers to commodities. The reason I said there had been an inaccurate interpretation was that there was no specific request to Canada to change the content.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that perhaps we should go on with orders of the -day, but if the hon. member wishes to rise on a point of order I will recognize him.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the very important matter of pollution of the Saskatchewan River.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust that the hon. member will indicate to the Chair the point of order he proposes to raise. Perhaps he ought to refer to the Standing Orders of the House.


Robert Simpson: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is based on the fact that the minister responsible assured the House that in the opinion of his officials the particular plant referred to is the principal, if not the only, source of mercury pollution in the Saskatchewan River. Reports indicate that the plant lias denied-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot, with Tespect and after allowing all charitable con-
siderations, to prevail, allow the hon. member to pursue that matter as a point of order. If every hon. member who disagrees with a reply given to him by a minister raises a point of order we could spend the better part of our time discussing such points of order. To my mind this is a matter for debate and should not be raised as a point of procedure, or if the hon. members wishes to he can raise the matter again at the time of adjournment.


Robert Simpson: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon proposals, made public, or which are from time to time made public by the Government of Canada, on a number of subjects related to the Constitution of Canada during the course of the comprehensive review of the Constitution of Canada, which review was agreed upon at the Constitutional Conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers and Prime Ministers of the Provinces in February, 1968, and alternative proposals on the same subjects;
That twenty members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the House at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this House;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as it may deem advisable or necessary;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers, and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting Their Honours to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems so advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal yesterday evening I tried to make the point that we are having tremendous difficulty in amending our constitution partly because of the fundamentally different approach to the matter adopted by this government under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the provinces, and this remark applies to all provinces
January 27, 1970

regardless of the political party that forms the provincial government. There is an impression abroad that the Prime Minister is interested in changing the constitution only so far as that change will spell out the rights of French speaking people of Canada and give them an equal opportunity to use their language in all parts of Canada. It seems to some that that is the only aspect in which this government is interested. The provinces are tremendously interested in a whole range of priorities and in financing programs for which, under the provisions of the BNA Act, they are responsible.
The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) who spoke last night suggested that in amending the constitution we might consider limiting the taxing powers of the government and the amount of money it can spend. In his introductory remarks yesterday the Prime Minister pointed out that between 1954 and 1964 the expenditures of the federal government had increased only by about 56 per cent, while the expenditures of provincial governments increased by some 204 per cent. The expenditures of my province, Manitoba, between the years 1958 and 1968 rose, under a Conservative government, from about $80 million annually to over $350 million annually, an increase of about 400 per cent. I am not criticizing the former Conservative government headed by former Premier Roblin for being a spending government. The money had to be spent simply because the Conservative government of Manitoba realized that it was necessary to bring Manitoba into the twentieth century in such fields as education, health and welfare, the building of roads and other important fields under provincial jurisdiction.
Not many years ago most young people in this country, and particularly those living in rural areas, did not attend high school. Today, the program under which young people may attend high school extends to almost all parts Of Canada. Indeed, there has been a fantastic increase in the percentage of our young people attending universities. In this field the provinces must play an important role and face tremendous expenditures. I am certain that most provinces would be more than happy if the federal government were prepared to take over either the responsibility of financing university education or make available sources of taxation which the provinces could use to finance education. As yet, however, there is no indication that the federal government is interested in even discussing this matter with the provinces.
Canadian Constitution
We have seen an astronomical increase in provincial expenditures and responsibilities in the fields of health and welfare. Every province of Canada now has a provincial hospitalization program under which hospital expenses are paid by the province and not the individual who must go to hospital. Similarly, in the very near future every province in Canada will be participating in the medicare plan proposed by the federal government and financed jointly by the federal government and the provinces. All this has meant, and will mean, a tremendous increase in provincial spending. The provinces will need more money and they cannot help but be disturbed by the almost casual announcement the Prime Minister made, an announcement that was echoed by some of his ministers, that the federal government is thinking of getting out of programs in which it persuaded provinces to participate. There are similar problems of urban blight, urban renewal and the provision of housing for people in the low income brackets, people on welfare and, indeed people in middle income brackets who are finding that their incomes today are not sufficient to enable them to purchase a house using the normal methods of financing.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
A few moments ago, in answer to a question put by my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing reported that last year the federal government had financed the building of approximately 29,000 public housing units. That, Mr. Speaker, is just over 10 per cent of the total number of houses built last year. Only 10 per cent of the houses built last year were for the people who needed them most. People earning $6,000 or $7,000 a year cannot purchase a house and must rent accommodation. These are the people who require public housing, yet the minister has announced that just over 10 per cent of the houses built last year were of this type.
I suggest the people who are in the income bracket between $12,000 and $20,000, and sometimes in excess of that, can wait for housing. They already have adequate housing. The people to whom I am referring are earning under $6,000 a year and are living in the central cores of the cities in dilapidated housing. These people require more than 10 per cent of the total housing being built in this country. How will this requirement be met when the federal government under the present Prime Minister, believes that the prob-

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
lems of the cities are a provincial responsibility, that the federal government should not take a leading role in such problems as building homes and rapid transit systems so that people can move to the centre of the city where they work. How can we get the federal government to accept this responsibility? Because the provinces do not receive the required leadership from the federal government, they are not too concerned about constitutional conferences to be held in the future. They are not interested because the federal government is not dealing with the problems which are of primary concern to them.
One problem which has come to the fore and is being discussed in the press, on television is pollution. The problem of pollution is one in which the jurisdiction is divided between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. During the question period today, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) about the pollution problem in Manitoba. Fish in Manitoba lakes have been found to contain mercury poisoning. This mercury was dumped into the rivers in Saskatchewan, carried into lakes in Manitoba and is now poisoning the fish in Lake Manitoba. This is an interprovincial problem which requires participation by the federal government. Even though a couple of weeks ago the minister made a very good speech when introducing the bill on water control, there is not much indication that the federal government intends to move into this field.
The provinces are concerned about air pollution which can vary from one province to another. They are also concerned about pollution of our rivers and lakes by the cities which have not provided for the adequate treatment of the water dumped into these rivers and lakes by their sewage disposal systems. I spoke of this problem a few days ago, Mr. Speaker. I again want to put on record that the city of Montreal, with a population of 21 million, dumps 93 per cent of its sewage into the St. Lawrence River in an untreated state. Quebec city, which is represented by one of the leading ministers of this government, dumps 100 per cent of its sewage into the St. Lawrence River in an untreated state. Halifax follows a similar procedure. I am certain the municipal authorities of the cities to which I have referred are just as concerned about polluting the waters surrounding them as the mayors and representatives of other cities in Canada.

These cities are faced with tremendous financial problems. The proper treatment of sewage in the city of Montreal would cost approximately $100 million. We are all aware of the financial crisis being faced by the city of Montreal. This city has tremendously high local taxes and cannot afford to do the job which is required. This government has not shown any signs of introducing a program of grants or low cost loans to the city of Montreal to finance adequate sewage treatment facilities. 1 feel this is an illustration of this government's approach to the problems of the cities. No matter how important their problems are, they must be kept at arm's length from the federal government.
I was amused when I listened to the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) last night. He suggested that representatives of the municipalities should be present at these constitutional conferences. I think this is an excellent idea, but the hon. member should consider how that suggestion fits in with the Prime Minister's view that the cities are solely the creatures of provincial governments and, therefore, they have no right-indeed there is no need-for them to be present at federal-provincial conferences. Of course, they can attend these conferences if the provinces make arrangements for them to be part of their delegation, but the municipalities have no constitutional right as far as the Prime Minister and the federal government are concerned.
The problems which concern the people of Canada are the day to day bread and butter problems of work, housing, environment and a better life, qualitatively and materially. These are the problems which this government has put into the background. Although the legislation that we are being asked to deal with is important, it is not designed to improve the living conditions of the people of Canada. It is for this reason that there has been a lessening of interest in the constitutional problems of this country.
I urge the government to reconsider its position and to come to the constitutional conferences with the provinces with specific proposals. The people of Canada are not concerned whether the problems are solved by the federal, provincial or municipal governments. They are desirous of their problems being solved, their needs being looked after and not being put off to another day or year because one government or the other disclaims responsibility.
January 27, 1970


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) told us yesterday that we have to talk to each other quite frankly. I hope to follow his guidelines and speak as frankly as I can about the constitutional position which he put forward yesterday on behalf of his party and, to use his words, to do so without offence.
I must say that the performance of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was curious and unconvincing. As a statement of his party's policy on the constitution, it was contradictory and self-defeating. Indeed, at times his contradictions verged on the brink of incoherence. He complained that Parliament had not been consulted on the constitutional reforms, the revision of the constitution. Well, Parliament is being consulted now. After he spoke, the nation was no wiser as to where his party stood on the great question of the constitution. It is regrettable from the point of view of reaching a consensus in the House that, having heard the Leader of the Opposition, no one is any wiser as to the stand taken by his party on essential constitutional issues. What has happened to the party of Sir John A. Macdonald, of Borden, Meighen, Diefen-baker, when it is silent in this great debate and has no stand to put before the House?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We thought this debate would afford us an opportunity to hear the views of the opposition. We thought the Leader of the Opposition would grasp the occasion to outline the position of his party. The fact is, we now know less than we did before. We thought we knew where he stood before he spoke, but after he spoke we were no longer certain. At one point he stated he was "not as confused as all that". His followers seemed to be grateful for this assurance, because that remark brought the first burst of applause from the opposition benches.


Robert Muir: don't hear the Prime Minister applauding you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In spite of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition or, indeed, because of it, I am convinced the government has followed the right course, first, in opening up the subject for debate at the urging of the provinces and, second, in seeking a national consensus, as well as in its assessment of the results achieved to date.
Canadian Constitution
The debate has been going on for two years. It has been made a public debate because of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) insistence that the people be made aware of what is going on. The Leader of the Opposition shouts: "Bring in the people." Well, the people have been in on this debate from the very beginning through the medium of television. For some reason, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be unaware, not only of the significance of the constitutional process, but also of the fact that the debate itself has been an open and continuing one. Now, he is showing a curious reluctance to grasp the fundamental issue before the House.
Parliament is being asked, or it will be later in the committee, to pronounce its views on vital issues concerned with constitutional reform and affecting Canadians from coast to coast. This is an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition and his party to put on record their stand on these great issues.
All we heard from the Leader of the Opposition was a lugubrious lamentation. No doubt, this statement of his will be known as the "our days are numbered" speech. Matters of language rights, social rights, the distribution of powers, relations between senior levels of government, shared-cost programs, powers for dealing with regional disparity-these, together with a multitude of other considerations, have been brought out during the debate in a search for a national consensus. Surely, the process of bringing these issues before Canadians on the part of the Prime Minister should not, in the name of constructive criticism, be arbitrarily described, as it was by the Leader of the Opposition, as a total failure. The hon. gentleman stated that the federal-provincial meetings had demonstrated practically no progress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition made an important statement yesterday. He said important things-important and wrong things. Anyone who has attempted to follow the progress of the constitutional discussion is bound to reach the conclusion that progress has, indeed, been made.


Gerald William Baldwin: Backwards.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to place on record for the benefit of members of the House and, I hope, of the public a list of what I believe to be important areas of progress since this process began.

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
1.	There has been agreement between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments to enter upon a complete review of the constitution. At the first conference, in 1968, there was agreement to examine highly important questions including the official languages, fundamental rights, the distribution of powers, regional disparity, amending procedures, the mechanism of federal-provincial relations, and so on. Later, at the second conference, it was agreed to undertake a comprehensive review of the constitution of Canada, including the possibility of adopting an entirely new constitution.
2.	A second step, and one which I believe to be of great importance, was the establishment of the machinery necessary to undertake this review. It was brought about by setting up a continuing conference composed of the Prime Minister and the premiers, together with a continuing committee, or secretariat, of officials to assist them.
3.	The third item I would place before the House is the adoption of a firm position on language rights. Hon. members will recall the atmosphere in which the conference of February, 1968 was held, and I was relieved, as, indeed, many people were, including the participants, when the conference agreed to recognize, as proposed by the Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism and as a matter of equity, that French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec should have the same rights as English-speaking Canadians in Quebec. The late Daniel Johnson attended that conference and I remember his comments following the adoption of that principle by the conference.
4.	There has been agreement that reduction of regional disparities is an objective of confederation. There was agreement that the federal government should have the power to alleviate regional disparities as they affected the income of individuals, the quality of economic development and the standards of public services. Undoubtedly this agreement for the inclusion of the objectives of the elimination of regional disparities should be made part of the preamble to the constitution. There was an agreement further, as I read the proceedings, that if the difficulty of effecting the supremacy of Parliament and judicial review could be overcome, there would be an obligation imposed to achieve the goal of the elimination of regional disparity.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Remember, too, what the premier of Nova Scotia said of the conference when he dis-

cussed this issue. I looked it up last night. He was debating, at the conference, the inclusion of this objective in a new constitution. He said as follows:
I believe the Inclusion of a type of statement in the preamble we have been talking about, (namely the eradication of regional disparity) as an objective of confederation is a great step forward, accompanied by providing powers which would enable that objective to be followed and pursued. We have certainly got something in the constitution we have never had before or will have when we have that new constitution.
That is the view of the premier of Nova Scotia and his colleagues from the Atlantic provinces as well as elsewhere in Canada who felt that the inclusion of this goal in the constitution was an objective of paramount importance. When it was achieved, the premier of Nova Scotia said it was a great step forward. I wonder how he feels now that his one-time colleague from Nova Scotia describes his efforts as practically no progress at all. That is number four.
5.	Number five was an agreement at the constitutional conference that the national capital should reflect the two cultural groups of Canada. That is rather important to many people, including members of this House of Commons. It was agreed in February 1969 that steps must be taken to ensure that the two official languages and the cultural values common to all Canadians were recognized in the capital region, so that all Canadians may have a feeling of pride, participation in and attachment to their capital. This was a step forward.
6.	Number six was agreement in principle on powers of taxation. This has been totally ignored in the debate so far, but the working session of the constitutional conference in June 1969 generally agreed on the principle of access by both federal and provincial governments instead of the principle of allocation. There was general agreement on powers of taxation reached at this conference.
7.	Number seven was agreement in principle on the spending powers of Parliament. It is surprising that the Leader of the Opposition did not speak of the very definite movement toward reconciliation on this important issue of the use of the federal spending power in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
I read the proceedings again. There was a definite movement towards a consensus and it was agreed, even by Quebec, that Parliament should have the power to make conditional grants to provinces, subject to a formula to determine a consensus and for compensation to non-participating provinces.
January 27, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Even a glacier has movement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, that is a very important movement. No wonder the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is so sensitive because he, too, joined last night in the unfounded allegations of his leader that no progress had been made. Even that progress would justify these conferences because it does provide a developing consensus on one of the issues that has bedevilled, at least in the minds of many, the whole field of federal-provincial relations.
The federal government, through its spending power has moved into fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction with shared cost programs. Here is a method proposed by which a consensus could be reached before that power would be used. That is number seven.
8.	Number eight was at the last conference, an initiation of consideration of income security and social services. That began with the third conference in December 1969 and will continue. I want to come back to the question of social services and income security. It is surprising that the members of the NDP would suggest that there has been no attention to social needs when the first document in the field of the distribution of powers was directed to the whole question of how the power in the field of income security and social services should be exercised between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces.
The NDP accuses us of not dealing with social needs at the constitutional conference. The Leader of the Opposition asked, "why have you chosen welfare?" We have chosen it, however, and I want to say something more about it.
9.	The ninth achievement that I would lay down is that, as in all processes involving bargaining, there have been a lot of issues clarified and a lot of positions placed on the table. Positions have been taken by the provinces and by the federal government. The federal government insofar as issues already dealt with, had made its position fully known, the Quebec government has made its position known totally, and many of the provinces are laying their positions on the table as well.
To suggest, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Peace River, that no progress has been made in this effort is to fly in the face of the facts and to take a position that can only be based on total misinformation or blind partisanship.
Canadian Constitution
No one else has done that. Certainly no premier. Most certainly, the premier of Nova Scotia, would not line up behind the opposition and say there has been no progress at all.
The Leader of the Opposition came close to, suggesting that the federal-provincial conference, as an instrument of constitutional revision, should be junked altogether, that the provinces should be left out. This seemed to-be what he suggested in one or two places in his speech. It may be, he said, that the committee will decide that the method chosen by the Prime Minister and the government is not working and that another method of approach, perhaps one quite substantially different, might well produce results. It is evident to all of us, he said, that the method of federal-provincial conferences is not working,, and he invited the committee to junk it and find something else. I read the speech not once, but twice, and it left an area of doubt as to whether the Leader of the Opposition really believed that the provinces should be included at all in this whole process of constitutional reform.
I conclude this part of my speech by asking the Leader of the Opposition if he believes that the nine areas I have discussed are meaningless, useless and trivial, and that no progress at all has been made?
The Leader of the Opposition moved on to ask why we selected welfare rather than pollution, for example, for discussion at the constitutional conference. I am sure that if we had selected pollution as the first item in the field of distribution of powers, he would have asked why we had not chosen the important field of social welfare.
I want to move into the subject a little bit by asking the Leader of the Opposition whether he is an adherent of the school of the instant constitution, and that someday there will arrive on his desk by some miracle a full blown constitution with all subject matters delineated perfectly for him. Does he believe that the re-writing of the Canadian constitution involves a consideration of each subject matter, a discussion of each power and a decision on each power as to whether it ought to be exercised exclusively by the federal or provincial governments, or concurrently, or in some other manner? If that is the answer, as I think it is, then one must start somewhere and choose among the many important and complex areas such as income, security and social services, economic growth, pollution, housing, urban transportation, the credit system, the financial markets, education,

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
resources management, labour relations and manpower, culture and communication, to mention some of the issues that have to be resolved in this process.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister but I am afraid his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to continue?


