1970-01-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as announced last week the business for both today and tomorrow will be a debate on the motion to establish a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the constitution, which stands in the Prime Minister's name which is now under government notices of motions and which it is assumed will be transferred in due course to government orders today. There have been discussions among the parties as to the procedure for handling this matter and I think there might be found to be general agreement for a special order to deal with this debate.
The first characteristic of it would be that the ordinary time limits provided under Standing Order 31 would be suspended, that an initial spokesman for each of the parties would be entitled to speak for 40 minutes and that thereafter speakers would be entitled to speak for 20 minutes. Second, the debate would be a two-day debate and all questions necessary to a decision on the motion would be put immediately before the ordinary time for adjournment on the second day.
There has also been a suggestion, and unfortunately I have not had full opportunity to consult on this point, that on each of the two days private members' hour might be suspended in order to allow maximum opportunity for participation. I wonder if that might be agreeable and if that could be a special order of the House?


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject and the wish of many hon. members to participate, although the terms of reference relating to this matter are somewhat complex we feel that in the interest of the widest possible debate this is the proper course to follow and would be perfectly agreeable to it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to this procedural motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed? Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 19, the hon. member for Hamilton West directed a question to me and to the Prime Minister regarding allegations of racial discrimination in Canada. I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity of making a statement on this important matter and of expressing what I hope is the view of all hon. members of the House.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Since the incident which occurred at the Sir George Williams University computer centre in February, 1969, various statements have been made, both in Canada and in the Caribbean, by some of those accused of offences in connection with that incident and by other persons with an interest in the matter, alleging that Canada has a racist society and pursues racialist policies. As hon. members are aware, such statements are without foundation. The fact that the Canadian government does not engage in, and will not tolerate in any department or agency for which it is responsible, policies which involve discrimination on grounds of race, creed, colour or ethnic origin is well known. Furthermore, as an adherent to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, and a signatory of the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, Canada has affirmed its opposition to such discrimination. The government reiterates its fullest support of these principles and objectives.
2790

January 26, 1970
Racial Discrimination
Since the events of February, 1969, I have met on several occasions with a number of people interested in the Sir George Williams University incident. At one such meeting with a group of students and professors, I gave them the government's assurance that the events at Sir George would in no way affect Canadian government policy with regard to the admission of Caribbean students or the functioning of Canadian educational assistance programs. I have also met twice with diplomatic representatives of the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean, when I assured them that our immigration regulations and policies would not be altered as a result of these events. I also expressly made the point that the incident at Sir George Williams University should not be allowed to damage relations between Canada and their countries.
Racial discrimination is a cancerous growth which gnaws away the humanity of society and is an example of what Robert Burns called "man's inhumanity to man". Canada is not free from racial prejudice. In this, as in all countries, there are people who practise racial discrimination. Racial discrimination arises from ignorance and fear. It cannot be eradicated by Acts of Parliament or regulations, although these can and do restrain its more extreme manifestations.
The Canadian government is opposed to racism in any form and is working to create the conditions in which our society will be free of it. The government cannot carry out this task alone. It calls for the best efforts of all Canadians of good will. Parents and teachers, who form the attitudes of the young, bear a special responsibility.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak not only for members on this side of the House but all hon. members who are concerned about the problem of discrimination because of race, creed or colour when I say I am pleased that the government has stood up to be counted throughout the world for the benefit of those who have the attitude that our eyes continue to be closed to the ultimate results. This has now been discounted. Unquestionably there are many in our great country who continue to practice acceptance of a man on the basis of race, creed or colour. This must stop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We have seen the results of such an attitude in other countries which I need not mention. Those who continue to

adhere to this philosophy must realize the harm that can come to this country. We must maintain our good relations with the West Indies because there is mutual benefit from such a relationship.
I am pleased to see that the House generally has accepted the spirit of my question. I am also pleased that Canada has stood up to be counted as a country that welcomes all people, regardless of race, creed or colour, who want to come to this country in freedom and take part productively by becoming an actual and viable force in the mainstream of Canadian life.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have always supported the international conventions of the United Nations and of the International Labour Organization. Canada itself has fair employment practices legislation and the Bill of Rights on its statute books, and we support the principles enunciated in the minister's statement.
We welcome particularly the statement that despite what happened at Sir George Williams University the government has no intention of altering its policy under which Caribbean students have been admitted in large numbers to study in Canada.
Without expressing any view on the trials now in progress, or on some of the things which happened at Sir George Williams- indeed, it would be improper for me to comment on the trials at this point-I express the hope that when the trials have been completed and the students have paid the penalty, if any, meted out by the courts, the government of Canada, through the Department of Manpower and Immigration, will' avoid taking a very legalistic approach to this matter. I trust it will not arrange for the automatic deportation of these people as it has a right to do when crimes have been committed and convictions obtained.
There is one further point I should like to make, though it does not relate directly to the responsibility of the federal government. It seems to us that the decision of the university to bar from registration this year the students who have been charged, before they have been convicted or given an opportunity to defend themselves and explain what happened, is wrong. To a certain extent at least they have, in fact, been tried and found guilty by the university, and for this reason we believe the course taken is wrong.
January 26, 1970