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, let me say on a point of order, as one who has become involved with the number of speakers for today, that we are going to run into extreme difficulty. We have a long list of important speakers. May I suggest that each speaker be allowed to take one or two minutes to complete his remarks or finish a sentence or two, but no more. I appreciate that this courtesy was granted yesterday, but I feel we will be in trouble if we allow more than an extra minute or two.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All I can do at this point is ask whether there is agreement to allow the hon. minister to continue. The minister might bear in mind the recommendations of the hon. member.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is a time limitation. I thank hon. members for their courtesy in granting a minute or two, but I believe I should rest my case at this stage and let other hon. members, possibly some of the leaders in the opposition, indicate what their position is on some of these points.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, when one enters the debate at this stage one finds himself in the rather unenviable position of having to discuss matters which have already been very thoroughly discussed by the speakers who have preceded him, all of whom are very knowledgeable on the subject matter of the resolution. I am not quite sure at this point whether I should include the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) in that category. I must say I was very disappointed because I thought, as a minister of the crown, he would make some valuable contribution to the subject matter of this resolution rather than devote all of his time to a criticism of the points put forward yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
I listened yesterday with a great deal of interest to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As he led off this debate, I was

forced to come to the conclusion that this resolution is on the order paper today and is being debated in this house now, not because the Prime Minister of Canada has any burning desire to present a revised constitution to the people of Canada, but rather and perhaps only because oppoisition parties in this House and many of the premiers in Canada have been pressuring him now for many years to do this very thing. It is only now, at this late date, that he has got around to doing it. Let me quote in support of that proposition from his speech of yesterday. We find at page 2811 of Hansard that he is recorded as having said:
Indeed, parties of the opposition have pressed the government for many months, and even over a period of two sessions, to set up this committee. I believe that this reflects on the part of hon. members a very great desire of participating in the constitutional debate taking place in this country.
He does not point out that he has any great desire to press this matter or to take part in this debate.
Again, at page 2812 of Hansard, in speaking of the conference called by Premier Robarts, the Prime Minister is recorded as stating:
Not only did we not participate in the 1967 conference, but in the years prior to that we had taken the very clear position that the constitution was not the most urgent thing to be dealt with, that there were many problems facing Canadians which could be dealt with under the British North America Act. Although we were not prepared to discuss the subject, we urged the provinces and the public at large to regard these exercises with a certain amount of deliberation.
To me, that is a very clear indication that had it not been for pressure put on the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada by opposition parties in this House, and had it not been for the pressure put on him by the premiers of Canada, this resolution would never perhaps have appeared on the Order Paper, or at least not for a long time. I suggest that the Prime Minister of Canada need not be afraid of constitutional amendment as such, and he particularly need not believe that by introducing amendments to the constitution he is breaking new ground.
History tells us, if we examine it, that during the years from 1774 to 1867, during the period that Canada was under British rule, the British Parliament saw fit to adopt four different constitutions. From 1774 to 1791, we had the Quebec Act. From 1791 to 1840 we had the constitutional Act. From 1840 to 1867 we were governed by the Act of Union, and from 1867 to the present time we have been governed by the British North America Act. Let me point out to the Prime
January 27, 1970

Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that since the British North America Act was enacted in 1867 we have had at least 30 constitutional amendments.
The constitution is not an eternal document and it was never intended as such. It is indeed an important document, and certainly one which we must adhere to and respect while it is in effect. But there is nothing so sacrosanct about it that it cannot, and indeed should not, be changed when it ceases to fit in with the needs of the times, or when it ceases to do the job it was originally intended to do. Things have changed since 1867. For example, the relationships between the federal and provincial governments have changed, and at least certain elements of the constitution by reason of these changes are now in need of review.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that a great deal of preparatory work must go into this matter of constitutional change and amendment. I agree with that statement. This is certainly not a job which can be undertaken lightly. All aspects of constitutional change must be looked at and looked at very carefully, but they need not all necessarily be looked at at once. 1 suggest that priorities should be set up.
I agree that the British North America Act is a rather closely knit document and that one section of it is more or less interrelated with the other, but that does not necessarily rule out the advisability of first considering those parts of the document-and there are some- which already have been the source of discontent between the provinces and the federal government. One of those sources of discontent, and perhaps one of the more prominent ones, is the spending power of the federal government-the power of the federal government to make grants of any kind in areas considered exclusively provincial jurisdiction.
For example, I have in mind health and welfare, education, roads and things like these which are ordinarily considered to be matters exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. There is an element of uncertainty as to whether or not the federal government has the power to grant money to the provinces for these particular things. This uncertainty must be clarified as quickly as possible in respect of any constitution which may be drawn up. I suggest that the spending powers of the federal government must be clearly and unequivocally set out so that there can be 21611-43
Canadian Constitution
no question but that the government of Canada constitutionally is free to help the poor provinces financially.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said this is now mentioned in the preamble. He made a great to-do about how much had been accomplished so far. I would point out to the minister that these matters have been pressed on the federal government by the premiers of the provinces of Canada now for some three or four years, and up until now no concrete action has been taken by the government of the country to bring these matters before the House of Commons. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration even bragged about how much this government has done in the line of constitutional amendments. It must be very definitely set out that this Parliament will have the power constitutionally to make grants to the poorer provinces of Canada even in those areas which are now considered to be areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Sections 91, 92 and 93 of the British North America Act enumerate the respective exclusive powers of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures. Sections 92 and 93 specify and detail the matters upon which this Parliament may not legislate. Section 91 sets out those matters upon which the provincial legislatures may not legislate. Section 91, for example, reserves to the Parliament of Canada-and this is specifically written into the section-such matters as post offices, defence, fisheries, banking, the criminal law and so on. As a matter of fact, there are some 28 items enumerated in that section as being the exclusive right of the Parliament of Canada. Sections 92 and 93, on the other hand, reserve some 20 or more items to the provincial legislatures only. Right now the battle between the provinces and the federal government-and there is a battle-is over the distribution of federal subsidies to the provinces. I suggest, in the interest of the provinces, especially the poorer provinces, this is a matter which must first be clarified; that is, whether or not the government of Canada has the right to divert money to the provinces in respect of matters which under the British North America Act are now matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Section 91 1A reserves to the Parliament of Canada the right to make laws respecting public debts and property. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as giving to Parliament the power to grant

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
sums of money to the provinces. That decision was appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council cast some very serious doubt as to whether, under our present constitution, the Parliament of Canada may divert money for these purposes. I should like to read very briefly from the judgment delivered by the Privy Council. It is found in 1937 Appeal Cases at page 366. This is what the Privy Council said:
But assuming that the Dominion has collected by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows-
Listen to this:
-that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within Dominion competence. It may still be legislation affecting the classes of subjects enumerated in Sec. 92 and, if so, would be ultra vires. In other words, Dominion legislation, even though it deals with Dominion property, may yet be so framed as to invade civil rights within the Province or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved to provincial competence.
Interpreted strictly, this decision means that Parliament absolutely cannot legally make grants of any kind in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This is what the Supreme Court decision says.


Mr. Lewis:: Surely not; that is not what it says.


Melvin James McQuaid: That is what it says. It says, for example, this would mean, if we go by the provisions of the British North America Act and the decision of the Privy Council, that strictly speaking federal funds cannot be diverted, for example, to education, welfare, highways and civil rights. I agreed that this is being done, and certainly the provinces are not taking any exception to it. I am afraid, however, that if this is not clarified immediately in our constitution, some day some government-I am not suggesting this government-may say, "We do not need to give you any money because the constitution says that, strictly speaking, we should not give it to you". This would be very much to the disadvantage of the poorer provinces of Canada.
Let us not forget that today we live in a federal state. All of us, no matter in what province we may happen to live, are Canadians. Each of us is entitled to enjoy the same essential public services that are being enjoyed by other citizens of Canada in the richer provinces. Unfortunately, however, the tax raising potential of our provinces differs greatly and this difference arises out of the marked difference in the level of income across this country.

I should like, if I may, to cite one or two
examples to show that this is actually the case. Listen to this. The average weekly wage in Canada is $114. In the Atlantic area it is $91.37. I wonder how many members know what it is in Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island, it is $75.97, which is $38.06 below the Canadian average. This compares to the Canadian average of $114. Every winter in my province between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of the people are unemployed. These figures are from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Half the farmers of Prince Edward Island have a gross income- not net-of $2,500 a year. As an indication of how heavily dependent we are on Ottawa I wish to point out that right now 62 per cent of our gross provincial revenue comes from the government of Canada.
Certainly, as one of the poorer provinces of Canada we cannot take any chance in respect of whether or not the Government of Canada has the constitutional right to transfer funds to the extent of 62 per cent of our revenue in order to help us. We have a total direct and guaranteed debt in Prince Edward Island of $107,635 thousand. That is a per capita debt of $970. This is one of the highest per capita debts in Canada. I suggest, in considering amendments to the constitution, the preservation of linguistic rights, revisions of the Senate and Supreme Court, the incorporation into the constitution of a bill of human rights and all such things are tremendously important, but there is nothing more important to the constitution than a guarantee that all the people of Canada will be able to enjoy the same essential public services irrespective of the provinces in which they happen to live. Canadian society must have no second class citizens. We cannot afford to have second class citizens in this country.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In the examples I cited I set out very clearly I think that we in the Atlantic area, by reason of the fact that we do not have the same means of earning income as people in other parts of Canada,-not that we do not want to or are not anxious to work-cannot contribute to our provincial treasuries to enable them in turn to provide us with all our essential public services. We must have financial help from Ottawa, and I say that this help must be guaranteed in our constitution. Let us leave no doubt about it. I would suggest also that in considering amendments to the constitution we must give high priority to ensuring that there is absolutely no doubt
January 27, 1970

Canadian Constitution
that the Parliament of Canada has the right to transfer to the provincial governments money that can be used for things which are ordinarily matters under provincial jurisdiction. This is part of regional development.
We hear the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) making a big to-do about all that this government will do on behalf of regional development, but nothing has been done yet. Action must be taken immediately by his department or by some department of the federal government to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor provinces of Canada. This is a national problem and there is need for a national program to correct it. This is the reason I say that one of the highest priorities must be given to amending the constitution in such a way as to allow the federal government unequivocally, and without any doubt, to transfer moneys to the provinces. Therefore, I say that in any new constitution the spending power of the government of Canada must be clarified to provide, without any shadow of doubt, the federal government with the right to help the poor provinces. The federal government must retain that power to help the poor provinces.
As I said before, there must be an equalization of opportunity for all Canadians, irrespective of the province in which they live. There is no room in our Canadian society for great disparities between the opportunities available to individual Canadians no matter where they live. Reasonable standards of living for all Canadians must be maintained, and in amending our constitution we must make sure of this.
This principle was recognized by our former prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson when in 1968 he addressed the federal-provincial conference. This is what he said:
We believe that the government of Canada must have the power to redistribute income, between persons and between provinces, if it is to equalize opportunity across the country. This would involve, as it does now, the right to make payments to individuals, for the purpose of supporting their income levels-old age security pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowances-
There is no question about that because they have been provided by the constitution. He went on to say:
*-and the right to make payments to provinces, for the purpose of equalizing the level of provincial government services. It must involve, too, the powers of taxation which would enable the federal government to tax those best able to contribute to these equalization measures. Only in this way can the national government contribute to the equalization of opportunity in Canada, and thus supplement and support provincial measures to this end.
21611-43i
The whole point I am attempting to make is that our constitution must guarantee to the federal government the right to do these very things which the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson outlined to the conference in 1968. This is a matter of immediate urgency, one that must be attended to at once. I, therefore say, despite what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said a few minutes ago about all the preambles in the constitution and about how much debate there has been on this matter, let us get on with the job immediately. Let us draft a constitution which will ensure both a strong federal government and also strong provincial governments, each with access to sufficient fiscal resources-and this is important-to meet their proper responsibilities, and each operating in a fashion that does not impair the freedom of the others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, among the tasks we have to perform and the challenges we shall have to meet in the years to come, finding solutions to constitutional problems is of paramount importance. I have deemed it to be normal, and indeed my duty as a French-speaking Canadian, to participate in this debate, without claiming to bring final solutions, but solely with a view to offering my services.
As a federal member from a Quebec riding, I have long been interested in constitutional matters, and although I have had the honour of sitting in the nation's Parliament for less than two years so far, I believe it is possible for us to sit at the same table and, notwithstanding our political affiliations, to find a harmonious and effective solution agreeable to all Canadians.
Institutions are, in a sense, the mirror of the times when they are born and brought into operation. They reflect the various forms that man gives to society, according to his concept of organized life and of the objectives which should be aimed at. Because institutions reflect ideas and needs more or less linked with certain periods in history, they are constantly exposed to changes, as are the realities which inspired their creation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Federalism does not escape that law of evolution. One can even assert that owing to the greater participation of citizens in public

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
affairs, which is demanded by the complexity of its structures, the federal system is, more than any other type of political society, aware of the economic and social evolution, and it is also more apt to find the necessary solutions.
Federalism varies with times and countries, offering a wide variety of solutions consistent with its basic needs. The 19th century, which saw the rise and strengthening of the first modern federal systems, offers more than one form of federalism.
At the present time, a score of states, among which seven of the eight largest countries of the world are to be found, live under a federal system. There are only two with an identical constitution. However, it is a fact acknowledged by all: namely that Germany and the United States, which at present have a federal system, enjoy the world's highest standard of living. It is therefore easy to conclude that, by itself, federalism can be a source of wealth or poverty according to whether people accept or refuse to apply it as it should be applied.
Federalism is certainly not beyond the reach of violent crises because some federations have broken up during the last decade. However, thanks to the close relationships which the parties to a federative state normally maintain between themselves, they can generally find before it is too late the solutions likely to prevent the downfall of their association. As long as an institution is successful in adapting to new realities and operating efficiently, without going against its character, it has every chance of overcoming internal conflicts and surviving changes imposed by circumstances.
I believe the time has come for us to stop throwing words around and to take concrete action. As Canadians of various ethnic origins, are we willing to co-operate and to accept each other as equal partners? It is not incumbent only on me or on my colleagues to answer, but on the whole population.
For some time, I have been hearing from some opposition members innuendoes which would indicate that they do not look favourably upon French-speaking Canadians actually assuming their part in Parliament. I would like to know what they think exactly. I wish they would stop talking about Quebec and French-speaking Canadians. What I am interested in is what they think and what means they are ready to take to save national unity.
We French-speaking Canadians have given clear proof of our willingness to work to the limit of our strength to preserve this country,
[Mr. Marceau.l
but we are not ready to go on unless we are regarded as first class citizens. I feel that most hon. members, on the government side or in the opposition, would like such effort to be made by all equally, but I do not appreciate the innuendoes of some of my colleagues in the opposition, who should speak their minds. If they are not satisfied with this government, if they take offence because French Canadians are playing a leading part and if they do not trust them, they should say so. But if, on the other hand, they are really willing to work, they should give us some proof to that effect.
Yesterday, my hon. friend the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) mentioned, as an example, an incident which occurred in Quebec and from which certain people might draw erroneous conclusions. He said that the Quebec government had refused Englishspeaking Canadians another English school. I wish to say to my hon. friend that if, following his example, I tried to find out how the minorities of other provinces have been treated, I would have a lot to say. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend, for whom I have great respect, is intelligent enough to recognize that, in Quebec, the minorities are better treated than anywhere else, and that, if all minorities in Canada were treated like the ones in Quebec, the problems facing us today would not exist.
It may not be wise to be forever looking back to the past instead of looking forward to the future, but one must remember that confederation, as history teaches us, has not been, like the Proclamation of Independence of the United States, the dramatic result of a fight for liberation, but rather the outcome of hard discussions carried out during more than three years by parliamentarians who were not threatened by any war, either at home or abroad.
In Upper Canada, which was the inspiring centre of the system inaugurated in 1967, people had been complaining for a long time about the powerlessness of the two majorities system created by the Act of 1840. They were complaining all the more bitterly since the population of Upper Canada, indifferent to the rights of the majority as long as its population was lower than that of Lower Canada, suddenly awakened, as soon as it had the majority, to the democratic seductions, that of the greatest number. The political leaders of Upper Canada were also concerned about the rise of the American power. They could not think of any other way to face this peril
January 27, 1970

except by uniting in a single Dominion all the British colonies scattered in North America.
As a matter of fact, what presided over the drafting and the signature of the confedera-tive pact? On this point, history does not say much, but I think that I am expressing the truth in saying that English-speaking Canadians felt that on the main points they had kept what was essential to them, especially the guarantee of a strong central government. French-speaking Canadians on the other hand were convinced that they had preserved for the future what in their view could not be left to the care of a central government.
To both sides history has brought many disappointments. Those who had dreamed of an all powerful central government were to be deceived for instance by some decisions of the Privy Council which tended to confirm and to extend the sovereignty of the provincial governments and by the everlasting vitality of a strong autonomist movement in Quebec.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Those who had dreamed of a central government respectful of the authority of the provinces and of the rights of minorities often had to face one which dared not fulfil its constitutional duties towards minorities and which much too often was unscrupulous regarding the sovereignty of the provinces.
The present government is the first one, it seems to me, that really concerns itself about the protection of the rights of minorities, the recognition of biculturalism and bilingualism and the defence of provincial rights. If the present government seeks to protect those fundamental rights, we must not be satisfied with temporary conditions.
We want-and I think that I am thus expressing the views of the majority of Frenchspeaking Canadians-those conditions to become permanent, we want them to be written down, in order to prevent the recurrence of past events.
It was the wish in 1867 to merge two separate wills in a new one. Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier had spoken in this connection of a new political nationhood. The strongest community invited to unite its political destiny did it unreservedly. The weakest community, however, did not adhere to the new plan without some reserves, being almost equally divided between two currents of thought. The tendency in favour of a full commitment in the federal experience has generally won during the past century the support of French Canadians at federal elections.
Canadian Constitution
The other tendency, with various degrees of intensity, has found its main center of action in Quebec. This ambivalence has certainly been detrimental to Quebec and often delayed progress in Canada.
I am the first one to recognize that Quebec has failed to appreciate federalism. Hon. members from Quebec have the responsibility to show federalism under its true light and to make French-speaking Canadians understand that this system is in a position to help them provided they accept it fully and not half-heartedly.
It is well to blame those who do not try to make federalism better known but I think that it is up to us as members of political parties and members of the House, whatever our political affiliations, to make real federalism known.
That is what we are doing now in the province of Quebec. Hon. members from Quebec are touring the province to explain, to the young in particular, the advantages federalism is likely to bring them.
We agree that federalism is not perfect. I was listening recently to a member from the Ralliement creditiste talking about the Liberal party. I wish to point out to him that this idea has not been authored by the Liberal party and that if he wants to join us, he would be welcomed, but on one condition-if he is able to accept it-that he will not turn the future of the country into a political issue and that he will truly deal with the things that unite us instead of the ones that divide us.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Lapointe allow me to ask him a question?


Gilles Marceau: Gladly, Mr. Speaker, provided it is not too long.


Bernard Dumont: Would the hon. member give the names of those who travel throughout Quebec and Canada explaining the nature of the constitution?


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, whom I hold in high esteem, does not read the papers, although I see one before him just now. If he looked for information, he could easily find out that there is nothing secret about what we are doing. Good Liberals travel throughout the province in order to inform people and if he wants to find out their names, he can easily do so.


Bernard Dumont: How many of these people are there? What are their names?

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it would not be appropriate to mention the names right now but after my speech, if the hon. member wants to come to me I shall be pleased to give him the names of those involved in this work.


Bernard Dumont: They are all Liberals.


Gilles Marceau: Naturally.


Bernard Dumont: Naturally.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, we are in power and naturally, we are supposed as a responsible government to come to the aid of the population, and that is what we are doing. My hon. friend cannot blame us for that situation, and hon. members of the opposition cannot rail against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) because he has personal views on the constitution. Were the members of the opposition to have views as original and as constructive as the Prime Minister's, the problem would perhaps be settled more easily. I find it somewhat odd to see people blame a man for showing leadership, expressing views, and building something, by saying precisely that he has no inventive ideas.
Of course, when one has no original ideas to offer, one can merely criticize those who have.
In the few minutes at my disposal, I would like to outline what our constitution should hold and express briefly a few basic ideas.
To my mind, the preamble to the Canadian constitution should outline a certain number of principles typical of its spirit and define its nature and aims so as to facilitate its interpretation. The main purpose of the constitution of a country is not merely to establish political structures and a form of government. It should also have an educational value. It must instil in the whole population feelings of pride and loyalty, be conducive to understanding and friendship, and favour full cooperation in the pursuit of a common ideal. It should be founded on certain essential premises-


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


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I regret, of course-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member cannot continue his remarks, unless he gets unanimous consent of the House.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House that the hon. member be granted leave to continue his remarks?


An hon. Member:: For two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Marceau: I thank my hon. colleagues. I wish I could discuss this subject at length. I hope I shall have the opportunity to do so in the proposed committee I would like to see established.
Before concluding I should like to say that I have faith in the new committee, that will be set up to offer my full co-operation and, above all, to ask my English-speaking colleagues, whom I trust entirely, to have talks with us and to work for the unity of this country of which we are proud and which, we must recognize it, is envied by many others.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, in early fall when the session began I had the opportunity of asking that a debate be held on the constitution during this session. Today I am very glad to take part in this debate.
I have no hesitation at all in telling the House that I am in favour of a constitutional review. This is also an excellent opportunity for any member to voice his opinion, make suggestions and shed light on the problems and the difficulties confronting us. Having a better knowledge of these problems, I think we shall be more likely to solve them.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
First of all, I should like to mention that the constitution of 1867 is at times not satisfactory. It therefore has too often been a source of misunderstanding and conflict rather than an instrument of cohesion and harmony. It seems to us that respect for the fundamental law of the country is one of the first requirements of Canadian life. But the constitution must be such as to command this respect, as well through its nobility of thought as its clarity.
For the first time in their history, Canadians are undertaking to give themselves a wholly Canadian constitution, made in Canada, for Canadians. From this great undertaking must result, not only government institutions and regulations that are perfectly adapted to the present needs of our country, but also a new spirit and new habits of cooperation and solidarity.
As a member from Quebec, I might be inclined to speak more particularly of the Quebec responsibilities or difficulties within
January 27, 1970

that federal system. I hope the other members do the same for, to my mind, it is their duty to do so.
Quebec, which in our vast country is considered by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission as the home of the French Canadian nation, has not only the right but the duty to find means of emancipation. Just as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) did so brilliantly a moment ago, I invite all the members from Quebec to express their views that there might be a better understanding of the wishes and aspirations of Quebec as well as the means to which Quebecers can resort to feel secure in this large country and confident they are first-class citizens.
There have also been some things said about federal-provincial conferences. I believe such conferences are necessary even if they have not given so far the anticipated results. I hope their number will increase as they give the provincial premiers an opportunity to meet one another, to know and understand each other better and to accept more willingly the disparities that exist between the various provinces and regions.
Our position in the province of Quebec shows easily enough the special situation of French culture in Canada and in North America. If the French Canadians were a minority everywhere in Canada, including Quebec, cultural equality would be difficult to reach and the present concept of French Canada would be much different from what it is now.
The fact that 83 per cent of French-speaking Canadians are living in Quebec, where they represent 81 per cent of the population, allows them to develop their own institutions as well as an environment that suits their particular culture. That is where the chances for achieving cultural equality spring from, as indicated in the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, namely in subsections 83, 89 and 90.
Such equality is possible since a French Canadian society managed to be born, to thrive and to develop and also to acquire the distinct traits and institutions which contrive to make a true people-which cannot be said of any other ethnic minority in Canada.
While all governments should, to various degrees, do their best to bring about such equality, the demographic reality and the political and historical development of Canada will still invest the government of Quebec with special responsibilities in this respect, whether we like it or not.
Canadian Constitution
Obviously, the fact involves, for the future, recognition of a special status for the province of Quebec. However, Quebec should have all the necessary powers and means of action to go on assuming its responsibilities towards the French Canadian nation.
Nonetheless, Quebec does not object to the other provinces enjoying the same powers and means of action if they wish. The notion of a special status will appear only if the other provinces or some of them prefer to entrust the central government with or to discharge jointly with it the tasks that the province of Quebec must take upon itself by reason of its particular situation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said yesterday that courage, patience and dedication will have to be exercised. I think that all hon. members are courageous. Patience, in the case of some of them, has limits. Dedication is called for, I think, when such a question is under discussion.
I have nevertheless the courage to talk about a certain political climate and to deal with the dissatisfaction of the people in my province. Dissatisfaction could also exist elsewhere.
On account of the economic conditions which are sometimes unfavorable, unemployment in Quebec has done great harm and is the cause of some discontent. It must be frankly said that such discontent is perhaps due to the reluctance of the Canadian Parliament to bring in certain amendments to the constitution.
This wavering on the part of Parliament has, in the last several years, prompted a number of Quebecers to believe that the separation of Quebec from the rest of the country would be advantageous for their province. I am not convinced of that, but I think it is necessary to tell things as they are, and we are already assured, on account of the dissatisfaction that prevails in Quebec, that when the next provincial election comes around, 10 per cent of the people will vote in favour of separation. This position reveals the extent of the need to review the constitution in order to enable the people of Quebec to believe in a better future and opportunities for emancipation, for the French Canadian nation and for all other Canadians, because such a future can be found in confederation.
The committee will certainly have to assume responsibility for making this Parliament aware that special arrangements will be necessary for Quebec, and for other regions as well. I feel sure that the committee, after

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
consulting with representatives of all the provinces and with people who carry heavy responsibilities within certain municipalities, will recognize how important it is to obtain the participation of the people of Canada in order to determine the kind of constitution best suited to meet the requirements of all Canadians.
Hon. members should be asked not to be shocked when they hear from time to time that the province of Quebec intends to retain its French character.
Actually, they should stop being concerned when they hear that Quebec wants to establish French as its working language.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I readily recognize, as do all other Quebecers, that in Ontario English is the first language because the situation in that province demands it. French is being recognized as a second language.
The same situation prevails in Quebec where we want to keep our French language and increasingly to improve it. We are also prepared-as many Quebecers have proved it-to accept English as a second language.
These things must be said in the House, and I think that with a great deal of sincerity, we will finally convince not only most Canadians but all of them to accept the fact that the province of Quebec represents the French element in our bicultural country and that the other nine provinces will always keep English as their first language but will accept French as a second language, which makes me very happy.
The hon. member for Lapointe mentioned earlier that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) had made about us what I would call an unpleasant reference. Having taken note of it I realized that I had not been the only one to notice it. Yesterday, the hon. member for York South said that in the province of Quebec, some people were concerned about the fact that, next year, 3,000 Englishspeaking students will be unable to be admitted to CEGEPs. I object to that statement and I cannot help but state my views in that respect.
The hon. member for York South stated, and I quote:
I deliberately cited this example of retrograde behaviour on the part of the government of Quebec to underline the difficulties which are now being created-
Certainly there are difficulties in the province of Quebec but they are surely not due to any ill-will on the part of the government.

I know the present premier of Quebec too well to say that he can be charged with preventing, through ill-will, the English-speaking students of Quebec from being admitted to CEGEPs.
Of course, since 1960, there has been in Quebec, in the field of education, such a rapid expansion that the government has been unable to build enough schools. But, in my opinion, if some English-speaking students of Quebec find it difficult to be admitted in the schools, the French-speaking students have as many difficulties when they want to register at the universities.
I have to make these remarks about the speech of the member for York South because I am convinced that the province of Quebec does not intend to do any harm whatsoever to the minorities. Far from it. Indeed, the past shows that Quebec always had much respect for its minorities and that it has always proved that all the minorities were welcome in Quebec.
I would like to mention especially that the committee should not forget to consult, first, the provinces. This practice of appointing commissions or committees for various inquiries has shown too often that the provinces were not taken into account and the central government has often been blamed, unfortunately, for taking decisions without previous consultation with the provinces.
The relations the government of Quebec has entered into now and then with some foreign countries, are also causing concern, as was mentioned yesterday.
To my mind, since Quebec is the home of the French Canadian nation, it must absolutely have contacts with some Frenchspeaking countries. I suppose this could be done in co-operation with the central government, which should show some understanding in this regard and recognize that a province such as ours ought to negotiate and sign agreements with the other French-speaking countries.
For years, members from Quebec and the government of that province have been asked what they really wanted. I think that for quite a while Quebec has been clear and precise about its intentions and its needs. In its recent brief on the constitution, it explained why it considered essential that the provinces have sole responsibility over social security. The coexistence of two governments prevents efficient planning in the field of social security, gives rise to the establishment of incon-
January 27, 1970

sistent programs and leads to administrative overlapping and wasting.
The whole social security provisions bear a direct relation to the culture of the people and enable them to express themselves collectively. The Quebec community can no more be deprived of its social security system than of its legal or educational systems.
The assigning of the entire responsibility of social security to the provinces can, through proper financial mechanisms, be consistent with a fair redistribution of income and the mobility of workers throughout Canada as well as with efficient economic policies.
The mechanism for the delegation of powers, the establishment of which has been proposed, will enable the provinces wishing to do so to entrust the central government with the discharge of some of those duties.
Quebec has no right to commit its future according to the wishes of a majority. Besides, I was blaming its authorities for leaving to the central government all responsibilities for the future of the French Canadian people.
The principles which must guide the originators of a healthy federal constitution are first the rational allocation of powers, then a joint action, with the possibility of exceptions, when the jurisdiction is not readily obvious, or when the motives of the various member states do not result from the same requirements or the same priorities.
That implies, on the one hand, a review of the allocation of exclusive jurisdictions under sections 91 and 92 of the present constitution, and, on the other hand, the establishment of a concurrent list on taxation and the distribution of public funds, with the possibility of exception for any province.
It will be enough to mention that such a notion of a federal constitution, while safeguarding almost the whole list of present federal powers, institutionalizes certain practices adopted until now by our governments, practices which, under foreseen conditions, seem to be much better juridical formulas than those found elsewhere, because they recognize, on the one hand, the principle of autonomy and, on the other, the principle of participation. Proving this would be beyond the scope of that section and, to be sure, only an entirely new constitution can reach this objective.
The constitutional documents of certain countries contain first class texts on the various subjects that have been mentioned. Germany, a federal state, has adopted a basic declaration of great interest. Italy, a unitary
Canadian Constitution
country with deeply-rooted regionalism, enshrines the principle of decentralization in her constitution. The USSR, a federal country with centralizing aims, grants her federated republics the acknowledgement of their cultural values in a manner probably unequalled in other texts. Australia, a federal country, offers an original formula for financing the states. The treaty of Rome, which may give rise to a federation, provides, from an economic standpoint, arrangements mostly derived from federalism while others represent interesting progress.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to remind me that my time is up, but I still have one minute left.
The big advantage of a major overhaul of the constitution is that we shall be able to benefit by everything that has been done elsewhere, to digest it, to shape it to our own liking and to submit it to the nation for approval while adhering to the best principles and to the most efficient procedures. If Canada is not able to make very soon this effort of reflection and adaptation, it will have betrayed its past and gravely jeopardized its future.
The constitutional amendments which the committee will have to examine more closely may be classified into four categories of reforms: a clarification of the fiscal powers, in the light of the tasks with which the Quebec government must deal; the cultural equality between Canada's two linguistic communities both within the federal institutions and within those of the various provinces involved; the new distribution of powers between the government of Canada and that of Quebec which will enable the latter to fulfil its mission as the collective mainstay of the French Canadians and, by that very fact, to find once for all the link between Ottawa and Quebec; the formal acknowledgment of the rights of Quebec to conclude international agreements, after consultation with the government of Canada, in fields of provincial jurisdiction, and to participate in the work of the UN institutions specialized in those fields.
In reviewing the text of our constitution, we should take advantage of the occasion and express in modem language the general objectives of Canada, the jurisdictional basis for its administration and the distribution of powers between the two levels of government.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will effect these constitutional changes immediately which would contribute, if we act wisely, to the building of a fantastic country with well

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
organized provinces where the emphasis is on co-ordination rather than federal centralization.
So, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) has pointed out, let us stop talking but let us work together and build a beautiful country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, like other members who have already taken part in this debate I welcome the establishment of this committee. I welcome it particularly because it marks the recognition that constitutional reform is above all a political question and it must ultimately be settled by political processes. Constitutional reform is not simply a question to be left to bureaucrats, to legal experts, or even to governments. It is a process which must involve the participation of the Canadian people as a whole. At the root of this question is the formation of our political institutions, the decision-making institutions of our government. That involves elaboration of the kind of values which we wish to have guide our community in taking decisions. It is pre-eminently a political question and not one that can simply be left to experts.
When I say this is a political question, that is not to say it must necessarily be dominated by partisan political considerations. I was a little dismayed yesterday in the House when it seemed to me there was a disposition on the part of some members taking part in the debate to look for fault, to try to find out where errors were, to search for places where they could stick something unpleasant on the government or opposition as the case might be. It seems to me that if the committee is to work well it must search for the common ground. It must pursue the question of the constitution with attempts at understanding rather than by making points in a partisan way.
Nevertheless, it is the political system which must represent, and the parties which must represent, the various views which can be taken of constitutional reform. This is the way in which the question must be taken to the people.
It is understandable that we should now be considering this question very seriously. It is platitudinous, but nevertheless true, that after

100 years the British North America Act is not particularly suitable to the needs of this country. It has been a constitution which has been less flexible in adapting to changing circumstances, partially because it has no formal amending procedure and partially because it has been subjected to court review, or constitutional review-taking place in a context far from this country-which has often led to decisions which could, at best, be described simply as bizarre.
We now face, at least in my part of the country, some impatience with the process of constitutional review. I think this is eminently understandable because, in an age of instant coffee, and instant television, people often demand instant solutions to complex problems. We must explain, and I think it is the obligation of political parties to explain, that these are rather complex questions, that there are divergent views in various parts of the country on how they are to be resolved and that there are no quick and easy solutions to complicated problems.
I hope the committee will get down to involvement with people. It is, I understand, to travel throughout the country and I hope that political parties will take this opportunity of clarifying where they stand on some of the fundamental questions. One of these questions is often described in short form as the question of "special status", but more accurately should be described as a question of whether one province or some provinces are to have substantial legislative and administrative powers which are different from those of the other provinces. I think the government party has taken a fairly clear position on that. The other parties, it seems to me, have not. There is the whole question of what the relationship of the federal government should be to the urban communities, the urban governments in our society. It seems to me the government party has not taken as clear a position, and has not explained as clearly as I would have liked, its position on that constitutional question. Obviously, that is going to be of enormous importance as we go throughout the country and find out how people in the cities regard the role of the federal government in relation to the municipal governments.
There is also the question of the Bill of Rights which, it seems to me, we often simplify enormously by pretending it is only a question of protecting the fundamental rights of our citizens. In fact, it is a question of transferring to the jurisdiction of the
January 27, 1970

Supreme Court an enormous power of interpretation in many areas of fundamental political importance to our society. We must ask ourselves, as men in public life, whether it is the proper function of the courts to come to a determination on what are essentially political questions. It may very well be so, but we should be clear in our minds that in discussing a Bill of Rights we are also discussing a transfer of political power to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, as always, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who described the participation of the various politicians who took part in the constitutional conference as participation of men of good will. He went on to say that really we were wrong in looking at this question as one of competition for power between the provincial governments and the federal government. It is not, he said, a question of power between the federal government and the provinces that confronts Canada. In all respect, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the question. It is a question of the basic distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments in this country which is at the root of the constitutional question. And in the constitutional conference we discuss these powers not simply in the abstract; it is not powers in some void about which we are talking. It is the powers which the politicians who are discussing the issues themselves hold at this particular point in time.
It is very difficult in those circumstances to have politicians not suspicious about the presentation of points of view by the other politicians who are sitting around the table. There is a story, Mr. Speaker, of two Renaissance cardinals, both great schemers. One of them was unfortunately carried away by the plague. When the news was reported to the other cardinal he said: "Dead; I wonder what his motive was". Now, politicians are not quite as suspicious as that, Mr. Speaker, but they are nevertheless very suspicious of the kind of powers and the claims to powers which other politicians make. It seems to me, this fact redoubles the emphasis we must give to this committee, to the involvement of the public in the question of constitutional reform. For in the end I suspect that the politicians, naturally sensitive to their own position, are not going to come to any easy agreement about what the proper distribution of powers among them is. It will take involvement of the public, and a view by the public 21611-44*
Canadian Constitution
as to what those powers should be-and eventually some attempt to find out what the public feels in an explicit way,-to give the moral authority to constitutional change which we require. It is, in other words, a process that cannot be left simply to politicians. We must in an active way find out what the viewpoint of the public is.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should not face this task, which is a long task and an arduous task, a difficult task, with any sense of dismay. To my mind this country has, through the decade of the sixties, been going through a process-not so slow,-of the real birth of the Canadian identity and the Canadian community. It is a decade in which the country has begun to come to terms with itself. During our past 100 years we have often been able to escape our political problems. We have been able to concentrate on the development of our resources, and when groups and classes in society have been frustrated they have been able to move to other parts of the country and start life anew. But in the last ten years we have had a coming together, and a recognition therefore of the problems that we face in the coming together. We are, it seems to me, finally developing a really sound political structure, one which takes into account the necessity of reconciling the views, often divergent views, of the various parts of our country.
The formation of a new constitution is part of this process, a process which will give perspective and form to decisions of government, one which will ensure that in coming to its decision the government will take into account various viewpoints and various parts of this country. That is the task in which the committee will be engaged. It is a task which they should pursue with optimism and hope.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, if we had been discussing the constitution as short a time as a year ago, I might have found myself in agreement with those who lean toward amending the constitution to make a strong central government even stronger. I would probably also have been among those who felt changes in the constitution were unnecessary. But since that time I have seen the government's intent spelled out in legislation, and heard it expressed in speeches and statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others. I have seen something of the economic confusion and hardship that has followed upon a strong, aggressive

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
central government determined to force its will upon the various regions of this country.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I saw at first hand, as an official observer for my party at the recent federal-provincial conference, something of our Prime Minister's purpose. It is obvious that he wants a strong central government-not strong in the sense commonly understood in the past, but strong in the sense of a dominant and domineering central government that would control, not only the various regions of Canada but individual Canadians to a great extent in every aspect of their social and economic life. This is apparent from the federal government's demands and its reaction to the attitude of the provinces at recent constitutional conferences. It is also apparent in legislation passed and pending in Parliament.
It appears to me to be a strong possibility at least that, using the combined provisions of the Estate Tax Act already passed, and the proposals in the white paper on tax reform yet to come, the government will effectively reduce individual Canadians to easily controlled and easily manipulated economic emits. The net effect of such a combination of legislation will be to eliminate small businesses and small businessmen, and to prevent the creation of any reservoirs of individual capital so necessary for small business and power.
Other legislation, notably the proposed measure dealing with investment, will shackle business to government so that business decisions, even decisions concerning future investment, would be at the control of the central authority. When that day comes, Canada may well be, in everything but name, an authoritarian socialist state. There will be little purpose then debating the constitutional balance between Ottawa and the provincial capitals. Canada will be a monolithic unitary state, no matter what the constitution says or provincial governments may claim. To phrase it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the plans of this government are realized we will have a very strong central government authority verging on dictatorship.
To achieve this, Parliament may be progressively downgraded and pushed aside and the provinces bound even more closely in Ottawa's web by means of forced economic dependency, while individual Canadians would be reduced to ciphers. The country is to be governed by a small group of non-elect-ed and non-responsible people, dominated by the Prime Minister of the day.