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank sincerely the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on behalf of my colleagues, for the statement he has just made in respect of racism.
I appreciated the statement made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). May I say that I am proud of his participation in the business of the House, because, once more, I repeat, once more this proves that any person, regardless of his race or his color, can take an efficient part, not only in the business of the State, but also in the administration and the operation of a State.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the real issue is not simply a matter of race, colour or creed, but rather a problem of individuals. Since Canada throws her doors open to all sorts of individuals, the presence of a certain foreigner in Canada at this time is worrying a lot of people, especially some ministers of the province of Quebec. I rather think it is in that field that Canada should enforce strict supervision in order to prevent some trouble makers from infiltrating into our country.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I promised the hon. member for Saint-Denis last week or the week before that I would table correspondence on the subject of the proposed resettlement of certain immigrants in Alberta, and if I have leave I will table that correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions :
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
Questions
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.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Thomson (Baltleford-: Kindersley):
What is the estimated Canadian Government expenditure in assisting the US-owned oil tanker Manhattan in its navigation of the Northwest Passage?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Costs that are clearly identifiable as related to the Manhattan operation amounted to approximately $23,700. These comprise consultants fees, salaries, travelling expenses, rental of equipment and expenses concerned with press representation.
The CCGS John A. Macdonald would have been employed in Arctic waters for approximately the same time even if she had not accompanied the Manhattan and there is no realistic way of determining what extra costs were incurred in the Manhattan operation. If any, they were offset by a certain amount of fuel supplied at no cost by the Manhattan.
An increased programme of aerial observation of ice conditions was carried out over that normally undertaken. The Manhattan benefitted considerably from this but it was

January 26, 1970
Questions
also of very great value in increasing our own knowledge of Arctic ice conditions and this was largely due to the loan of specialized electronic sensing devices not possessed by the Department at no cost by the Humble Oil Company. Here too there is no way of finding a realistic apportionment of cost.


POLICY DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, CTC
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Has the Policy Development Branch of the Canadian Transport Commission been disbanded and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	"What has happened to each of the staff members of the Policy Development Branch as a result of this action, and in particular, its Director, Mr. J. A. Macaluso?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. No.
2.	N/A.


GRANTS TO INDIAN ASSOCIATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 143
Mr. Howard (Skeena):: 1.	For the fiscal year 1969-70, what is the (a) operational and (b) organizational grant being awarded to each association of Indian people, by name, in Canada?
2.	What are the anticipated grants for the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74?
3.	For the fiscal year 1969-70, what is the salary and operational expense for the new section in the Department of Indian Affairs responsible for the implementation of the government's policy for native people, under Dr. David Munro, the newly appointed assistant deputy minister?
4.	What are the anticipated salary and operational expenses for this new section for the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Per
capita operational and organizational grants to Indian organizations.
Association	Payment
National Indian
Brotherhood	$61,000
Union of New
Brunswick Indians 4,156
Lennox Island Band
(P.E.I.)	4,418
Union of Nova
Scotia Indians	4,452
Indians of Quebec
Association	25,376
River Desert Band
(Maniwaki)	926
Ontario Indians	42,981
Association	Payment
Iroquois & Allied
Indians	10,000
Manitoba Indian
Brotherhood	33,358
Federation of Saskatchewan Indians 33,852
Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs	46,046
Yukon Native
Brotherhood	2,562
Indian Brotherhood of the N.W.T.	6,082
Indian Association
of Alberta	27,322 (money	available
but refunded by Association.)
While the above funds are available, partial payments only have been made in most cases pending approval of Indian Bands to release balance to Associations.
2.	1970-71, $315,000 total, with $63,000 allocated for the National Indian Brotherhood, calculated at the rate of 25 cents per registered Indian in Canada; and the remainder payable directly to Indian bands at the rate of $1 per registered Indian band member. (The Bands will then disburse the grant funds to whichever organization they wish to support.) 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Similar grants are anticipated, subject to discussion with the Indian people, and subject to Treasury Board approval.
3.	Salary and operational expenses for seven month period $700,000.
4.	Estimated for 1970-71, salary and operational expenses $1,250,000. There have been no approved projections beyond the fiscal year 1970-71.