There has been some talk recently about our adopting the United States form of presidential government. If we are not careful, we will be beyond the point of being able to exert a choice. Before we know it we could end up having a president, with all the powers of the United States president but without any of the checks and balances that restrain the holder of that office from exercising wilful and tyrannical power. I have said I believe this is the aim of the government. I would like to emphasize that I did not mean this was necessarily the aim of the government party as a whole. I speak only of the executive.
It has been obvious, almost from the time of the 1968 election, that many members of the government party were unhappy with the manner in which they were being led. Today, we are hearing more and more the voices of dissent from government ranks. In the circumstances, this may be the very worst time at which to discuss constitutional change. We may find ourselves asking who speaks for whom? However, if it is the will of the House to establish a committee to study this question, there are two areas that I would like to see given priority. These are constitutional safeguards against excessive assumption of power by the executive and safeguards to ensure the provinces the means and the exclusive right to deal with matters within their stated jurisdiction.
Such safeguards should also ensure that never again can a central government in Canada use economics as a means of imposing its will on defenceless provinces. We must make it impossible for the federal government to use financial coercion and turn the weaker provinces into financial peons. The unfortunate fact today is that the federal government, in one way or another, has saddled the provinces with a variety of welfare, health and educational programs that are poorly framed, ill-timed and vastly expensive to operate.
This might be one thing if our national economy had continued on the up-beat without soft spots or pauses. But with inflation ravaging the national economy, trade in many basic areas in the doldrums, unemployment and the cost of living soaring, the provinces are in trouble. Today, we are seeing the law of the jungle operating in the field of public finance. The battle, as ever, goes to the strong. The federal government has grabbed the lion's share of tax revenue, leaving the provinces and their dependent municipalities
January 27, 1970

committed to huge expenditures and payments with only an over-burdened and inadequate share of the tax base upon which to raise the funds necessary.
I believe our constitution should provide safeguards against such dog-eat-dog economics and ensure fair shares for all levels of government commensurate with their degree of responsibility to the people of Canada. The more I see of our country today and the more I consider our current problems, the higher goes my regard to the Fathers of Confederation. They were shrewd, practical men who brought a minimum of emotion and a maximum of ingenuity and common sense to their task of providing a constitutional base for a new nation. Their assessment of Canada holds good today in my judgment. It was a nation of regions then and it is a nation of regions today.
Because they appreciated this fact, they provided that matters of the greatest regional concern be administered by regional or provincial governments. This was no accident. This was no compromise. This was not something confined only to the much smaller Canada of that day. This was an inspired method of providing flexibility in the constitutional and political field. I am convinced it is more of this flexibility that we need today, not less. The federal government has become progressively more involved in such fields as health, welfare and education, all of which are exclusively within the ambit of the provincial administrations. I believe they were deliberately placed there-and rightly so. They should be allowed to remain there now.
The federal government should confine itself simply and solely to providing what assistance is needed by individual provinces to keep their health, welfare and educational standards at or near a national level. I believe it is essential that the provinces have sufficient financial resources to enable them to establish and support their own set of priorities. No strings whatever should be attached to the financial assistance they are given. Their own citizens may be relied upon to police them. We may be sure, in these days of almost instantaneous information, that the people of any given province will know what others are receiving and will compel their government to give them the same, if they judge that their ability to carry such services is great enough.
If the people-the taxpayers-do not think that they can carry the load, it should not be imposed on them. It should not be imposed on
Canadian Constitution
them particularly by pressure exerted by some group of public servants who happen to cherish enthusiasm for some specific plan of social welfare. It seems obvious to me that democratic government must be a vehicle whereby people can govern themselves as they wish. In a country of widely differing regions such as ours, this means freedom of choice at the regional level. In a democracy there cannot be a mandate for any small group to tell the people what they should have.
It should not be difficult to arrive at an acceptable formula within the constitution that would provide unconditional federal grants as a matter of right to provinces requiring assistance in discharging their constitutional responsibilities. The financial status of any province and its potential for tax and other revenue can, today, be forecast with reasonable accuracy. Balanced against its requirements under the constitution, a figure for unconditional federal grants could then be calculated. Such a system, protected against manipulation or abuse by the constitution, would permit both levels of government to do their job without the continual bickering and bargaining that goes on today. It would effectively prevent the federal government from encroaching upon provincial fields of responsibility and leave full initiative and decision in these fields to the appropriate authority.
The massive sums of money now involved in this question of the Canadian provinces discharging their constitutional responsibilities greatly aggravates the situation and this aggravation will grow rapidly in the years immediately ahead. In 1967, the total expenditure of all governments on health, welfare and education was in excess of $10 billion. The Economic Council of Canada has estimated that, by 1975, this expenditure will have risen to about $19 billion annually. On the basis of these figures it is clear that, in 1967, the Canadian government spent about 16 per cent of the gross national product in areas strictly within provincial jurisdiction. If, as is forecast by the Economic Council, the GNP reaches the $100 billion mark by 1975, this percentage will have risen to the about 20 per cent of the GNP at that time. This gives you some idea of the magnitude of the financial question in relation to the constitution about which I have been talking. If we consider it wise that government expenditure not exceed 35 per cent, or so, of the gross national product then I think you can see how important this is.

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In 1967, the federal, provincial and municipal governments spent a little better than $4 billion on education. According to the Economic Council this amount will more than double by 1975. The most important feature of these figures, however, is that the overwhelming proportion of these education costs will be for elementary and secondary schools, the principal educational responsibility of the provinces. If they are not provided the financial muscle to handle this responsibility and are permitted to sink to the level of puppets of Ottawa, then it will be the central government that will direct educational policy and administration in the provinces despite any facesaving formula that might be devised to give the illusion of continuing provincial autonomy. In existing circumstances only two or three of our ten provinces are in a position to carry this burden. The remainder are dependent on help from the federal government. Caught between the constitutional compulsion to provide adequate educational facilities and the staggering costs involved, many provinces are helpless to resist federal encroachment by means of conditional financial aid. It is often carefully hidden, but the federal initiative is a positive force in today's health, welfare and education programs.
This situation is directly contrary to the spirit of our constitution. There is little prospect of such provinces as Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan or Manitoba being regarded as independent and resolute regional units within the Canadian confederation when inadequate resources make them subservient to the central government. A healthy and workable confederation demands a constitution that will restore the ideal measure of regional autonomy envisaged in the British North America Act. It may well develop that the old regional groupings, are outdated. Some measure of regional consolidation may now be required. But this would, in no way, change the conditions and demands of confederation. If, for instance, a union of the maritime provinces takes place and the three prairie provinces amalgamate, this would not change the essential nature of the new union regional governments in relation to our constitution. We would then simply have one regional government for the Atlantic area instead of four and one for the prairies instead of three. The requirement for regional administrations to answer the needs of the people would remain the same as ever.
[Mr. Eitchie.l
I should like to mention what is common talk these days, the alienation of the west. Everyone assumes this is a new situation. But it has been around for a long time. It is not just related to lack of sales for wheat. It is a natural outgrowth of the long history of federal governments who have regarded western Canada as a mere appendage to central Canada. Only in the years 1958-62 did western Canada assume any real significance in the affairs of the nation. Since then, it has reverted to its role of exporting its natural resources to fuel the economic machine of central Canada. The present government, schizophrenic in its central theme that Canada extends only a stone's throw from Montreal, has immeasurably strengthened the very strong suspicion that western Canada will receive no support from central Canada. If the country has developed on an east-west axis, now so far as the west is concerned the flow is north-south. If Canada is to remain a confederation, then it must be recognized that it is a nation of regions. Otherwise, if nothing else, it may fracture off at the Lakehead. The federal government, with its preoccupation with its central Canada outlook, must revise its thrust if Canada is to remain a confederacy in the next 100 years.
There are many other arguments for entrenching the rights of the provinces under the confederation agreement. These, no doubt, will be brought out in detail in the discussions of the committee should it be established. But, as I suggested earlier, I believe first priority should be given to consideration of ways to curb the power of the executive by constitutional safeguards. If we do not do this, if we do not find means of restraining the small ruling clique, we may be sure they will never allow any meaningful amendment of the constitution with regard to provincial rights. I hope the committee will be established. I hope it will be based broadly enough to take in all shades of opinion, both within the recognized political parties and without. I hope, too, that discussion will not be confined to a narrow agenda drawn up by the government or that the committee itself will be emasculated by a government majority and government chairman whose thoughts and actions are dictated by the executive.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarih (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I find that when elected to the House of Commons we all seem to become instant experts. I gather it is inherent in politics that we be all things to all men and there is a tremendous compulsion to display
January 27, 1970

full knowledge on any number of subjects in a very erudite fashion. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if, from time to time, in the course of my remarks, I indicate that I am somewhat unencumbered by a profound knowledge of constitutional politics, history and the law. But I do not apologize because in the last year and a half, and sometimes in this House, we have seen the political gods of this nation show an equal ignorance and lack of profundity. So, unimpeded by humility, I should like to reflect on two particular aspects of the resolution. The first is the method used to bring about constitutional change. Then, secondly, I should like to put forward some concept of what we might consider should be proposed in order to solve our chronic Canadian malady, the constitutional headache.
I think it is generally agreed that constitutional change is necessary. The constitution, being the root of all political and legal power, is the foundation upon which and within which our legal system operates. It must be flexible and at the same time unequivocal. The modern state, being complex, infringes tremendously at all levels of government on the rights of the individual. We must have a constitution which equally benefits and protects the citizen. The constitution adopted in 1867, as a result of judicial interpretation, the development of the double aspect theory, the water compartment theory and the restrictions on the peace, order and good government clause, is often interpreted by men out of the country with little knowledge of the nation or the nation's future. Coupled also with the evasion of the constitution by federal-provincial agreement, and a tactic of downright invasion by governments of other governmental spheres, we are left with a constitution which is at times almost impossible to decipher, which is obscure and which on many occasions cannot be determined.
Modern Canada is very different from Canada at the time the constitution was formed. In addition to that, I notice there are two distinct attitudes toward our constitution, largely dependent upon the region of the country from which one comes. Easterners generally consider the federal government to be the child of the provinces and therefore believe the provinces should be given appropriate powers. Westerners look at it in reverse. They consider their provinces to be children of the federal government and tend to accept more readily the centralization and consolidation of power in the federal authority.
Canadian Constitution
I believe the government is to be complimented for proposing the formation of this committee and also for giving the priority it has to constitutional change. Although it might be criticized in the sense that it will interfere in an immediate solution to some of our problems, I think in the long run it will certainly simplify and expedite answers to these problems. The method adopted is the federal-provincial conference. Any method has drawbacks and any method can be criticized.
It is difficult to constructively criticize a method and suggest good solid alternatives. But having adopted the method, I believe those who are engaged in the conference perhaps should accept a little constructive criticism, even though it comes from an hon. member who is not an expert on it. At the outset, it appears to me that some of the observations made in the House yesterday by members of the opposition are quite justified. I get the feeling that I, as an average taxpayer and citizen, am a bystander to a confrontation between big governments whereby the governments squabble over the power to tax, the power to control my destiny, the power to infringe upon my rights and all too often drift away from the concept that it is not what is best for the federal or provincial governments with which I am concerned but rather what is best for me as an average citizen. The suggestion that the provinces should have more taxing power, it seems to me, should have been coupled with the suggestion that there should be an over-all control over taxation at all levels of government before such a suggestion is put forward.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I say that no matter what office you might hold, the problems must be considered from the point of view of the individual citizen first and what he might need and want as a citizen of this country. It should not be a squabble between two governments trying to determine which politician shall have the most power. Politicians are always loth to surrender power once they get into office, and they have a tendency to want more and more of it, rationalizing their demands from time to time without approaching the matter in a rational and objective manner.
It is regrettable that no mechanism was set up in these conferences whereby individual citizens and groups could be heard. Constitutional change should not be the prerogative of politicians-I agree with some of the speakers

January 27. 1970
Canadian Constitution
who have expressed that view. Party dogma, party philosophy and the more or less temporal tenure of political office should not be factors that warp and distort the validity of the results of constitutional conferences. It is certainly pleasing to see that this committee will be empowered to call witnesses and hear the views of the Canadian public.
Another criticism that might well be put forward about the method that was adopted is that there is too much parochialism. Premier Bennett, the great ringmaster of the Social Credit circus in British Columbia, suggested at one conference that the northern boundary of British Columbia should be extended to include part of the Yukon, if not all of it. But if he had been looking at this matter from the point of view of the national interest, he could equally well have suggested that the southern boundary of the Yukon should be extended down into British Columbia and that a new province should be created. I must say I do not think that Premier Bennett is known for his concept of nationalism and for thinking in national terms, certainly not in British Columbia.
I think that there has been a rather blatant display by people who came to perform and not to confer; people who, mindful of the fact that they are wearing their television makeup and are on national television, sometimes drift a little away from the fact that they are there to consider what we want to have in a new constitution. I suggest that the conferences have been used for the blatant, chauvinistic purposes of political gain in the old home town. I refer here to the attack on the white paper. I do not know what that had to do with the constitution. It is certainly contemporary in the political sense, but it is not part of the constitutional conference.
I am gravely concerned about in camera sessions. I think that secrecy in government affairs is dangerous, and I suggest that the political climate greatly differs now from what it was at the time of the Quebec and Charlottetown conferences which were held in camera. Perhaps there was far greater reason for secrecy then that there is now. I am worried about the tremendous influence that can be brought to bear by bureaucrats at in camera meetings, and the great tendency of politicians to accept decisions made by bureaucrats as being very erudite and cogent. I think we should all warn the delegates to these conferences that this country is unlikely to accept a constitution that is a fait accompli by decisions made in camera.

I am rather disappointed that the terms of reference of this committee are confined to those declarations that have been made public. I look forward to seeing the person who is going to be able to confine that committee to its terms of reference. It will be a very interesting job indeed, but I do not think that the delegates will ever get away with presenting to the Canadian people a fait accompli constitution in the melee of a general election. The confrontation method leads to the intrusion of partisan politics in an approach to a new constitution. Provincial premiers, or perhaps even a prime minister, facing an election might take a rather different view if they did not have an election in the offing. For instance, the change in government in Manitoba brought about little change in attitude from the people in that province, and I do not think the people in that province really changed their minds so substantially about the constitution.
The criticisms I have made perhaps have more or less validity and cogency. I do not suggest that there is any adequate alternate way, but I am surprised that somebody has not given some consideration to the creation of a constitutional parliament, entirely objective in its deliberations, free of confrontation, independent of existing governments, representative of all regions, and empowered to listen to the people as well as to all levels of government.


Gerald William Baldwin: And free of law professors.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Yes, and free of a few lawyers, too. This might not be a very valid alternative, but you have to admit it is a hell of a lot better than a revolution.
In dealing with these proposals for a new constitution, two matters of great importance should be noted: first, the entrenchment of civil rights in the constitution-I certainly welcome that suggestion-and second, the consideration of the division of powers, which are so essential in a federal state. I do not propose to dwell a great deal on the entrenchment of civil rights in the constitution. It is going to bring about a wholly new attitude toward legislation at all government levels, and certainly the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Drybones case, which was recently handed down, adds but a slight tremor to the earth shaking judicial decisions which will be handed down when civil rights are entrenched in the new constitution. It will be a money-maker for lawyers.
January 27, 1970

In dealing with the division between federal and provincial powers, we have to concede at the outset that the central or federal government should have the major instruments that are necessary to formulate the economic policy of the nation. The federal government must always be in a position to have its hands on the throttle of the economy of Canada. For instance, the attack on inflation should be primarily and exclusively something within the power of the federal government because it is a national problem.
Similarly, all problems that affect the national interest should rest with the federal government, and I would mention specifically foreign affairs. There should be adherence to the original concept that local governments should look after local and regional problems. The problem which arises, as I see it, is what happens when the local problems become so intense that they become of national concern-problems such as pollution, urban affairs, housing, consumer affairs, and standards of health. These things which were essentially local problems at one time have now become so national in their scope that they are considered to be problems of the whole of Canada.
For instance, according to the Hall report on medicare the reason the federal government entered the medicare field was, as the honourable judge suggested, that standards of health in Canada should be applied all across the country and therefore the federal government should act in this area. But the result has not been particularly satisfactory. It has not been what it would have been if the government had been able to act in a direct fashion without going into extensive consultations with the provinces. Sometimes such problems are very small in their subject matter and do not lend themselves to great, big, over-all reviews of the constitution. For instance, for years the Canadian Bar Association has been trying to set up a central registry for encumbrances and mortgages on aircraft but were continually met by the statement from the federal government that this would be unconstitutional.
In connection with all these problems, there must be a way in which the powers can be transferred from the provinces to the federal government and vice-versa, should the occasion in the contemporary scene demand it. Similarly, we are devoid of any throttle on the amount of taxation that can be imposed. The provincial governments have unlimited taxation powers in their own field, and so
Canadian Constitution
does the federal government. The result is that nobody can say, "wait, there is too much taxation now". There is no way in which that can be controlled.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The question is how can these problems be solved? My suggestion is that we give some consideration to that venerable company of old Canadians who share this building with us, and who respond so quaintly, so quickly and in such numbers to the tinkle of their little bell. I have never argued that the Senate should continue to exist in its present form. I think it could be reformed and changed into a very viable body. This baby-blanket of Parliament Hill could be of tremendous use by becoming the arbiter between the provincial and the federal governments of this country.
I think we should propose to the Canadian people that the Senate take on new functions. I suggest, first, that it should be appointed by a constitutionally entrenched formula, getting representatives from the provinces and the federal government, and that its objectivity, its independence from both governments should be entrenched in that formula so that it cannot be manipulated by either the federal or the provincial governments.
Secondly, it should have no legislative powers at all in the direct sense.
Thirdly, it should be empowered to determine when a transfer of legislative power should take place from the provinces to the federal government, or vice versa, depending upon the applications made to it by either of these levels of government. It should have the staff and the structure to investigate where the national or provincial interests might lie, in a broad sense, throughout the nation. For example, the pollution problem could be put before such a Senate, and it could decide which government and to what extent which government should be responsible for it. It could say that the federal government should take the responsibility entirely, or that the federal government should take certain aspects of it and certain other aspects should be left to the provinces.
Fourthly, it could be used to control the over-all imposition of taxation. For example, it could advise a government when it was imposing a new tax that it had gone too far in certain regions of the country because the provinces concerned had already taxed those regions to a certain level. That would be a

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
powerful political factor in preventing the imposition of too much taxation.
Fifthly, it could serve as a fact-finding body for the federal and provincial governments, and thus abolish the necessity for royal commissions. It could even inquire as to what has happened to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
Sixthly, it could be the arbiter of intra-provincial disputes, and seventhly, it could serve as a national law reform commission and concern itself with the uniformity of laws throughout the country.
Eighthly, it could have a judicial arm to solve disputes arising out of constitutional matters. I would not suggest that the Senators all be selected for the same purpose. You might have a general body of Senators selected, and then have some selected because of their specific knowledge to serve for a certain purpose or for a certain term of years.
I have just about exhausted my time, Mr. Speaker. Whatever happens to this committee that we are now forming, I think we all look forward to watching its progress in helping to shape a new constitution. Above all, I hope that when it finally reports to this House it will have more luck than the Standing Committee on Northern Affairs did.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for his courtesy.

I should like to give a very warm welcome to this motion, Mr. Speaker. For many years I have been convinced that the elected members of Parliament, representing as they do every region in Canada and many different groups and interests, are pre-eminently suited to deal with the future framework of the Canadian political system, and that, after all, is what the constitution is.
I am personally interested because I pressed this idea of a parliamentary committee on the constitution in correspondence and in conference on the former prime minister, Mr. Pearson. He always agreed with me, but it was never the appropriate time to do anything about it. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may remember that I urged support for this idea upon him a few weeks after he became a member of this House. Yesterday, he introduced the motion to set up such a

committee, and it would be most ungracious of me not to acknowledge that fact with gratitude.
For myself, I am profoundly convinced that the committee can play a vital role in the constitutional development necessary to the future needs of Canada. Whatever the utility and necessity of continuing committees of civil servants and other experts, whatever the role of federal-provincial constitutional conferences, I am confident that in the ultimate analysis this Parliament is and should remain the major guardian of a strong but flexible federal system.
I do not share the attitude of those who regard the process of constitutional revision with impatience and who call for action on economic bread-and-butter issues. There is a false division here. Modern governments, of necessity, deal with economic issues. They must be concerned with full employment, housing, health, pollution, urban problems and even recreational facilities. They are called upon to improve the quality of life as well as to maintain economic growth. But governments either perform these functions, or fail to perform them because of the constitutional compact within which they must all work.
In a country with regions widely separated from each other by language and cultural divisions, as well as by distance and different economic conditions, as in Canada, agreement as to the constitutional structure is essential. Constitutional improvement and clarification are required for the smooth functioning of our system of government; indeed, for its existence. Constitutional revision, therefore, is of great practical importance and not an exercise to be reserved for constitutional lawyers and experts, but the very stuff of politics and the concern of all elected members.
I can sympathize with provincial premiers who speak out about the ancient and modern problems, such as freight rates and regional inequalities. I am sure much can be done within the existing constitution and by an intensified process of co-operative federalism to deal with some of these problems, but this does not absolve us from considering the constitutional framework of our whole constitutional system.
I am not one of those who think that the revision of the British North America Act is unimportant. The Prime Minister, in his speech, referred to cliches about the constitution. Perhaps I shall be guilty of some of the cliches to which he referred. But however
January 27, 1970

obvious some of these remarks may be they need to be repeated from time to time.
The British North America Act is a colonial statute, passed by the British parliament in Westminster more than a hundred years ago. It is obsolete in form and uninspiring in style. It deals with the needs of small and mainly agricultural societies. Today, we are called upon to deal with vast urban conglomerations. It would be miraculous if the dispositions of a hundred years ago did not require review.
I am personally not iconoclastic about some of the basic provisions of the British North America Act. Some of those provisions, namely, those dealing with division of powers between the federal and provincial legislatures, may remain basically sound and require little change. It is to me, however, quite unthinkable that with the development of new problems of housing, pollution and renewal it does not require a new look.
The federal Parliament, as we all know, has employed the spending power to intervene from time to time in fields regarded as exclusively provincial. This has been bitterly resented by some provinces, notably the province of Quebec. Such a use of the spending power is nowhere explicit in the British North America Act. The limits of consequences of the exercise of the spending power need to be spelled out in the new constitution.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There remains in our constitutional set-up one crucial problem that must be resolved if Canada is to continue to be united. Federations, if they are healthy, are based on the consent of all regions, but there is in Canada a bone of contention which threatens to destroy consent. I refer to the difference of opinion about the degree of centralization in respect of legislation on social issues which is acceptable to different parts of Canada.
The Prime Minister of Quebec, at the last federal-provincial constitutional conference, made it quite clear that whatever other provinces might do, Quebec was not prepared to see the federal government interfere by use of the spending power, shared-cost programs or any other device, in fields such as social services and housing; such centralization would be resisted. In saying this he was repeating what had been said by his predecessors of all parties. I do not doubt that he speaks for Quebec in this regard, but I believe that the other provinces are willing, and in some cases anxious, for federal inter-
Canadian Constitution
vention in these fields. They do not wish to be hampered in securing national action on some of these matters because of Quebec's reluctance.
It was for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that some of us used the phrase "special status for Quebec". Perhaps it was an unfortunate phrase. It seemed to some to smack of condescension and concession. I emphasize, nevertheless, that the basic problem which remains is: How are we to organize our constitution so that Quebec can retain autonomy in fields in which her special culture demands it, without forcing upon the other provinces a decentralization which seems to some of them excessive?
I believe this is the crux of our constitutional problem, and I think that perhaps M. Bertrand was on the right track when he suggested that the device of delegation might be used by other provinces desiring it. It would have to be a refined process of delegation and be terminable only after an agreed period. The British North America Act says nothing about delegation. I believe the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council-perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will correct me if I am wrong-has said that there is no power of legislative delegation within our present constitutional system.
I suggest that the committee ought to explore this avenue, because I believe that by following-up the matter of delegation and by studying the implications of some sort of permanency of delegation, we might find the answer to what I call the dilemma of our constitution.
There are three more subjects upon which I wish to touch lightly, Mr. Speaker. The first is the charter of human rights or a constitutional bill of rights. I hope that this Parliament and government will not flag in their determination to bring such charter into existence. There has developed an academic school of thought which downgrades the importance of such charter or constitutional bill of rights. I am afraid that some members of our provincial governments have paid undue attention to this school of thought. These people claim that to enshrine basic fundamental freedoms in a constitution is (a) to limit them, and (b) to hand over the protection of these fundamental political rights to the tender mercies of judicial review rather than to the protection of politically-elected governments and Parliaments.
I think neither of these objections is valid. Such declarations in our fundamental consti-

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
tutional law have an immense educational value. They clarify for all the human and individual basic rights in a free democracy and, in addition, they provide useful and needed instruments to strike down the overzealous exercise of legislative interference with fundamental rights of the citizen. I know this statement to be valid because of my career at the Bar. I suggest that nobody familiar with history will say that leaders of nations do not from time to time attempt to interfere, sometimes with the best intentions in mind, with those fundamental rights which we all should have.
I should now like to say a word about the amending formula which is essential to any successful rewriting of the constitution. This party has opposed, and I hope will continue to oppose, any rigid system which would give to an individual province the power of veto, no matter how small, in the field of constitutional revision. We successfully opposed, and continue to oppose, the unlamented Fulton-Fa-vreau formula. We think that certain provisions of a fundamental nature could be enshrined in the constitution in such a way that the unanimous consent of the federal and provincial legislatures would be required for any change.
Examples of what I mean might be found in a charter of human rights, language rights and the right to free and regular elections. For instance, the constitution might contain various provisions which could not be changed without unanimous consent, whereas economic matters could be amended by a more simple and less rigid formula.
Perhaps the most recent federal-provincial constitutional conference was very close to the mark when it suggested that three out of four senatorial districts or three out of five such regions, including British Columbia- this was a suggestion of the Premier of British Columbia-might provide a consensus justifying federal interference in the provincial realm of shared-cost programs. 1 suggest to the House that a formula similar to that suggested to be applied to shared-cost programs might be applied to the amending of the constitution. Something of this sort is essential.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the role of municipal governments in the constitutional process. The time has come for the senior levels of government to recognize that if the human problems of Canadian citizens in the latter part of the twentieth century are to be solved, it must be done as a result of planning, consultation and

co-operation with municipal levels of govern^ ment. I remind the House that the populations of Toronto and Montreal exceed those of all the individual provinces except Quebec and Ontario. Immense environmental problems involving pollution, renewal, recreation, housing, etc., cannot be solved except by the combined efforts of federal, provincial and municipal governments.
The British North America Act makes the municipalities entirely the creatures of the provinces. I submit that in this decade the mutual problems of the federal government and municipal governments require consultation. We have heard in the House from time to time, when these matters have arisen, that such consultation is not possible under our constitution. I do not think this is so. Even if it is so, we must make it clear in the new constitution that it will be so no longer.
The 1969 conference of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities demanded a commitment from the federal government as well as provincial governments to consult with municipalities

it being their right-on matters of mutual concern. If members of the committee which will be set up as a result of this motion are to do their job properly, they must, as must we, listen to those who represent our cities. So long as we remain a federal country, co-operative federalism must be practised to deal with urgent social needs such as housing and urban development generally. Such co-operative federalism must be both more thorough, deeper in its content and wide enough to take into its breadth of participatory democracy those who represent our cities and towns. Mr. Speaker, I look forward, as I believe other members of the House do, to Parliament asserting its proper role in determining the future fundamental law of this country. I will therefore support the motion before the House.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, this House has before it indirectly, in the form of a motion to establish a joint committee on the Constitution of Canada, the question of creating a new constitution for Canada. This is not the task for a day or even a year, but a task of great magnitude which will consume a proportionate amount of time.
In a formal sense, the process of creating a new constitution may be said to have begun at the first constitutional conference in February of 1968. I was privileged to be a partici-
January 27, 1970

Canadian Constitution
pant in that conference as a delegate from the province of Prince Edward Island, and I would like to recall a phrase used by Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island at that conference as a description of what those who participated in it were about to undertake. Premier Campbell said that if the men who in 1864, 1865, 1866 and 1867 worked out the Constitution of Canada could be called the Fathers of Confederation, he believed those who embarked on this new task in 1968 could be called the foster-fathers of our country.
In a sociological sense, however, the process of constitutional review and re-creation may be said to have begun with the quiet revolution of 1960 in Quebec and all the consequences which that led to, not only the great attention subsequently devoted in the province of Quebec to constitutional matters-not that Quebec had been entirely quiescent in this field before that time-but the response engendered in other parts of Canada, and of course the aspirations peculiar to all regions of Canada which partly as a result of the quiet revolution, partly as a result of Canada's first centennial and partly as a result of the national fervour engendered by Expo, began to find expression.
Why is it necessary to draft a new constitution a century after our first one? Perhaps the short answer is that the world is a very different place: great external changes have occurred; we have seen world wars with great dislocations in empires, trade patterns, economies and the movement of people. These world wars have had a great effect on Canada. We have had a great depression and we have had recessions.
In the 1960s many moral authorities have spoken of seeing new views of morals coming into being which may perhaps cause greater changes in our society. There have been changes in transportation and communications which were completely unforeseeable a century ago. Our closest neighbour, the United States, has emerged as the superpower of the world, with important consequences for Canada.
Internally we have evolved from the state of 1867 which was still, in effect, a colony despite the fact that we had responsible and popular government through our participation in the conferences after World War I to the Statute of Westminster and eventually the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council in criminal and civil matters, to the point where we are now a fully independent country. The only limitation on our freedom of action now
is the fact that our constitution can still be formally amended only in Great Britain. This, of course, is part of the reason why we need to re-think and re-create our constitution.
There have also been forward and backward shifts in the balance of power between the federal government and the provinces in this century. We have seen the role of the government in the economy increase. We have seen changes in ethnic composition, especially as a result of the heavy immigration in the early part of the twentieth century. The immigration which followed the Second World War also changed considerably the character of our country. In 1867 we were largely a country composed of people from England, France, Scotland and Ireland. We could hardly begin today to name the nationalities of those who have come to our country. Moreover, there has been a quiet revolution in Quebec, and urbanization has continued to the point where 65 per cent of our people now live in urban centres. All these changes have been great social changes. I believe the changes have made it necessary not only to take a new look at our constitution, but to re-create and redraft it.
It is often thought our constitution is simply the British North America Act, but this is a somewhat oversimplified view. There is a vast conglomeration of statutes and practices-including, I think, the rules of this House and certainly the practices of the government of Canada-which in a very real sense can be considered to be part of our constitution.
I wish to dwell for a few moments on the most obvious part of our constitution, the British North America Act. I would quote a brief description of it by Dr. MacGregor Dawson in his book "The Government of Canada":
The British North America Act, however, does not pretend to be a comprehensive document, such as, for example, the constitution of the United States: and there is thus little of the well-rounded, balanced description and enumeration of authorities and functions which so frequently characterize those written constitutions which aim to cover all the essentials of government within a limited number of carefully articulated sections. There are many vital things about the government of Canada (to say nothing of the provincial governments) which are not stated or even hinted at in the British North America Act, and even those matters which are dealt with in some detail are frequently given in such fashion that they become ambiguous and sometimes misleading.
A less neutral description of the British North America Act is given by Dean Jean

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
Beetz. It is reprinted in the book edited by Crepeau and Macpherson, "The Future of Canadian Federalism". I wish to quote several sentences from this succinct description by Dean Beetz which I think poses in a few French words the dilemma of our constitution:

The 1867 constitution is a paradoxical document. Its character as fundamental law, the difficulty one finds in amending it, should normally command the use of a broad, liberal, analogical method of interpretation. On the other hand, its wording has all the character of restrictive interpretation statutes. The legislator modestly hides his principles behind it:- In other respects, the 1867 constitution, except perhaps as regards the provisions dividing the legislative jurisdiction between the central power and the provinces, is written in a jargon fit for painstaking lawers, completely indifferent to aesthetics, even on a legal level; it is a highly technical document which is therefore abstruse, misleading for the jurist who is not familiar with our laws, beyond the reach of the layman, the average man. Such wording normally leads to a purely exegetical and literal interpretation, the only one in which the Victorian jurists who gave a statutory form to the London resolutions likely believed.
This divorce between the nature of the 1867 constitution and its form may be one of the reasons for the variations of jurisprudence as regards the use of an appropriate method of interpretation for its implementation.

This divorce between the nature of the constitution and its form, between the broad nature of a constitution and the restricted, limited horizons of the form in which it was cast, has always posed a great problem, not only for the legal interpreters of the British North America Act but for the Canadian people. It has meant that their most formal document, the one which should best express all their aspirations, merely expresses the legalistic jargon, the technical views of the drafters of that document. It is still a legally serviceable document, but as living law it is inadequate. It is not a constitution of today for tomorrow, but a constitution of yesterday for yesterday.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
How are we to proceed in attempting to create a new constitution? Professor Cheffins, in a new book entitled "The Constitutional Process in Canada", expresses in the following words grave reservations about the likely success of this task:
For Canada's political leaders to sit down at a constitutional conference and attempt to redraft completely a new constitution for Canada would, in my opinion, be a dangerous and difficult step.

I agree that it would be dangerous and difficult, but I do not draw the author's conclusion that it should not be done. This is a task upon which we have embarked, and I believe it is one we must now complete. There are, it seems to me, four ways in which we could proceed. First, there is the method of holding federal-provincial conferences, the one which is being most actively used. I do not share the disillusionment of some hon. members as to the outcome and pace of these conferences, although I believe that as public conferences they have probably gone as far as they can in enlightening the Canadian people by making them aware of the problems we face.
The second method is that of the constitutional convention, which means calling representatives of the people, perhaps members of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures among others, and inviting them to approve the draft of a new constitution as a document upon which our future history would be based. This conception is along the lines of the United States model; it would probably be awkward to employ in a country such as Canada which has no tradition of such constitutional conventions, but at least it is a possibility.
The third possibility is the holding of a referendum-the submission of a draft constitution to the people of Canada for their approval or rejection. I need hardly say that such a course would encounter serious difficulties of communication. It is hard enough for law professors to explain constitutions to their law classes. It is almost too much to expect the contents of such a document to be readily ascertainable by all the people of this country. However, in any new Canadian constitution we must achieve a better balance of the technical and the popular than was achieved in the last one.
A fourth method of constitutional change is by sending a joint address of both Houses of Parliament to the British Parliament. In any event, this is the course which will probably have to be followed eventually. It may seem to be a last resort and, legally, it can be taken in the absence of any of the steps to which I have just referred.
We have embarked upon a course of federal-provincial conferences which has perhaps served its day as far as public sessions are concerned. But the conferences are valuable because they are producing a series of documents which the Government of Canada is presenting to the people and to the provinces,
January 27, 1970

and which will be the primary texts, if I might use that term, for the new committee to consider.
We must involve the public in this process, and we must also involve Parliament. Parliamentary and popular debate is important in connection with all the courses I have mentioned. Debate might not in itself be a method of constitution-making, but it is at the very least a concomitant; perhaps one might say that it breathes the breath of life into the other forms.
I believe the people of Canada want to be involved in the making of a new constitution. In the first of the federal papers there are a few sentences which read as follows:
There is a Canadian personality. We are not( carbon-copy Englishmen, nor carbon-copy Frenchmen, nor carbon-copy Europeans. Each of the founding societies and each of the cultural groups in this country has achieved in different ways its independence from its past, and none really wants to go back. Nor do Canadians want to become carbon-copy Americans, friendly and strong as our ties are with them. We have our own values, our own attitudes to life which are not British, nor French, nor American.
A constitution must be a popular document. It is, as Aristotle once said, the way of life of a citizen body; or, as we might prefer to say today, it is the embodiment of a consensus of popular feeling about our life. Another philosopher, Savigny, referred to the two elements which he said were necessary in any constitution, the political or popular element on the one hand, and the legal or technical element on the other. Our first constitution was predominantly legal; the legal element assumed almost total importance. In our new constitution I hope the stress will be laid on the political and popular element.
We shall not achieve a new constitution in a short time; the process might take a number of years. The most important conclusion we can reach at this point is that to help us obtain this new constitution we need new vehicles for popular and parliamentary participation. I believe the proposed parliamentary committee would provide such a vehicle. I believe it would enable us in Parliament to share in the work of creating a new constitution and I believe, too, that it would enable the people of Canada to take a more vital part in this task than would otherwise be possible.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Canadian Constitution AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleion-Char-loile):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently discussing what I consider are the preliminary steps toward action relative to the constitution. Nothing could be more important, in my opinion. As all hon. members know, the motion is to appoint a joint committee of this House and the Senate "to examine and report upon proposals, made public"-I draw Your Honour's attention especially to the words "to examine and report upon proposals, made public"-"or which are from time to time made public by the Government of Canada, on a number of subjects related to the Constitution of Canada during the course of the comprehensive review of the Constitution of Canada, which review was agreed upon at the Constitutional Conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers and Prime Ministers of the provinces in February 1968."
My reason for reading the motion almost verbatim is that I feel there are some portions of it which might be emphasized which, I submit, might not be in the general public interest. I do not propose to make much comment on the suggested detail of the basic principles embodied in the motion, nor on the set-up of the suggested committee. My remarks will be general in character and I will refer to the principles involved.
In considering the duties of the committee to examine and report upon the proposals already made to the public by the Government of Canada, it seems to me this is somewhat restrictive and I immediately question why there appears to be a restriction upon the studies and examinations to be made by the committee. The only flexibility that seems to be in the motion is that proposals to be made public later by the Government of Canada may be examined and reported upon. Again, I submit there is a degree of restriction here which, considering the comprehensive nature of the study, should not appear in the motion. At least there should be some indication by the government of what they have in mind, and that information should be given to members of this House.
I am not sure whether the motion was framed with the idea of restricting the committee, or if it will be given plenty of latitude by subsequent reports of the Government of Canada. I hope the committee will have comprehensive references made to it later. In this connection I cannot help feeling that this