PROPOSED AIRPORT SITE, TORONTO
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the Department of Transport participated in any way with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners in the preparation of plans or studies for a projected airport at or near the filled-in lands on the lakefront South of East end of the City of Toronto?
2.	If so, what is the proposed site of the airport, the projected capacity and size?
3.	Have any studies been prepared by and for the Department of Transport or the Toronto Harbour Commissioners as to noise pollution that might be affected by the construction and operation of the airport?

January 26, 1970

4.	Have any studies been prepared by or for the Department of Transport or the Toronto Harbour Commissioners as to the likely traffic to and from the airport, the flow of passengers, visitors and employees that would use such an airport, and whether there would be satisfactory accessibility and parking accommodation?
5.	Have there been any correspondence or communications between the Department of Transport, and (a) The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (b) the Province of Ontario (c) the Municipality of the City of Toronto (d) the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto or each or any agency or representative of the four named authorities and, in particular, have the Councils of the Municipality of the City of Toronto and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto been consulted (all of the above) in relation to the projected airport?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The Department has received a proposal from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners that an airport be constructed in the waterfront area. This proposal is currently being evaluated.
2.	The proposed site is approximately four miles east of the existing Island Airport, on land to be reclaimed east of the eastern spit. The projected capacity would accommodate a peak hour load of approximately 40-50 aircraft movements. The size of the development would be approximately 700 acres of land.
3.	Noise studies for the proposed site are not yet completed. This site is being evaluated along with others in the Toronto area by a Project Team charged with the task of site evaluation. Noise is a major consideration in the evaluation.
4.	Traffic studies covering all aspects of this question are now in progress.
5.	There has been extensive communication with the Province through a joint committee dealing with airport site evaluation, and limited communication with the other named agencies. When all relevant data has been assembled to permit meaningful discussion and evaluation, all levels of government concerned with the waterfront location will be directly involved in the deliberations.


URBAN RENEWAL AND PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since the government announced its freeze on urban renewal and public housing projects, how many projects of each type have been approved by the federal government in each province in Canada?
2.	(a) What amount has the federal government agreed to contribute to each project (b) what is the population of each province to which grants
Questions
have been made (c) what is the percentage of the total population of Canada in each of the provinces to which grants have been made (d) what is the percentage of money approved for each province?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Three urban renewal projects have been approved by Govemor-in-Council for implementation since the announcement on August 14, 1969, curtailing urban renewal activity. However, as I indicated in my statement in the House of Commons on December 18, 1969, negotiations are underway respecting a number of other projects in eight provinces to which all three levels of government have a degree of commitment. A "freeze" was not placed on public housing projects.
2.	(a) The federal government's estimated gross contributions to these urban renewal projects are: London, Ontario, $1,879,416; Cloverdale area, District Municipality of Surrey, B.C., $334,225; Port Coquitlam, B.C., $143,873. (b) 1966 Census population figures for Ontario and British Columbia are 6,960,870 and 1,873,674, respectively, (c) The percentage of the population in Ontario to the total population of Canada is 34.8 per cent and in British Columbia, 9.4 per cent, (d) The percentage of such funds approved in Ontario is 80 per cent and in British Columbia, 20 per cent.


AIR CANADA-SALARY INCREASES
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What was the date of the last general salary and wage increase granted to all major separate categories of Air Canada personnel prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2 From April 1, 1963 to date, what have been the dates (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage Increase for all major separate categories of Air Canada personnel and what was the average percentage for each such increase?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level to all major separate categories of Air Canada personnel as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?


Gérard Loiselle: 
CNR-SALARY INCREASES
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What was the date of the last general salary and wage increase granted to operating groups and
[Mr. Loiselle.l
non operating groups of the Canadian National Railways employees prior to April 1, 1963, its effective date, and what was the percentage increase?
2.	For April 1, 1963, to date, what have been the dates (both of publication and coming into force) of any general salary and wage increase for operating groups and non operating groups of the Canadian National Railways employees and what was the average percentage increase for each such increase?
3.	What cumulative average percentage increase does the salary and wage level to operating groups and non operating groups of the Canadian National Railways employees as at present date reflect when compared to the relative salary and wage level of April 1, 1963?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
January 26, 1970