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
committee of our central Parliament should be able, in its deliberations, to consider representations made by the provinces as well as those made by the Government of Canada. If the committee is to render a service, and surely that is the objective, it must of necessity consider the views and representations of the provinces, the municipalities, organizations and citizens in general because by the motion it has been asked to undertake an all-embracing, comprehensive job.
Mr. Speaker, let us examine the question of the constitution and ask ourselves what it is. On reference to the dictionary I find that the definition of the word "constitution" is as follows:
The fundamental principles of government of a nation, state, society, or other organized body of men, embodied in written documents, or implied in the institutions and customs of the country or society concerned.
I especially draw the attention of the House to the following portion of the definition, "embodied in written documents, or implied in the institutions and customs of the country," because in my opinion this suggests a degree of flexibility which has perhaps not been adopted by all people in their analysis of constitutional responsibility. I now wish to consider the constitution under which we have been operating for over 100 years.
Yesterday and today we listened to some very good speeches made in this chamber. In some cases the House was urged not to forget the British North America Act which, after all, has been our constitution for over 100 years. I am quite prepared to agree that our constitution, which has been in existence since 1867, should be brought up-to-date in light of the progress made, but I am not prepared to agree that the constitution under which we have operated should be completely ignored.
I am not prepared to admit that we should discard the constitution under which great progress has been made. I think it has a basis for improvement and that we should retain all that is constructive in it and all that tends to contribute to the creation of a new constitution, and make the necessary changes in light of changing conditions over the last 100 years.
In this chamber we hear many members express great satisfaction, and quite properly so, with the progress that this country has made in 100 years. Then why discard the constitution under which that progress was made? It is not suggested that it should form

the basis of a new constitution. It seems to me that the fact that is ignored suggests something which will be rather harmful in the preparation of a new document.
For several years various Prime Ministers and Premiers have been discussing constitutional questions. Only now is the Parliament of Canada being asked to take action and examine the matter. I well remember attending federal-provincial conferences as Premier of New Brunswick. I remember very well the attitude of the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. St. Laurent. I believe that very capable and considerate Prime Minister had great respect for the rights of the provinces. On many occasions he stated his view that conferences between the provinces and the federal gov-'ernment on questions of jurisdiction should be co-operative. It always seemed to me that he deplored any conflict between the provinces and the federal authority.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I have always considered Mr. St. Laurent to be a great constitutional lawyer and a great Prime Minister. He mentioned conferences very frequently, but to my knowledge he never suggested the need for a brand new constitution. Perhaps the influence of this great man has made me very sensitive to the need of preserving in the old constitution all that is beneficial, important and near and dear to many Canadians, while at the same time adding to it where it appears wise to do so and amending it where it appears desirable. The next Prime Minister with whom I was associated is the Right Hon. J. G. Diefen-baker, the hon. member for Prince Albert. To my recollection, his attitude with reference to the constitution was much the same as Mr. St. Laurent's.
I do not think we are discussing a matter about which there should be great political or partisan differences among the various groups in this House. I think we are discussing a document which deserves attention, which perhaps deserves amendment and some additional sections. I think the constitution in general needs to be dressed up and fixed up so it will serve us for the next 100 years, or even more, in a better way than the old one served us in the last 100 years.
I belong to a party that subscribes to the general political philosophy that we should preserve and conserve all that is good in established institutions and formulas that have been in operation for some time. We should make those changes which appear
January 27, 1970

likely to strengthen these institutions; we should make any amendment which seems desirable.
Everyone will acknowledge that we live today in a world very different from that of a century or even half a century ago. From horse and buggy to automobile, aeroplane and now trips to the moon, is a great-deal of progress in half a century. It would be very unwise after half a century of experience to suggest that the rules and regulations under which we operate, or in other words the constitution, should not be reviewed and changed to suit changing conditions.
I do not believe, however, that the constitution should be left entirely in the hands of constitutional lawyers, together with the executive heads or civil servants of 11 governments. I am in favour of a revised constitution, but I am also in favour of using the present	constitution-the	British North
America Act-as a foundation upon which to build.
In the process of changing a constitution it is well to remember that there are countries which change their constitutions from time to time. This applies to the United States of America. I respectfully draw the attention of the House to the fact that a change in the constitution of that great country calls for more than just a majority vote. Changing the constitution of the United States is a long and laborious process. It calls for much discussion, examination and consideration and is only done by a two-thirds majority vote. In other words, it is a very serious matter to change the constitution of any country.
Therefore, the action we are asked to take today, namely, to set up a committee to examine and report on this question is not especially contentious and I have no reason to think it will not receive general support. I would be concerned, however, if I was not thoroughly satisfied that the constitution under which we have been operating will be completely ignored.
I do not believe that all the factors involved in the making of a new constitution are recognized by many people. A major revision is far reaching in its consequences. Countries which have freely changed their constitutions provide us with examples we would do well to avoid. This is why the procedure we follow in arriving at a new constitution is of the utmost importance.
I am somewhat concerned about the point of view of the provinces. The statement was made yesterday that we cannot leave a
Canadian Constitution
matter as important as the changing of the constitution to 11 people who by accident of election happen to be prime ministers or premiers of the provinces. Because at one time I qualified under one of those categories, I am prepared to acknowledge that there is something to be said for this argument. However, I ask this question: If you do not listen to elected representatives entrusted with responsibility of office by the people of their native province-people who know them well-to whom do you listen? In my opinion, in the final analysis one must realize that provincial governments have the needs and views of their people very much at heart. At the same time, I think they are quite prepared to recognize that in matters of jurisdiction there must be a strong central government in respect of matters which pertain to national acts. I am sure that is obvious to all concerned.
It is the reconciliation of these divergent views, and embodying them in written documents, that the committee we propose to set up will have entrusted to it. I believe in the principle of responsible government. It is all right to talk about listening to the views of the average citizen, but after you get the views of the average citizen, how much nearer are you to getting unanimity of view? All you get is a variation of opinion from a lot of different people. If this were done, would we be any further ahead as a country than if we accepted the general principle that provincial governments, answerable to their people in the next election, are reasonably accurate in communicating the needs and wishes of the people regarding a common, uniform constitution?
Provincial governments have prestige to maintain. The heads of those governments are answerable for every opinion they express. I have the feeling that conferences between federal and provincial governments which are televised and exposed to the public greatly restrict expressions of honest opinion. In the machinery of conferences there must of necessity be a degree of give and take, of argument and consent, and the opinions of the people participating might sometimes be influenced by the fact that their expressions and reactions are capable of being misrepresented and misconstrued if they are exposed ruthlessly through television. I say it is ruthless because it brings out all the weaknesses.
When we attend such conferences we are all obliged to consider that we have political opponents at home. They are there, and

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
they are watching. They are watching in the wings for the slightest slip that might be considered a deviation from the general public interest. If such a conference could be held in which the only topic to be discussed was the constitution under which the country was to be governed, I wonder if it would not be possible to have representatives of political parties in all the provinces meet so the matter of constitutional change might be considered on a strictly non-partisan basis.
In this connection, surely there is one area of political activity in which we are all united with one objective and one result, that is, to improve and continue the progress of this great country called Canada. Surely that is paramount. This requires unity of action, and I see no reason why it should be lacking. I likewise see no reason why there should be any restriction of matters to be examined and reported upon by the committee. The motion says it shall be confined to subjects raised by the federal government or by other governments at past constitutional conferences. This reference should be enlarged. The committee should not be hampered, hamstrung or restricted. There should be complete flexibility and movement of action so that members of the committee may decide for themselves what they should study in light of the need to come up with a document in respect of which they can take a great deal of pride as the constitution for the next 100 years.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
At the outset of these remarks I stated that I intended to speak only in general terms concerning the motion. I wish, however, to refer to the observations made in the House last evening by my hon. friend from Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). In his reference to what constitutes the Parliament of Canada he quoted section 17 of the BNA Act, which states there shall be one Parliament for Canada consisting of the Queen, an upper house styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. I happen to be one who believes very much in recognizing as part of our formal Parliament the presence of someone who shall be entirely above any political controversy. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that I have a sentimental attachment to our Queen.
While I do not quarrel with anyone who does not possess a similar sentiment, I believe it is instinctive for all people to desire a symbol which they agree is a most desirable and precious one. I also agree with my hon. friend when he speaks about the need for

decentralization as the only apparent way of adequately protecting regions and minorities in this country. But there are, of course, very good reasons for a strong national government. I think of the question of transportation. When this country came into being in 1867, the result of a conference among the representatives of the two central provinces and those of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member to bring to his attention that his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous agreement of the House to continue his remarks beyond the allotted time. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. I shall not continue much longer. At that time a commitment was made on the question of transportation. That commitment was that two provinces in the east which made confederation possible would be protected by the building of the Intercolonial Railway which would make it possible for their producers to be placed on the threshold of the markets of central Canada. I do not propose to proceed with a discussion of this matter, especially in light of the fact that my time has expired. I submit, however, that this commitment has not been carried out, and the more transportation acts this House passes, the more Parliament seems to forget the commitment ever existed.
As one who has had some experience both in the provincial and federal fields of responsibility, I welcome this motion. Action to initiate steps such as are envisaged by this motion will not, I believe, receive any great degree of objection. I would argue that the terms of reference of the committee should be made more flexible than now is the case. The basic principle which should be kept in mind is the protection of the individual. That is really what a constitution is for-the protection of the individual. This is really the only means by which we can make sure there is a limit beyond which our rulers cannot go; I care not to which party they belong. There must be something to hold them down.
As Canadians we have a great degree of freedom. So long as we use that freedom properly and for the general good of all Canadians, we have a right to insist that it be maintained. In practice we are a very fortunate people. In a practical aspect, emphasis
January 27, 1970

Canadian Constitution
upon the abstract, the legal as well as theorizing and philosophizing will lead us nowhere.
The question of the constitution must be brought into the open, in plain simple terms, so that all will be able to see what it will mean to him or her. Let us take it away from the plodding experts and the lawyers. Let us have a new instrument which will embody all that is good in the old, which will contain amendments of improvement and additions where necessary in light of present conditions, all of which will be designed to result in improved and continued progress for Canada.


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, let me express my satisfaction that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday introduced a motion to appoint a joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to review the Canadian constitution.
I trust this motion will be passed unanimously by the House, and that it will be a preliminary step to the drafting of a brand new constitution, a truly Canadian and modern one.
The last Special Committee on the Constitution was established by the House in 1935. It is of interest to note that such prominent people as the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the Hon. Ian Mackenzie, Onesime Gagnon, and G. L. Ralston, as well as Mr. G. S. Woodsworth and Mr. Henri Bourassa were members of that Committee.
I hope each party will appoint to the Committee their most prominent members and that the Committee will produce as many good results as the one of 1935.
At the time, one of the most interesting witnesses was Dr. Maurice Ollivier, lawyer and Parliamentary adviser of the House of Commons. Dr. Ollivier who was my professor of constitutional law at the University of Ottawa, had suggested a very comprehensive amending method which might well still be applicable today. In an article published in the Canadian Journal of Economy's Political Science Mr. Eugene Forsey set forth Dr. Ollivier's recommendations as follows: [English]
He divides the BNA Act into five categories:
(1)	sections "spent" or not requiring amendment;
(2)	sections which should be alterable simply by
two-thirds vote of both Houses of the Dominion Parliament (or, on a second presentation, two-thirds of the Commons and a majority of the Senate);	(3) sections requiring in addition the
consent of one province; (4) sections requiring consent of a majority of the provinces; (5) sections
requiring consent of all provinces. The third category comprises sections 69-80; the fourth sections 8, 12, 51, 58-68, 81-92, 94-101, 118, 128, 132, 146, 147; the fifth, sections 5-7, 93, 133, 92, heads 12-14. In respect to section 92, head 13, however, Dr. Ollivier attaches the notable proviso that "in the case of social services ... for the general advantage of Canada" majority consent would be enough.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

Unfortunately, the economic recession and the war put an end to this hope for constitutional amendments. It is therefore extremely important that the parliamentary committee that we want to create today should really get down to business and do the work our predecessors tried to do 35 years ago already.
At that time it seemed important to adopt our constitution to the new circumstances. It is all the more so for us now to adopt a constitution suited to our times.
The young of today wish to change society so as to adapt it to their aspirations, to make it more genuinely Canadian, less artificial and much more in agreement with their ideal.
The centennial year of Canadian confederation was marked by numerous merry celebrations. Canadians from all over the country fraternized and lived through a common and exciting experience and were moved together by the same feelings.
It was felt then that there was a common and unmistakable wish for co-existence, but the euphoria has died out. The year 1967 has now gone by and our national pride has faded away almost simultaneously, which was hardly surprising.
On the other hand, how could a young English-Canadian who is suffering from regional disparities be proud to call himself a Canadian?
How could a young Canadian of French origin who is compelled to speak English to obtain services from his government be proud to be a Canadian?
How could a young Canadian of Polish descent who must swear allegiance to the Queen of England in the service of Canada be proud to be a Canadian?
How could a young person visiting Parliament be proud to be a Canadian when seeing the Speaker and the sergeant-at-arms of this House walking along wearing costumes and hats so obsolete and ridiculous-if I may say so-belonging to a bygone era and a foreign country?
How could a young student have pride in Canada when watching television during federal-provincial conferences and seeing

January 27. 1970
Canadian Constitution
politicians who are more interested in their own image and political advantages than in the seriousness and the urgency motivating those conferences?
I am happy to note that one of the clauses of the resolution moved yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) provides for granting the committee authorization to travel across Canada.
It is obvious that steps will have to be taken to promote in Canada a real national sense of pride. Workshops held in different cities of the country by the parliamentary committee seems to me an efficient means of bringing the population to contribute to the constitutional review.
In my opinion, the Canadian population must take part in the dialogue and to that end, it appears important to me at this stage that no government, either federal or provincial, claim that certain elements of the constitution are endowed with a sacrosanct quality which can automatically shield them from a free discussion.
The Prime Minister has already stated that the federal government is henceforth prepared to discuss any constitutional reform whatever.
I therefore think that the monarchy is one of the subjects that will have to be considered openly and without passion.
In a document published in February 1969, The Constitution and the People of Canada, the federal government explained how the aspirations of Canadians can best be expressed when establishing the objectives of the constitution, how their democratic rights can be guaranteed and how their interests as citizens of a specific country and region can be protected under the federal regime.
I readily subscribe to all the recommendations made in this document, except for the views on the monarchy. However, I agree that some proposals should be discussed long before we come to the monarchy, which will have to be examined in due time.
Finally, I sent a questionnaire to all my constituents. I am proud to say to the House that I represent a riding which reflects well our country's characteristics. I represent French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians, immigrants who are trying to understand the Canadian mentality and make a new and happy life for themselves, old citizens who are faced with insecurity and inflation, young people looking for reasons to be proud of their country and who are wondering if Canada is really their country. They

all live in relative harmony. In brief, I represent a riding where good people live, who talk of themselves as Canadians, but who would like to have reasons to be more so.
In the questionnaire, I asked my electors if they were in favor of the progressive disappearance of royal symbols. Well, 80 per cent said yes. Of all the questions I asked, this was the one on which there was the greatest unanimity; only 9 per cent were against and 11 per cent undecided.
This is an interesting sample of public opinion. Therefore, it is important to leave the door open to discussion, because the new constitution will be worthwhile only if the population wishes it to be.
That is why I advocate dialogue with the people, because I believe the committee that will be established should hear experts in political science, representatives of provincial legislatures, of intermediate bodies, of municipalities and any other person capable of making a useful contribution. With the help of all those people, a report could be prepared and presented to the House of Commons and the Senate for the approval of a new constitution. The only thing remaining to be done would be to have it accepted by the Canadian people through a national referendum.
The people are sovereign. It is useless in 1970 to apply to London, in order to amend the constitution. Let us draw up a new constitution which we will submit to the people. Let us show our national pride and settle our own affairs in Canada.
On page 408 of his book entitled "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", Mr. Maurice Ollivier wrote, and I quote:

Two classes of people have been the enemies of Canadian unity: those who have placed another country above Canada in their love, affection and admiration, ever stressing the alleged superiority of that country over our own, and secondly those nationalists with a narrow provincial concept who have constantly attacked the federal power just as if the provinces were not represented at Ottawa and were not part of the federal system but separate entities fighting a foreign government-
All we need to do is to place Canada first and consider this fair country as our home.

This is what I wanted to say at this stage. The time available to me does not allow me to specify what provisions should be included in that new constitution. I will surely have the opportunity to bring up that matter again in committee, if the resolution is carried.
January 27, 1970

It is obvious, however, that this constitution will have to ensure the necessary means in order to afford the two founding nations equal chances to develop fully and respect each other. The very survival of Canada as a nation as we know it at present is at stake; the survival and free development of French Canadians is also at stake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the debate has such serious implications for the future of our country that it must be treated with the greatest objectivity.
Reading over the speeches made so far, I have come to the conclusion that everyone is anxious to do his share in order that Canada may have a constitution that will fulfil the needs of all Canadians and of all provinces.
I congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) for his speech yesterday, and I shall continue expressing the thinking of our party through a study of another aspect of the problem.
For a layman like myself, it is perhaps daring to take part in a debate on such an important and sensitive subject. However, since my youth, I have been interested in the constitutional problems of our country and 1 have often wondered why when there has been general agreement on the terms of a contract, conflict should inevitably result when it comes to its enforcement.
The motion now under consideration reads as follows:
That a joint Committee ... be appointed to examine and report upon proposals, made public, or which are from time to time made public by the Government of Canada, on a number of subjects related to the Constitution of Canada, during the course of the comprehensive review of the Constitution of Canada, which review was agreed upon at the Constitutional Conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers and Prime Ministers of the Provinces in Febuary, 1968, and alternative proposals on the same subjects;
I had the opportunity in 1969 to attend the federal-provincial conference. I followed the proceedings with great interest and 1 concluded that the most delicate matters on which the participants disagreed most strongly had to do with finance and taxation.
It is quite obvious that we need to reform or to amend our constitution so as to meet the needs of our times. But why amend or
Canadian Constitution
rewrite our constitution, if both sides are not prepared to respect it afterwards?
I think the constitution governing us at the present time would not have been so bad after all if it had been and were still respected by the central government. In my view, the time has come to improve it considerably and even to rewrite it. Perhaps some will reply that certain provinces do not respect it to the letter either. Personally, I do not think so, because we all know that when the central government felt that the constitution had been violated by a provincial government, the federal government would soon resort to the competent tribunals to get a ruling on whether the province concerned had violated the constitution or not.
In Canada, there is perhaps a particular constitutional problem since confederation is made up of nine English-speaking provinces and of one French-speaking province. In other words, Canada has two cultures, one is English and the other French and, in my opinion, it is a happy circumstance. Since 1867, Canada has enjoyed other cultures.
For the past century, Canada has been discussing its constitution. All governments, to whatever party they belonged, one after the other established commissions to conduct studies and inquiries into the matter, and their reports were made public; however, they have not settled the problem.
The British North America Act has created a federal state and distributed powers among the central government and the provincial governments, but it hardly described the federal parliamentary or the provincial legislature machineries. At any rate, the Act specified that the British parliamentary institutions and the existing laws should be maintained. That provision, altogether too general, introduced in Canada all the British constitutional and parliamentary practices, rules and standards, and they were to be an essential part of the Canadian constitutional procedure.
The Canadian government is based on the federal system, which involves an assembly of autonomous provinces enjoying some exclusive rights, and a central government that looks after the matters of prime concern to the whole population.
Under such a system, powers are divided between the federal and provincial governments. To operate properly, it needs the cooperation of everybody and must apply the give-and-take principle. We are fortunate in