1.	Operating Employees
Locomotive Engineers Locomotive Firemen and Hostlers
Conductors, Trainmen and Yardmasters
Questions
Percentage increase phased over life
Effective date	of contract
May 1,1961	6.5
April 1, 1961	6.5 Passenger service
4.0	freight and yard service
June 1, 1961
8.0
Non operating employees
March 1, 1962
4.0
2.	Operating Employees
Date of Signing	Effective Date of Contract	Expiry Date	Total Per Cent Increases During Contract TermLocomotive Engineers March 20/64	May 1/64	April 30/67	3.5-Rd. Svce.August 22/67	May 1/67	April 30/70	12.0-	Yd. Svce. 22.0-	Rd. Svce.Locomotive Firemen and April 17/64	Hostlers May 1/64	April 30/67	28.0-Yd. Svce. 6.5-Psgr./Htl. Svce.August 2/68	May 1/67	June 30/70	4.0-Frt./Yd. Svce. 24.0-Psgr./Htl. Svce.Conductors, Trainmen and Yardmasters February 19/64 January 1/64	December 31/65	15.0-	Frt. Svce. 18.0-	Yd. Svce. 5February 21/67	January 1/66	December 31/68	24April 25/69	January 1/69	December 31/70	13.4Non-Operating Employees: July 17/64 January 1/64	December 31/65	9.5Shop Crafts- \ August 15/67 C.B.R.T. and G.W.- (	, January 1/66	December 31/68	24.0May 11/67 Resid. Non-Ops- March 14/67 1 Shop Crafts- February 26/69 1	(.January 1/69	December 31/70	13.4Resid. Non-Ops- | January 29/69 )	i	
3.
Operating Employees:
(1)	Locomotive Engineers (Road Service)
(2)	Locomotive Engineers (Yard Service)
(3)	Firemen (Psgr. and Hostling Service)
(4)	Firemen (Freight Service)
(5)	Firemen (Yard Service)
(6)	Conductors, Trainmen and Yardmasters Non-Operating Employees:
Cumulative per cent increases of wage awards since April 1, 1963, to termination of present contracts
28.2
45.5
34.5
21.4
24.6
47.6
55.5

January 26, 1970
Questions


ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. Coales: 1.	How many additional employees have been taken on strength by the Public Service Commission since the date on which the government austerity program was announced by the Prime Minister?
2.	What is the total amount of the annual salaries of the additional personnel that have been taken on strength?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Since the date on which the government austerity program was announced by the Prime Minister the Public Service Commission has taken on 95 additional continuing employees. These employees were appointed to the Language Bureau which is not restricted under the austerity program.
2.	The total amount of annual salaries for the continuing employees is $870,058.


DISPOSAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND RAILWAY PASSENGER CARS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What is the intention of the government concerning the retention or disposal of railway passenger cars of the Newfoundland Railway?
2.	If a decision has been reached for disposal, have any offers been made to purchase the cars and, if so, (a) by whom (b) at what price?


Gérard Loiselle: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Subject to the requirements of the Canadian Transport Commission Order No. R 5185, it is the intention to eventually dispose of all of this equipment.
2.	One offer received. Till any disposition is made it is felt it should be kept confidential.


CONVERSION OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT INTO CROWN CORPORATION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the present status of the studies by Kates, Peat, Marwick, and Co. on the conversion of the Post Office Department into a Crown Corporation?
2.	When did they receive their terms of reference and when is the report due?
3.	Will the report be tabled in Parliament so that Members may study the advantages and disadvantages of this new form of administration?
4.	Does the government intend to apply this formula to the management of the following govem-
IMr. Loiselle.]
ment services (a) operation of airports (b) Canada Pension Plan (c) Canadian Government elevators (d) Unemployment Insurance fund?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: 1. Completed.
2.	(a) December 6, 1968;	(b) Due on
September 15, 1969, received on November 20, 1969.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) (b) (c) This is a matter of government policy which would be announced in the usual way. (d) The Unemployment Insurance Commission is already a Crown corporation according to Section 76 and Schedule B of the Financial Administration Act.


PROPOSED CNR TRAIN SERVICE WITHDRAWALS-EMPLOYEE LAY-OFFS
Mr. Orlikow: How many employees will be laid off by the Canadian National Railway in each region if it is permitted to discontinue the train operations it has proposed to the Canadian Transportation Commission?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The filing of applications for discontinuance of uneconomic passenger train services is a procedure which the Railways must follow under provisions of the National Transportation Act of 1967 to obtain decision from the Canadian Transport Commission as to the individual services that may be terminated and those which must be continued. It is only after a decision is made by the CTC that it will be feasible to trace through the seniority rights of the employees engaged in these services and estimate the number, if any, who will suffer loss in employment. Of those affected, many will find work in their own craft (engine and train crews), some will be transferred to other employment and others will be absorbed by normal attrition.


SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISES- RECEIPT OF SHARES
Mr. Foriin: 1 Is it the policy of the government to require that all private enterprise receiving subsidies remit the equivalent in common or preferred shares and, if not, does the government intend to adopt such a policy?
2. Was such a policy applied in the case of Panarctic Oils Ltd.?


Yves Forest: I am informed
January 26, 1970

by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. (a) No, (b) No.
2. By agreement tabled in the House on December 12, 1967, the Government made a grant of $9,022,500 to Panarctic Oils Ltd. in respect of which the Government received
900.000	preferred shares of Panarctic at par value of $10 each and 225,000 common shares (without par value) valued by Panarctic at 10 cents per share. Other participants subscribed $11,027,500 in respect of the issue of
1.100.000	preferred shares and 275,000 common shares. Thus, the Government holds a 45 per cent interest in Panarctic directly proportionate to its grant.


CN FREIGHT SERVICE OPERATING COSTS
Mr. Laprise: What was the 1968 operating surplus or deficit of the Canadian National freight service on the folow-ing runs (a) Montreal-Chambord-Chicoutimi-Dol-beau and Quebec-Chicoutimi (b) Quebec-Senne-terre-Cochrane and Montreal-Harvey-Senneterre-Rouyn-Noranda (c) Parent-Senneterre (d) La Tuque-Parent?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:	Canadian National does not
analyse its freight traffic on a train run or geographic basis since such a breakdown has no managerial significance. Statistics are taken off from time to time in the case of thin traffic density branch lines which are considered to be uneconomic and the system revenues derived from traffic originating and terminating at stations on the line under study are compared with the system avoidable costs incurred in handling this traffic in accordance with Section 314B (3) of the Railway Act.
In view of the type and volume of traffic being handled on the runs in question such a detailed analysis does not appear justified at this time and to extract the data would entail considerable time and expense.


CNR TURBOTRAINS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much did the CNR turbotrains cost?
2.	Were they withdrawn from service and, if so, for what reasons and is it intended to return them to service?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises
Questions
as follows: 1. The turbotrain was constructed by United Aircraft Corporation and is owned by that Company. No capital investment in the cost thereof has been made by the Canadian National. Original estimates by United Aircraft Corporation of the cost of the five trains was $10 million.
2. The trains were withdrawn from service to permit undertaking modifications of some components which gave difficulty during operations. Some of the modifications require a considerable amount of research and engineering which is being undertaken by United Aircraft. When this work is completed and is proven to perform well under field testing, consideration will be given to returning the trains to service.


TELEGRAM AND CABLE TRANSMISSION
Mr. Orlikow: What are the results of the investigation into. CN-CP telecommunications regarding the delays, in the transmission of telegrams and cables as mentioned by the Minister of Transport in Hansard, July 16, 1969 on page 11288?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows. The delays in telegaph message handling resulted generally from the necessity of training new staff and those being absorbed into the new one-company managed message points. The problems have been overcome and the cause for complaint is felt to have been eliminated.
As to the handling of cables; in general the overseas cable operators depend on the telecommunication companies to handle distribution of their messages in Canada. Due to circumstances over which this Company has no. control many of the cables are delayed outside of Canada. However, earlier in the year some problems were encountered in the Company's computer operation which occasioned delay in transmission of cables from Toronto.
Every available resource was marshalled in order to return the standard of service to normal. Traffic studies indicate that this has been accomplished and acceptable service provided over the past several months.


NEAR COLLISIONS, AIRCRAFT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 537
Mr. Diefenbaker:: January 26. 1970
Questions
2.	Have any additional safety precautions been ordered by the Department of Transport in the last three years and. if so, what are they?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The number of "near collisions" which have been reported to the Department of Transport are as follows: 1966-39; 1967-33; 1968-47.
2. (i) Positive Control of Canadian Airspace above 23,000 feet was introduced in 1966.
(ii)	In the interest of improving flight safety in terminal areas, Extended Terminal Control Service was implemented at Toronto International Airport on 1 January, 1968.
(iii)	Positive Control Zones have been established at 35 airports across the country.
(iv)	Military Flying Areas have been designated in various locations to segregate military traffic from civil operations.
(v)	There has been an increase of approximately 20' per cent in the amount of controlled airspace in the low level structure.
(vi)	Seven short range, high definition radars have been installed at major terminals.
(vii)	Six Scan Converted Radar Displays have been installed in control towers at major terminal airports.
(viii)	Special operating procedures have been introduced to ensure separation of high performance aircraft from slower traffic.
(ix)	In the interest of safety, Ab Initio Flight Training has been banned at the Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto International Airports.
(x)	In order to reduce collision hazard, aircraft are required to operate at reduced airspeeds flying below 3,000 feet within 10 miles of the centre of a controlled airport.
(xi)	Since 1966, 13 new control towers have been opened at various airports across the country, and six mobile control towers have been supplied.
(xii)	A computer which is capable of con-fliction prediction, has been installed at Gander Area Control Centre.