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
having inherited this form of government which is more suited to our character than an arbitrary system. The federative system does more than suit us; it is a must. Differences in race, language, religion, regional economies and social activities make it more pressing than in 1867 to distribute the administrative powers. Because of its constitutional machinery, federalism is more likely to safeguard provincial prerogatives, while enabling a common discussion on basic issues, even though such distribution of powers gives rise to endless problems.
The British North America Act united initially the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; the other provinces joined confederation later on, one by one. The purpose was to unite the country under various agreements, which brought about problems respecting the distribution of powers. The reasons why federalism must be maintained in Canada, namely the differences in race, wealth, resources and religion, are the same ones which make distribution of powers necessary.
For complete understanding of the details of the distribution of powers, we need only turn to section 91 of the British North America Act, enumerating federal powers. This section empowers Parliament to:
make Laws for the Peace, Order and good Government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the Classed of Subjects assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.
One can thus wonder whether a subject which at first sight might appear to fall within provincial jurisdiction does not come within federal authority, and vice versa. The section goes on to list the subjects exclusively assigned to parliament. The purpose of the enumeration is to ensure greater clarity and not to limit the scope of the general authority mentioned earlier. It includes classes of powers within federal jurisdiction such as the regulation of trade and commerce, defence, currency, the raising of moneys by any mode or system of taxation, postal service, navigation and shipping, and weights and measures.
Section 92 confers powers on provinces including the right to amend their constitution (excepting with regard to the appointment of the lieutenant governor), to raise direct taxes to meet their own expenses, to manage find sell Crown land, to pass legislation concerning municipal institutions, civil rights and property.
Canada and the provinces share powers in respect of agriculture and immigration, but in
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
case of conflict the federal law prevails. This article should be immediately and completely revised.
Education was considered so important that it was dealt with in a separate section. Section 93 confers on the federal parliament limited legislative powers in education matters in order to protect the rights of minorities who attend denominational or separate schools. The provinces have the exclusive power to legislate in the field of education. The federal government should make a very serious soul-searching effort in that respect.
Most of the difficulties which oppose the federal and provincial governments derive from the fact that there could not have been a provision for everything at the time of confederation and that a judicial interpretation of section 91, from 1867 to 1945, tended to increase provincial powers and decrease federal powers. Another important factor was the tremendous increase in provincial expenditures. Those difficulties also result from the fact the federal and provincial authorities must increase their taxation powers and levy new taxes in view of the people's demands for expensive welfare services such as pensions, health insurance, etc. Being limited to direct taxation, the provinces find themselves continuously fighting competition from the federal power which has taken over the taxation fields opened to it. Several of these difficulties, such as those concerning family allowances and unemployment insurance, have been settled by agreement.
Since family allowances are very closely related to the family, I personally think that they should come under provincial jurisdiction.
With regard to the limited powers and obligations of the provinces, since they are always faced with financial difficulties, I shall quote an article which appeared in the January 26 issue of La Presse. This article reads as follows, and I quote:
The President of the Teachers Association of the Gaspe Peninsula regional School Board, Mr. Gaston Dube, states in a telegram addressed to the Quebec Teachers Corporation that the union is considering the possibility of resorting to work-to-rule and even to an all-out strike, because of arrears from $300,000 to $400,000 in the payment of teachers' salaries.
It would seem needless today to attempt to prove that the fathers of confederation wanted to create a strongly centralized federal system in which a central government would enjoy limitless powers.
January 27, 1970

However, carefully are divided the powers within a federal system, difficulties inevitably crop up when an attempt is made to apply this distribution to the various and complex aspects of social life.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We have evidence that during federal-provincial conferences, the great problems which opposed the federal government to the provinces were of an economic and financial nature.
It is not only the province of Quebec that does not agree with the federal government on this issue. During those conferences, the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, was perhaps the one who complained most bitterly about the injustice suffered by the eastern provinces. He added that Canada is divided in two economic areas: a poor one and a rich one. I think he is right.
The central government taxes and overtaxes, and then it says to the provinces: if you need money, it is your turn to go and get it in the pockets of taxpayers. You must discharge your responsibilities by increasing taxes. The taxpayer has become overtaxed because of this misunderstanding between the federal powers, on one hand, and those of the provinces, on the other.
I hope that the committee that will be appointed will look fully into all the aspects of the taxation problem and that during the hearings it will hold throughout the country, there will be people and organizations able to see the problem in its true light in order to prove that above all, what divides us and prevents us from respecting our constitution, is the need for additional financial resources of the provinces to enable them to meet their commitments.
Last week I met here, in Ottawa, the Premier of Manitoba and I asked him how things were going in his province. He replied he had to cope with serious financial problems and added: I have the economic potential to do many things but I do not have the necessary funds. So I suggested he demand help from the Bank of Canada for his province, through interest-free loans. He must have thought my suggestion was worthwhile for he replied that he was considering it seriously.
It is not the province of Quebec alone that disagrees with the present constitution, as far as economic and taxation questions are concerned. Ask Mr. Robichaud, from New Bruns-
Canadian Constitution
wick, or the other provincial premiers for their opinion and you will get the same answer. But to my knowledge, there is not a single one who had enough courage, during the federal-provincial conferences, to suggest a favourable financial reform for Canada as a whole.
In my opinion, even if the proposed committee on the constitution were to make just one recommendation, asking the sovereign government of Canada to use the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector in the departments involved in capitalization, in capital expenditures, such as the Department of Public Works, for instance, it would allow the provinces a wider scope for taxation. The committee would thus prove its usefulness.
As long as the federal government and the provinces will wrangle over the right of being the first to despoil the taxpayer, this country will remain divided, whatever constitution we may have. We are more divided over this question than over the language issue. I have travelled extensively across the country and discovered that Canadians are now much more concerned about economic problems than about the question of the constitution, however important it may be.
In conclusion, I am willing to support the motion to establish a committee and I demand a fair deal for the province of Quebec. We are not begging for rights, we only want them to be acknowledged. If we do not take action while it is still time, we shall witness the disintegration of Canada.
As for me, I am a Canadian and, as such, I have a claim on the heritage of my entire country, no matter in which area I live, the language I speak or the religion I practice.
When Jacques Cartier, erected the cross at Gaspe, he brought on the American soil the symbol of Christianity. And when he hoisted the flag, it meant the beginning of a new civilization on this continent. Thus did Cartier found Canada which we have so many reasons for being proud of.
But within Canada, there are territorial subdivisions known as provinces, each of which has its own characteristics; we should take them into account in a new constitution, so that each province might be true to itself, and be strong within a strong Canada.
Even now, one can guess that the fathers of confederation recognized that diversity. Let us hope the authors of the new constitution will recognize that even more, that each one of the provinces, including Quebec, might

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
develop socially, economically and culturally, while retaining complete financial autonomy.
This is a critical time: there is unrest, unemployment, dissatisfaction, and the governments disclaim all responsibility.
Let us go back to the people to see for ourselves what is going on. Then we can think, speak and act according to the needs of the whole country. Let us go back to the fountain-head, and have the courage to make the necessary constitutional and financial reforms before it is too late.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1968, Canada opted emphatically for one nation, with each region, each province enjoying the same rights in the Canadian Confederation as every other region and province, and with no region and no province denied rights extended to the others-in short, a Canada with a full status for all and special status for none.
Since that time the executive branches of our federal and provincial governments have engaged in what appears to us on the outside to have become an increasingly frustrating and decreasingly productive dialogue as attitudes harden and the message delivered by the voters in June, 1968, becomes less and less immediate in their memories. Nowhere was that message delivered in more emphatic terms than urban Canada, and nowhere is the need for constitutional reform more evident than when we relate the existing constitution to urban Canada.
Surely, if the agricultural community was of the importance over a century ago to merit the concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments-and it unquestionably was-the draftsmen of the constitution, taking into the account the realities of Canada today, would not leave our great urban municipalities in the position they now find themselves, creatures of largely rural-ori-ented provincial governments, creatures whose resources, founded on the base of the real property tax cannot even remotely be related to their responsibilities.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If 1 am correct in inferring from this resolution a decision by the government to again take the constitutional debate to the people of Canada, I am all for it. It will take much more than the reminder of occasional elections to keep these governments and their leaders firmly on the course of constitutional

reform which is so necessary and which the people have emphatically endorsed.
An improvement I suggest is that the legislatures of our provinces be invited to have members on this joint committee, and that it be made a constitutional commission with a firm mandate to achieve the kind of results which seem as far as ever from realization through the processes being pursued from time to time before the cameras at the old Union Station.
There are certain rather tired and trite truisms which seem necessarily to come up in debates of this nature, if for no other reason than that each participant wants his own offering to be a thing of literary beauty, complete in itself and independent of other contributions to the debate. I trust that I shall be neither more nor less guilty than others who participate if I yield to this common offence and observe that since we are a nation of vast geographic dimensions and disparate social and economic situations, we are necessarily a federation. It is impossible to see Canada as a unitary state. Circumstances compel us, if we are to be a nation at all, to find the means of being a workable federation. Failing that, the long-term trend will be to fragmentation, not centralization.
The difficulty inherent in the search for this solution is compounded by the concentration of our population in rather narrow limits. With the exception of artificial considerations dictating the representation of Prince Edward Island, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, membership in this House is a pretty fair profile of the population distribution of the nation. Of every five Members of Parliament, three represent constituencies lying in a strip 100 miles deep running from Windsor to Quebec City. There are more Members of Parliament from metropolitan Montreal than from the entire province of British Columbia. There are more Members of Parliament from metropolitan Toronto than from any of the three prairie provinces. There are more from Ontario alone than from the three prairie and four Atlantic provinces together.
One of the very fundamental questions which must be asked is whether any federation so dominated by one or two of its constituent members is workable. Looking at the problem from the other end of the pipe, would anyone, considering Canada today and concluding, as he must, that it is too cumbersome an entity to govern as a unitary state, subdivide in such a manner that over 60 per cent of its political muscle, expressed by
January 27, 1970

sheer weight of numbers in this House, was concentrated in two of its ten subdivisions?
The further subdivision of Ontario and Quebec may very well be a necessary prerequisite, not only to a workable Canadian federation but to the satisfaction of the conflicting aspirations of those who live in the great cities of those provinces and those in the rural areas. The rural residents still hold the power in the provincial legislatures through inequitable distribution of seats, but this situation cannot last for ever. When it does come to an end, it may very well be found best for all that the fact of the new city state be recognized and that metropolitan Toronto and metropolitan Montreal be given provincial status in Canada rather than dominating the provinces to whose rural electorate they are presently subordinated.
Atlantic union is already a topic of conversation in the Atlantic provinces. At the University of Lethbridge, in May of this year a conference entitled "One Prairie Province? A question for Canada" will be held. I wish to read briefly from the invitation sent to participants in that conference by the university and the Lethbridge Herald:
The conference "One Prairie Province? A Question for Canada" is designed to explore the issues, debate the pros and cons and discuss the idea of uniting Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba into 'One Prairie Province".
We hope that this conference will develop a better informed public with regard to the understanding of constitutional relationships and the stresses on our present federal structure and thus strengthen our national cohesion. We feel this is the time for frank discussion and for searching for ways to improve our federal system.
To this I say, amen. A second basic question that arises from this great concentration of population in a relatively small area, about 60 per cent of Canada's people on about 4 per cent of its land mass, is whether the effective federal legislative power ought fairly and properly to be committed entirely to this chamber; whether, in a federal state with Canada's particular characteristics, the transparently fair approach of "one man; one vote" is indeed as equitable as it sounds.
That, of course, is what the Senate is supposed to be all about. With the possible exception of certain members of that august chamber, you will get little argument on the proposition that it has not worked; that it has not fulfilled the expectations of those who called for it in the Quebec resolution and created it in the British North America Act. More to the point, why has it failed to be an 21611-45
Canadian Constitution
effective entity in the bicameral legislature of Canada? Is it the manner of selection of its members? Is it the fact that once appointed they are, for all practical purposes, answerable to no one? How could it be made more effective without at the same time detracting undesirably from the rights and responsibilities of this chamber?
Another institution central to Canadian federalism is our Supreme Court. Had that court exercised a creative role, it is possible that this resolution would not be before us today. But it did not, through no fault of its own, during the first 80 years of confederation and by then, when appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were finally abolished, it was probably too late. But for the future the question remains, how can our Supreme Court be constituted so as to fulfil a creative, on-going role in the Canadian Confederation?
It is not an unusual spectacle in this chamber to witness a member opposite, trembling with poorly-simulated rage, genuine sanctimony dripping from every pore, charge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with attempting to impose a presidential system on Canada. The bait has been taken by some columnists and during the dog days in Ottawa when the House is in recess an occasional speculative article on the subject appears.
I, for one, oppose any move to eliminate the monarchy from our constitution; but there is nothing really inconsistent in having a presidential system in a monarchy. The president would merely be the head of government, popularly elected, rather than the head of state elected as a substitute for the monarch. It may very well be that for the next century of confederation, Canada can best be served by a less powerful head of government than a prime minister is under the present system. After all, a prime minister controls not only the executive but the legislature. He holds in his hands, relative to his country, far more power than does a president, who controls only the executive.
Another complementary reform which might be considered is whether the system of responsible government is really best suited to the needs of a federal state, or whether Canada might not be better served by the congressional system. While members on this side as a rule find themselves in agreement that government policies are, on balance, best not only for the nation but for the regions they represent, this is not invariably the case.

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
We have our opportunities in caucus; they are good opportunities, and frequently the fight is won there-although having fought and won the good fight, it is a matter of some regret to the victor that his efforts will forever go unnoted by his constituents as the secrecy of caucus prevails. I suspect that the overriding obligation to support the ministry, imposed on government Members of Parliament by the system of responsible government, has led the voters of the generally disaffected region I represent to send platoon upon platoon of opposition members of this House. I do not think the prairie voters have necessarily served their best interests by doing this. I do not think that the system which has impelled them to do it has necessarily served the best interests of Canada.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Other speakers in this debate have expressed concern about particular aspects of our constitution. The hon. member for Papi-neau (Mr. Ouellet) concentrated on questions affecting its amendment, the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) concentrated on the powers necessary to manage the economy of this country, and the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) dealt at some length with the subject of the monarchy.
There is much more I should like to say, but I have tried to limit my observations to a few fundamental areas wherein 1 see a possibility of basic reform in the interest of better accommodating our federal institutions to the fact of western regionalism. Again, the University of Lethbridge seminar in May will point to another way in which these regions can obtain proportionate power in the Canadian union.
Talk of separatism is not unknown in western Canada. It is increasing in frequency. Studies as to the economic feasibility of a separate western Canada are being openly conducted and discussed. Some people seem to have adopted this approach for tactical purposes on the basis of an assumption that it has been highly successful in achieving more for another region than they deem to be its fair share.
I hope I have indicated that very little of the past or of established institutions is sacred to me when it comes to seeking a workable constitution for the future. But I draw the line at separatism wherever it is proposed. It is high time the Prime Minister stood in this House and told all Canadians that the federal government is open to all

ideas concerning the way in which Canada can best continue as a nation-but that we are speaking of Canada, not some fragmentation of Canada; separatism is not an option for Canadians.
It is high time the leaders of the opposition parties endorsed this view without equivocation. The sooner we reject the options which would patently destroy Canada, the sooner we can get on with the job of choosing among the options which would preserve Canada. It may be that this rejection will require an intervention of the heart rather than of the mind, but being a Canadian is not entirely an intellectual exercise; there is something visceral about it, too. Let no Canadian be ashamed to show that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We have had a very good debate so far, Mr. Speaker, and there are many aspects which could be dealt with in speaking on this subject. One matter which has not been dealt with at any length concerns the great difficulty which Canada experiences in subscribing to international agreements, dating back to the labour conventions of the 1930s when we found we could not sign a treaty in connection with an agreement on labour legislation, and continuing until recent days at the United Nations.
I recall that when I had the honour to represent Canada at that body for a number of years, we were constantly faced with this problem when resolutions were presented having to do with education and other matters. Canada was obliged to abstain from voting. Countries with unitary government could not understand Canada's position. They could not understand why a country such as Canada, a forward-looking country, could not support resolutions concerning human rights, education and the like. It was almost impossible to explain to them why Canada and Australia, for instance, could not fix their names to these resolutions. This is something which must be dealt with when constitutional reform is carried out.
I was most interested in the speech this afternoon of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). This minister is one of the ablest debaters on the government side of the House. Today he made a very loud speech. I find that when people make loud speeches it is usually for the purpose of covering up a weak case. In this instance, if I recall correctly, he was telling us
January 27, 1970

that the government was seeking a national consensus with regard to the constitution.
I can understand his point of view. I can understand the tortoise-like pace the government has been setting in this regard. It is understandable when we realize that among the hon. gentleman's colleagues there is no consensus at all about what the constitution should contain.
I have here some reports from the press which reflect the thinking of members of the cabinet with respect to the constitution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) may close the debate, and perhaps he will take the opportunity to explain the position he took about a year ago as reported in the Toronto Telegram of March 22, 1968, when he said:
Provincial governments should be permitted the same right as private broadcasters in operating radio and television networks, Liberal leadership candidate John Turner said last night.
The new distribution of power should empower the provincial governments to establish their own radio and T.V. networks, provided all technical control and all apparatus was maintained by the federal government to prevent anarchy. This indicates that consumer affairs minister Turner supports demands by Quebec to set up its own radio and television network.
Then we have the view of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) as to what should be done in connection with the constitution. I refer to the Globe and Mail of March 27, 1968, where the following appears:
Warning that bilingualism and biculturalism are not the whole answer to Canada's unity problem, Eric Kierans yesterday staked out a constitutional position which would open the door to a special status for Quebec.
Now I come to another quotation from the Minister of Justice. This appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 2, 1968:
Among social security programs which could be transferred to the provinces were federal family allowances and old age pensions, but the unemployment insurance program should remain a mixed field of jurisdiction.
Then there is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I refer to the Toronto Star of March 22, 1968, in which the following appears:
Sharp said Canadians must be ready to accept sweeping constitutional changes to satisfy Quebec's aspirations.
I could dwell at length on this aspect; it seems to me I have even juicier quotations in front of me. I was interested in the minister's statement that the government was seeking a consensus with regard to the constitution. All 21611-451
Canadian Constitution
I can say is, they had better find a consensus among their own members before starting on anybody else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). He began his speech with a quotation-"Common status for all; special status for none". It must be difficult for the hon. member for Calgary to believe this when his seniors in the cabinet hold such a diversity of views as to the form the constitution should take. None of them appears to agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which is very odd.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration spent most of his time this afternoon making cracks at the expense of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He referred to his speech as one which would be called the "our days are numbered" speech. All I can say in this regard, Mr. Speaker, is that one might regard the minister's speech as a "head-in-sand" speech, or "pretend that the provincial opposition to the government's proposal is not there, and maybe the objections will go away". The minister took particular objection to the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that the proposals of the government were not meeting with success even though the government had a nine-point program.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we must be quite clear about. It is that despite what was said by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration this afternoon, I have not been able to find agreement on any of the major constitutional problems of this country. It is true that the question about the administration in Ottawa being bilingual was mentioned, but that is not a constitutional problem. There has been no major agreement on any of the major constitutional problems that were before the conferences already held. As far as I could find out, the only agreement has been to put a certain number of things on the agenda for further discussion; that is about all it amounts to.
We have only to look to the minister's colleagues to dispute what he said, Mr. Speaker. I refer to a prominent member of cabinet who not long ago said that the Prime Minister was not having much success with his federal-provincial conferences. If my memory serves me correctly, this matter was brought before the