INCREASES AND DECREASES IN AIR FARES
Mr. Harding: Were there any increases or decreases in air fares allowed by the federal government for passenger services to any of the airlines in Canada during 1969 and, if so (a) when were the increases or decreases granted (b) which airlines received them (c) what was the percentage (d) what was the reason given for each increase or decrease?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Gérard Loiselle: Tolls for transportation by air carriers are not subject to approval by the Government or any of its agencies. However, the Canadian Transport Commission advises that a large number of tariff changes involving increases and decreases were filed during 1969 by air carriers with the Air Transport Committee of the Commission and are available for public inspection in accordance with the rules governing the construction and filing of tariffs.


LIQUID AND GAS PIPELINE SAFETY
Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the Department of Transport the responsibility for (a) liquid pipeline safety (b) natural gas pipeline safety?
2.	What responsibility have the provincial and local governments in these fields?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the National Energy Board as follows: 1. No.
2. When a pipeline is located wholly within the boundaries of a province, the province has complete responsibility for pipeline safety.


AIR CANADA REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OR CERTAIN ROUTES
Mr. Roy (Timmins): What was the revenue and expenditure for each year 1966, 1967 and 1968 of Air Canada on air routes (a) Toronto-North Bay-Earlton-Rouyn-Val D'Or and Ottawa (b) Toronto-Sudbury-Timmins (c) Toronto-Timmins?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada's international system of allocating operating revenues and expenses does not make possible an answer in exactly the form requested. However, there is a breakdown for the Northern Ontario and Quebec service which includes all three of the routes mentioned, which can be provided:
1967
Operating
Revenues

Operating
Expenses

The above revenues reflect traffic carried over the local routes without revenue for the carriage of any of this traffic onward over other routes of the Air Canada system. The operating expenses are the result of a fully
January 26, 1970

allocated costing system (in accordance with procedures established by the Air Transport Committee) so that company overhead and indirect expenses are included as well as the local expenses directly involved.


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX RECEIPTS-PAYMENTS TO MEDICAL PLANS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1. What is the estimated amount of money that the federal government will receive from the 2%
Questions
Social Development Tax for (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970?
2. What are the estimated amounts of money paid or to be paid by the federal government to the various Provincial Medical Plans for (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. (a) Nil. The Social Development Tax was first levied in respect of 1969. (b) $501 million, (c) No estimate is available 1970.
2. Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Territories
Totals	$33.0 MM
1969-70	1970-71
$ 9.5 MM	$ 12.3 MM
-	i.8
13.7	16.9
-	10.1
-	98.5
65.0	169.3
17.8	23.2
17.7 .	20.8
21.2	37.6
36.1	48.7
-	.8
$181.0 MM	$440.0 MM


$11.3 MM 21.7
[Stage Direction]
SYDNEY-HALIFAX-MONTREAL RAILWAY	OPERATING COSTS OF CERTAIN
SERVICE	DIPLOMATIC OFFICES
Mr. Corbin: In answer to Question No. 1,353 on page 6675 of Hansard, 1st Session, 28th Parliament, to whom was Canadian National Railways referring when it refused requested information, on the basis that such information could be useful to its "competitors".


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: As a general rule information regarding specific traffic handlings or movements on a particular point to point basis can be useful to other carriers, i.e. airline, bus, truck, etc.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the total cost of operation of the diplomatic office of Canada in the Dominican Republic during the past fiscal year?
2.	What was the total cost of operation of the diplomatic office of Canada in Ecuador during the past fiscal year?
3.	What was the total cost of operation of the diplomatic office of Canada in Uruguay during the past fiscal year?
4.	What was the total cost of operation of the diplomatic office in Berlin during the past fiscal year?
5.	What was the total cost of operation of the office of the resident High Commissioner for Canada in Nicosia during the past fiscal year?

January 26, 1970
Questions
6.	What was the total cost of Canadian offices associated with the International Joint Commission in Laos and Cambodia during the past fiscal year?


Yves Forest: External	Industry, Trade
		Affairs	and Commerce
1.	Dominican		
Republic	130,470	40,5882.	Ecuador	80,503	Nil3.	Uruguay	97,549	16,4014.	Berlin	57,318	Nil5.	Nicosia,	Cyprus	197,036	Nil6.	(i) Cambodia	105,894 229,781	Nil
(ii) Laos 123,887 \
Note: Offices in Cambodia and Laos are associated with the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Indo-China.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TRAVEL BUREAU
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the Canadian Government Travel Bureau a machine which answers requests for information by people about Canada?
2.	In feeding the machine with the answers to inquiries, how many statements are available for selection?
3.	What are the first three of such statements?
4.	Have any complaints been received that the replies of the Bureau are incomprehensible or have avoided the question or have otherwise puzzled the letter recipient?
5.	Is any part of the machine programmed to answer complaints concerning previous letters it has written?
6.	Does the computer apply the signatures of human persons to its letters?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The Canadian Government Travel Bureau uses a computer system to type letters in answer to requests for travel information about Canada. Trained personnel first review all such requests, to determine whether they may be answered through the computer system, utilizing prepared letters or a selection of prepared paragraphs stored in the computer memory bank, or whether the enquiries require individually dictated replies. Of the 2.2 million travel enquiries received by the Bureau in 1969, 1.4 million were answered by letters typed by the computer system.
2. The computer has available to it a memory bank of some 60 prepared letters, (e.g. a letter exclusive to hunting in Canada, another

specific to camping) and 240 prepared paragraphs. These latter are on particular
aspects or topics related to travel in Canada, (e.g. Border Crossing into Canada, Accommodation, Hunting and Firearms) and can be used in combination as directed by travel counsellors to answer a compound enquiry.
3.	The first three of the list of 60 prepared letters concern acknowledgment of requests for specific Kits of travel literature. The first three of the range of 240 prepared paragraphs relate to the acknowledging of requests for detailed information that will assist the enquirers in completing their Canadian travel plans.
4.	Complaints have been negligible in number. It is possible that, because of a mistake in judgment, a travel counsellor could select the wrong combination of standard reply paragraphs, or the wrong letter. It is also possible that the counsellor's instructions to the computer could be incorrectly transcribed or acted on in the preparation of the punchcard which activates the computer printer.
5.	No. Any such letters of complaint are answered individually by staff.
6.	The computer printer does not apply any signatures to the letters it produces. Auxiliary printing equipment adds the signature of the Director, Canadian Government Travel Bureau, to all letters produced by the computer.


AIRCRAFT LANDING CHARGES
Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the Department of Transport increased its charges for aircraft landing at DOT airports in Canada within the last two years and, if so, when and by how much each time?
2.	What is the charge now by aircraft category and what has been the increase each time over the past two years for rated aircraft?
3.	(a) Each time these rates have been increased, what has been the drop in air traffic by aircraft category, at DOT airports-Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Calgary (b) what has been the drop in traffic in charter aircraft at the airports given above since each increase in rates?


Gérard Loiselle: 1.	No.
2.	The landing fees are based on aircraft weight, except in the case of flying training. The schedule of landing fees is attached.
3.	Since there has been no increase in landing fees within the last two years question 3 would not appear to apply.
January 26, 1970

Schedule of Landing Fees
Flying Club or Commercial Flying School: For each hour flown by the aircraft, $ .30.
Domestic Flights: 1. For each 1,000 pounds or fraction thereof of aircraft where weight is not over 45,000 pounds, $ .20. 2. For each
1.000	pounds or fraction thereof where weight is (a) over 45,000 but not over 100,000, $ .25; (b) over 100,000, $ .30. 3. Minimum fee payable regardless of weight, $1.00.
International Flights: 1. For each 1,000 pounds or fraction thereof of aircraft where weight is (a) not over 70,000, $ .25; (b) over
70.000	but not over 147,000, $ .35; (c) over
147.000,	$ .50. 2. Minimum fee payable regardless of weight, $1.00.
Trans-Oceanic Flights: 1. For each 1,000 pounds or fraction thereof of aircraft where weight is (a) not over 90,000, $1.33; (b) over
90.000	but not over 125,000, $1.40; (c) over
125.000	but not over 150,000, $1.46; (d) over
150.000,	$1.51.


AIR SERVICE, WABUSH-MONTREAL
Mr. Peddle: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport received a copy of a brief from the Labrador West Chamber of Commerce to the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission and the Chairman of the Air Transport Committee requesting that Eastern Provincial Airways be given traffic rights between Wabush and Montreal, or as an alternative, Que-becair be directed to provide daily non-stop service between Wabush and Montreal?
2.	Will this request be acceded to and when will the new service commence?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Yes.
2. The matters referred to in the Brief are under consideration by the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.


&quot;INDIAN SUMMER&quot;
Mr. Burton: 1.	How many copies of the publication "Indian Summer" were printed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	What was the total cost of preparation of this publication?
3.	What distribution is being carried out of this publication?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. 10,000 English; and 5,000 French.
2.	$7,806.00.
3.	It has been distributed to all members of Parliament and the press gallery, key per-
Orders for Returns
sonnel within the Department, a few interested people outside the Department, and to a number of federally-operated Indian schools.