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
House by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) not long ago.
Unfortunately, in this House we are all limited in time, and there are still one or two matters I should like to deal with in some detail. I should like to turn my attention briefly to the latest federal proposals made at the constitutional conference some weeks ago. I hope that my remarks will illustrate why the federal proposals, in themselves, provide a most unsatisfactory base upon which to found the discussions of the special parliamentary committee. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said this afternoon that matters of social welfare had not been dealt with. I propose to deal with them now.
First of all, the proposals make very few changes of any substance in the constitutional status quo in so far as they relate to income support and social service programs. It appears to be essentially a reply to the position of the government of Quebec, a position which is explicitly rejected. The proposal asserts that the federal government must have an equal right to make payments to individuals in income support programs and the like. I find nothing remarkable in this, in that it represents the status quo and I would think it intolerable to deny the federal government such a role. The only rationale one can find for the statement is that it is simply another rigid reply to Quebec.
We find a similar situation with respect to the proposals which relate to the control of health and social services. Here the provincial position is again affirmed while the federal right to involvement in these areas, wherever there is a national need, is maintained and justified through the spending power. This is but another example, of which there are many in this document, of the federal government seeming to propose something new but in fact merely asserting the status quo.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in the proposals which suggests that the federal government might be planning badly needed consolidation of the federal welfare program; neither is a change in the constitutional division of powers suggested. The document explicitly leaves the field, as it relates for example to the idea of a guaranteed income, to both levels of government. It says nothing about which level would have priority, or how conflicts would be resolved. That problem, however, may be an entirely theoretical one because, as I suggested, there is no indication that the federal government plans to use its present powers, or any future powers

it might acquire, to do anything about welfare.
In general, I welcome the assertion that the federal government has a wide range of power to act in order to alleviate the unhappy situation of individuals and provinces through the constitutional spending power. Since the Second World War, use of the practically unrestricted federal spending power has enabled Canadian governments to do as much as has been done to create more equal opportunities in the less favoured regions of the country. We must recognize, however, that the federal spending power has been abused at times and that extreme care must be used in the future. It may now be desirable, in fact, to spell out the provision that the federal spending power should not be used as a means of getting around any agreed constitutional division of powers.
The document tries to make a distinction between what are called income security programs, income insurance and social services. The distinction is very unclear and fuzzy. The definitions used are often circuitous. I find it difficult to say whether I agree that social services should be exclusively provincial, because it is almost impossible to tell what the federal government means by this section of the proposal. I gather it would be left entirely to the courts to decide whether a program was mainly one of income security and therefore under federal jurisdiction, or whether it was mainly one of social services and therefore under provincial jurisdiction.
There is no question that the distribution of jurisdiction relating to social services and social welfare is considered to be very important by some provinces. That being so, it is very important that we are clear on how the powers are divided, if they are to be divided. I think it most unsatisfactory to propose leaving this distinction to the courts. The problem is really one of policy, not one of law, and legal solutions such as the courts provide are of use primarily in solving legal problems. What we need in this regard is a clear distinction and definition in terms of policy.
The federal government in its document also asserts its jurisdiction to handle special cases such as involving Indians and veterans. In general, this responsibility must continue. But we must be careful that we do not get into another constitutional strait jacket. One wonders, for example, about the possibility of making Indians full provincial citizens and integrating them into the provincial political
January 27, 1970

Canadian Constitution
system. There might be similar problems with respect to the handling of immigrants.
What is most important is constitutional flexibility-a fairly clear delineation in terms of policy as to what powers should belong to whom, and who is responsible for doing what, while at the same time maintaining freedom of manoeuvre. The federal proposals do not seem to take into account the evidence that a number of provincial governments are concerned about Indians, are concerned about immigrants, and some are even concerned about veterans, strange as those ideas might appear to the federal government. Do I understand from the federal proposals that the federal government proposes to take no account whatever of these provincial interests?
The federal proposals do envision one substantial change in the present distribution of power. Unfortunately, the proposal is highly controversial and seems designed only to provoke the province of Quebec and hostility from other provinces, to no apparent good end. I refer to the proposal to change the 1951 amendment to the British North America Act, the one which made pensions a matter of joint jurisdiction and gave the provinces priority. The federal government which brought about 1951 amendment now proposes to change the priority from provincial to federal. Why, one is not told; and what would be accomplished thereby is not at all clear.
There is no point in changing this part of the British North America Act unless a change in the program itself is contemplated. There are essentially two programs, and only two: one is the Quebec Pension Plan and the other is the Canada Pension Plan. Both seem to be working very well and the provincial governments in particular are pleased with the funds which are made available to them through the Canada Pension Plan.
There would seem to be only two possible reasons for wishing such a change. The federal government should tell us now which of the two reasons it is. The first is the possibility that the federal government wishes to eliminate the Quebec Pension Plan and to integrate the people in the province of Quebec into the same kind of pension program which exists in the rest of Canada. The second possibility is that the federal government wants to change the Canada Pension Plan to a kind of gigantic money-grab. It may wish to see the funds which the provincial governments now have for their own capital
development transferred to the federal treasury, so it can squander at will as it has been so used to doing. There may be a third reason, but it is not at all clear what that might be and it is incumbent on this government to tell the country what it has in mind and why it is making this particular proposal. If I may sum up this point, the working paper is probably best interpreted as a direct rebuff to the proposals of the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There is nothing wrong with the federal government stating where it stands in relation to other proposals, but it should never do so in the deliberately provocative way that it has. Its use of the word "tentative" to describe what has been the explicit and detailed policy of the government of Quebec during the past six or seven years indicates a general attitude which I think is highly undesirable. This is simply confrontation politics and contributes in no way at all to Canadian unity. The degree of inflexibility indicated in the federal working paper on social services and income security is in no way desirable. It is a symptom, I should say, of the autocracy and rigidity which marks the policy of the present federal administration.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have been able to attend the House during most of this debate. If I may say with respect to the House, and I feel sure hon. members will generally agree, it has been a first-class debate. I have enjoyed it thoroughly. I think it has in some way highlighted for the people of Canada the importance of this exercise in constitutional review and its importance for the future of our country.
I know there have been critics of the way the constitutional review has been conducted. Criticisms have been expressed both in the country at large and, indeed, during the course of this debate. We have heard it said that the entire process of constitutional review is irrelevant to the main issues and questions that are before the country, and that the government in proceeding to a deliberate review of the constitution and the British North America Act is not dealing with what have been called the gut issues facing Canada. I think Premier Thatcher put it in the strongest possible terms when he said that the province of Saskatchewan may have had 100 problems facing the future of the people of Saskatchewan, but the constitution was the 101st. In any event, that has been said.

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
The critics have maintained that the government should be dealing with the main issues of the day and should be concentrating its attention on efforts of reform in respect of the issues of cities such as traffic, transportation, urban renewal, housing and pollution; that it should be directing its efforts toward overcoming the poisoning of our environment on land, in the waters and in the air; that it should be concentrating on developing a national resources policy and on taking an inventory of those resources and assuring the production and manufacturing of these resources in Canada under Canadian control. These critics have said we should be dealing with issues that are economic, particularly those now affecting the country

inflation, the cost of living, prices, rents and wages.
I think the first answer to all this criticism is that we categorically deny that we have not been dealing with these issues. Indeed, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said, no program of any advantage to the people of Canada has in any way been delayed or postponed by reason of this constitutional review.
I think the more fundamental answer is perhaps to recognize that there are many people in Canada, and might I say many people in this House of Commons, who fail to appreciate the relevance of the constitution, as a fundamental document under which we conduct our affairs in a federal state, to the problems of our everyday life. They fail to recognize that the British North America Act is a fundamental and primary document affecting the relationship between federal and provincial governments. By the very process of reviewing that document we are dealing with the gut issues facing Canada; we are dealing with the bread and butter issues of this nation. A federal state by its very nature involves limitation on the powers and authority of the federal government, and corresponding limitations on the authority of provincial governments. These limitations of powers are set forth primarily in articles 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. This distribution of powers was agreed to over 100 years ago.
There are those who maintain that the constitution was largely rewritten by decisions of the Privy Council, particularly under the auspices of Lord Watson and Lord Haldane over the years, and that the document as currently interpreted by the courts does not resemble what the Fathers of Confederation intended to say and have written down.

New economic realities permit many people to question the current application of that distribution of powers as set forth in the BNA Act. Regarding the concentration in urban centres, the Economic Council of Canada suggests that by 1980 over 80 per cent of us will be living in large metropolitan areas in this country. Regional disparity is growing and the gaps are growing wider. This was eloquently put by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-this has happened since the French-speaking Canadians have a new awareness of their own cultural identity particularly in Quebec.
For what it is worth, my own view is that in the past generation the federal government has failed to exercise fully its available constitutional powers, the powers available to the federal government under the present constitution of Canada. For what it is worth, I feel that the federal government over the past generation has failed to test its constitutional muscle before the courts of this country, when such testing was necessary. I believe the federal government has been constitutionally timid. Perhaps it has been traumatized by past decisions of the Privy Council.
Certainly I would think, and submit to the House and Your Honour, that we as a federal government and as a Parliament of the people of Canada, have been insufficiently resourceful in testing the trade and commerce clause, the residual clause of peace, order and good government, and in confining property and civil rights to its proper ambit. We have placed overreliance on the criminal power, particularly as it has been used to regulate economic affairs. I refer particularly to the Combines Investigation Act which is really economic regulation and control by criminal power. This involves a stiffer burden of proof than the state can discharge in many cases. This has resulted in the merger clauses becoming ineffective. It prevents the ordinary citizen from obtaining civil damages from those who monopolize and conspire to fix prices. It also prevents cease and desist orders and injunctions to prevent action in respect of which a remedy is sought.
Notwithstanding my view that we have been constitutionally timid, I think the critics fail to realize or admit that the ultimate longterm solution to the economic and environmental issues in Canada-those issues which will demand our attention in the 1970s- involve a review of the fundamental constitutional framework under which the country operates.
January 27, 1970

I suggest that the federal government ought to explore exclusive jurisdiction or at least joint jurisdiction over these areas. The point was well taken by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). The federal government should explore this jurisdiction in respect of matters or urban renewal and other urban issues, the environment, resources, development, inflation, consumer credit, and so on.
It is true that the Prime Minister and this government have recognized this. On the other hand, there may be other powers now found in article 91 that might now be more conveniently exercised and more efficiently exercised by the provinces. I think we should envisage more flexibility in joint jurisdiction and in the transferring and delegation of powers from one jurisdiction to another under proper circumstances.
The Leader of the Opposition accused the Prime Minister of playing confrontation politics with Quebec. I am not going to get involved in an argument at this stage, but I suggest to him that a federal state by its very nature involves confrontation at times between the federal and provincial jurisdictions. There is always a flowing and ebbing of power to and fro in these jurisdictions. This is particularly true between Ottawa and Quebec.

The province of Quebec objects to certain centralizing influences which can be acceptable to other provinces. Why? Because the province of Quebec is the home of a people, because the French Canadian people has its own traditions, its own language, its own law.
If I were a French Canadian, living in the province of Quebec, I would insist on two things. First, I would insist on the need for a heavy representation in the House and in the federal cabinet. I would insist also to see the French Canadians adequately represented in Ottawa, and it seems obvious to me that they are not too badly represented in this government, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: In fact, French Canadians have been appointed Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Minister of National Defence, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Secretary of State. There are also other ministers of great talent who
Canadian Constitution
represent here the French Canadian fact in North America.
Then, if I were a French Canadian living in Quebec, I would insist on the principle that Quebec must be strong, have enough resources to fulfil its responsibilities under the constitution, and enjoy enough constitutional powers to mobilize the forces of its identity, something which invariably leads to a conflict of interests between the federal and the provincial governments.
It is necessary that there be confrontation from time to time in order to clarify the terms for the Canadian public.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

I should like to say a few words about the current status of the negotiations at the federal-provincial conferences. It seems to me we have not yet had a joinder of issue. The federal positions have been set forth on a number of major items. They have been published and hon. members are aware of the publication. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to recite them. Except for the province of Quebec, the province of New Brunswick and in respect of certain issues the province of Manitoba, the provinces have been reluctant to reveal their own hands. There has been a failure to come to grips or, as lawyers would say, to join issue with the federal government so that true discussion can be possible.
It has also been suggested that negotiation in respect of a constitution under the lights of television may not be too productive because this may not be the best possible atmosphere. For my own part, I believe in an open democracy. So far as television is concerned, I believe it is inevitable that television will be brought into the proceedings of committees and into this chamber so that the ordinary person in Canada will be placed in the position of people in the galleries. If this means the rules will have to be revised to accommodate this place to the instrument of instant communication, then the rules will have to be revised. At any rate, at the federal-provincial conferences we will now have working sessions, an euphemism for closed sessions.
A new or revised constitution is not easily packaged. There is no instant solution. I say to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) that there is no reason the British North America Act cannot be the base from which we operate. There will be some hard negotiation, not only between govern-

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
ments but between regions and the people living in these regions.
The Prime Minister and this government have opened a total review of the constitution. There will be give and take concerning what we believe the people of Canada as a whole should have in terms of legislative authority, and what the people of individual regions and provinces should have. There will be hard bargaining. I want to suggest to the hon. member for York South, who made his usual able contribution to this debate, that perhaps he is using sophistry when he suggested the conferences so far have been merely exercises in auctioneering whereby the provincial and federal governments auction power at the expense of the Canadian people.
A new constitution or any amendment to a constitution implies some bargaining. We will concede to the hon. member and to the House that the negotiations cannot be solely between governments but must be between the provinces and the people of Canada who form this great country. The people of Canada must be involved. If they are to be involved, then we as a Parliament must be involved. We are the forum of the nation. We are still the theatre of this great country.

I do not intend to recapitulate all the arguments that have been advanced during the debate on the resolution before the House. No doubt, such a committee can very efficiently contribute to the examination in depth of the constitution presently in force.
However, the measure of this contribution will be, to a certain extent, determined by the way in which the committee's work will be co-ordinated with that of the federal and provincial governments. We also hope that the constitutional review will be strengthened by the combined voices of senators and members of Parliament.

For this reason, we see this committee as one having a positive and influential role if its work is to be related to the constitutional review process. The federal government and the provinces in their constitutional negotiations have, perforce, had to establish a plan, a methodology, for review. This has involved selecting certain areas for priority study, if only for the purpose of defining the issues. To the extent that there is a limitation proposed in the ambit of the study of the committee, it is the same limitation to which the federal

government and the provinces will have to submit themselves in relation to the process of total review of the constitution. The discipline of some defined approach to constitutional review is implicit by the very nature of the enterprise, and that same discipline is all that is sought to he imposed on the committee.
It may well be asked: What is this process? I believe the Prime Minister has already outlined the background of our involvement in constitutional review and how the process went from a review of individual rights and the institutions of the federal government into a review of the division of powers. But the point he made with great force was that the total review of the constitution implies an organized review, a controlled review and a controlled development of our constitution. The federal government, as I have said, has sought to move from the rights of citizens and institutions of our federation into a study of the more contentious subjects involved in the division of powers. For this reason we have been concerned with questions relating to a charter of rights and the judiciary, two matters with which I have had a particular concern as chairman at the ministerial level.
The government hoped to place to the forefront, in a constitutional review, the reassessment of the protection of the rights of individuals in our society. We hope there will be an increased recognition of what we consider to be the necessity of formal recognition of certain basic rights of Canadians. We believe this should be implicit in the constitution of Canada. In fact, it seems to me it would be really inconceivable in respect of the establishment of a new constitutional framework for Canada if the principle of freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom of speech were not enshrined as part of the constitution of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
freedom from discrimination.


John Napier Turner: If I can
summarize the reasons for the establishment of the committee, I would say first that governments cannot operate in a vacuum. They need a responsive climate of public opinion. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said rulers cannot decide the rules under which we are to be ruled. I agree. However, I think he would concede that governments have to lead and take responsibility. I believe this government has taken its responsibility and has declared itself by way of its proposi-
January 27, 1970

Canadian Constitution
tions before the country. We have put ourselves on the line. The federal government has now declared its position on a number of items. Parliament should now review, test and probe those positions. As the Prime Minister said in his opening speech in introducing the resolution, Parliament should nurture the necessary consensus for nationhood. Constitutions in the past have been written only under the fire of crisis. A sense of urgency has had to dominate the minds of men before constitutions could be written or rewritten- revolution, anarchy, secession.
Our controlled procedure of rational discussion, discussion of the issues in the widest possible national form, is the first time in history that a nation has tried to anticipate and head-off a crisis, and to dissolve it before it crystallized, by rational discussion among free men.

Perhaps I could come back to the theme so eloquently developed during the debate by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), a name which has a particular signification for all Canadians of good will. Indeed, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe who sat in the House for a long time and who for many years, headed the department I am honored of now being in charge of personified the open-mindedness that has always characterized French-speaking members and the whole French-speaking population.
This spirit springs from the desire of making our federal system work, of helping to build a strong and united Canada which, at the same time, makes room for linguistic, cultural and geographical variety. This is not to say that differences do not exist, but that we have the experience of different views, of a possible synthesis, of the acceptation of better solutions that are possible but not perfect.
We, the English-speaking Canadians have, in a certain way, lived under federalism, like the French-speaking Canadians for more than a 100 years.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. Unless he obtains the unanimous consent of the House, he cannot continue his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed!


John Napier Turner: I sincerely thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker.
Our experience is made up of pragmatism and generosity from both parts.
I am sure that the representatives of all political parties who took part in this debate are faithful to the same traditions.
But I must add that, for its part, the federal government will never give up its place as a front-line defender of National unity and efficient federalism. For that reason, we have been most diligent in the realization of our linguistic objectives as required by the Official Languages Act which, was drawn up in the light of public opinion.
In the constitutional field, we do not submit to this House any fixed and unchanging positions.
We merely suggest, a means of taking part in this review of the constitution, that is the creation of a parliamentary committee. This will allow for a greater political involvement in this process, as was pointed out by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) whose very wise words should be kept in mind by those who are interested in this question of constitutional review.
We ask the House to vote in favour of the motion. We believe that a parliamentary committee would make a great contribution to the long and detailed study which is at the very basis of any constitutional review.

Mr. Speaker, writing a new constitution or reworking the present one will demand reservoirs of good will, understanding and tolerance in Canada. This good will cannot be imposed upon the Canadian people by experts, bureaucrats or mandarins. Essentially, this process is a political one, reconciling the legitimate interests and approaches of various parts of Canada. It is a political one, but it need not be a partisan process. The issues are for the people to decide, not for experts to proclaim. This committee, if it meets the hopes of the government, and indeed the hopes of the House, will bring the constitution home to the people of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have made shorter speeches than the one I shall have to make tonight, but not many. Like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) I should like to make the comment that this has been an excellent debate during which valuable contributions have been made from all quarters of the House, and indeed I should like to add to those who were commended by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice himself with respect to the very useful contribution he made to this debate just now.

January 27, 1970
Canadian Constitution
We all agree that the task oi reviewing and rewriting our constitution is a difficult one. It seems to take a long time. There are many occasions when we feel frustrated, when there is the temptation to feel that it is hopeless. But because of the importance of a basic constitution to a country like ours, we must press forward, and I think it can be said that the Members of Parliament from all parts of Canada have made it clear during the course of this debate that that is what we shall do. I trust the result will be an excellent piece of work by this committee which will press forward the cause that is now in hand.
In the minute or two that are left there are one or two things I would like to say. In a sense, the Minister of Justice gave me a text to use for what I wanted to say when he asserted that at times the federal government has been too timid in testing its federal authority. Whether he noted it or not, I was applauding that statement and I welcome it. It does seem to me that one of the dangers, because of the time it is taking to review and rewrite our constitution, is for certain things that could now be done to be left undone or to be allowed to wait.
I was not impressed by the assertion of the Minister of Justice that nothing has been delayed because of this discussion. After all, that is an argument by assertion and the minister and I are both good at it. But the fact of the matter is that the minister was right when he said that this government has not tested the authority that it now has, and I name in particular such fields as housing, pollution and income security.
I quite disagree with the interpretation of the working paper on income security and social services that was offered tonight by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). I would say that whatever may be the outcome, there are areas of federal authority asserted in that document that no one will challenge, and the government should act on them now in terms of such programs as the guaranteed annual income and other ways of supporting the incomes of all the Canadian people.
As I said, in all these fields that I have indicated, such as housing, pollution and income security, and in the other fields that the Minister of Justice himself cited tonight, I do not think that the federal Parliament or the federal government have yet tested their authority to the extent that they might have done. I hope that concurrent with the attempt to rewrite our basic document and come up with a constitution that will stand us for many decades to come, this Parliament will insist on the government proceeding with policies and programs for which it now has authority and which this country and our people sorely need.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, pursuant to special order made by the House yesterday it is my duty to put the question to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 28, 1970