AVERAGE DAILY COLLECTION OF INCOME TAXES
Mr. Mather: In I960, 1965 and 1969, what was the average gross collection of federal income taxes per working day?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Fiscal year 1959-60, $13.6 million; Fiscal year 1964-65, $19.2 million; Fiscal year 1968-69; $30.4 million.
Collection figures are maintained on a fiscal year basis. The figure given includes federal income and old age security taxes but excludes provincial income taxes collected by the federal government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many licensed civilian flyers are there in Canada?
2.	How many were licensed in each of the years 1960-1969 inclusive?
3.	Does the federal government subsidize the licensing and training of civilian flyers and, if so, to what extent and what was the cost in each of the years 1960-1969 inclusive?
4.	Is it the intention of the federal government to continue a program of flying assistance grants for civilians?
5.	Is the program open to men and women and, if so, at what age can they apply and receive federal government assistance?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MAINTENANCE OF AIRCRAFT
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What moneys have been expended in each of the fiscal years from 1963-64 on maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircraft of the Department of National Defence by private industry and, what amount is contemplated for such in the current fiscal year?
2.	How many man-years of work have been provided in each of these years or will be provided during the current fiscal year?
3.	Per year, how many man-years of work, have been or will be provided Fairey Canada Limited?
Return tabled.
January 26, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Government House Leader when I may expect an answer to my question of November 20, No. 516?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond offhand but I will be glad to check and respond on Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has not made any statement concerning his talks with the Right Hon. Mr. Wilson yesterday and today, are we to assume that there is really nothing to report, or were any conclusions reached? Specifically, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether he made any representations to Mr. Wilson concerning the position of Canadian products, including wheat, in the event that the United Kingdom should enter the European Common Market?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss many subjects, including the last one mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. We talked about Nigeria, we talked about east-west relations, we talked about disarmament, and we talked about the SALT talks. We also went into the question of Britain's entry into the Common Market, and the ministers present, particularly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, pressed several questions upon Prime Minister Wilson concerning the consequences for Canada of Britain's negotiations to enter the Common Market.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the government of Canada take any specific position with regard to Canadian trade in the event that Britain should enter the European Common Market? In other words, did the government of Canada present a specific proposition to the government of Great Britain with regard to this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Specific, Mr. Speaker, only to the extent that we pressed on the Prime Minister the importance of keeping Canada informed about the negotiations as they proceed and as they affect Canada. It was difficult to be more specific than that on specific items for the simple reason that the Prime Minister himself avowed that he did not know how the discussions would proceed. Therefore until the British government itself has had further contacts with the members of the EEC, and until it has formulated its position and stated it, it is impossible for Canada to enter upon specifics.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister not outline the specific and important areas of Canadian trade which would be very adversely affected if the Commonwealth preference was lost in the event that Britain entered the common market? Did the Prime Minister not ask for and receive assurances regarding Canadian trading arrangements with Great Britain in order that these important trading arrangements can be maintained and protected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we pressed upon the government of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister the importance of the specific aspects of trade with Canada. I repeat, we could not draw any conclusions from the Prime Minister as to these points because, as he emphasized, he himself had not actually begun negotiations yet. So far as Canadian representations are concerned, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself did emphasize aspects of Britain's entry which would be very important to us.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to send the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to Great Britain very soon to ask for these specific assurances he was not able to receive from the British Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We doubt whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could get from the rest of the British government assurances that the Prime Minister himself asked us to wait a while before receiving.


George Harris Hees: Could he not try?


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question regarding possible changes in trade if Britain should enter the Common

January 26, 1970

Market, and I address it to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he inform the House whether his department is being kept fully informed as to the position of Canadian exports if such an event should take place and I have in mind agricultural products? Is the department studying the possible effect on Canadian farm exports?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I have nothing to add to the explanation the Prime Minister has already given, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Calgary North but if the hon. member has a further supplementary question perhaps he should be allowed to ask it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give the House some assurance that his department will be very deeply involved in this matter?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Great Britain has been a traditional purchaser of Canadian western wheat and in view of the fact that in the European Common Market French wheat is subsidized and ours is not, was there any discussion of that point with Prime Minister Wilson, or is there any thought of sending trade commissioners and other departmental officials to Great Britain, as another hon. member has suggested, to discuss these problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For one thing, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is always in touch with its trading partners. For another thing, we did reiterate our desire to send representatives to have bilateral discussions which, of course, are always welcome in Britain. It would be futile, however, to attempt such discussions until the British themselves know a little bit more about what their eventual partners in the EEC will be demanding of them. As the hon. member states, the EEC has as one of its basic tenets a common agricultural policy which would be a very important aspect in regard to Canadian agriculture. As the Minister of Agriculture has just said, we are following this matter with great interest but we are not in a position to press any specific demands on Great
Inquiries of the Ministry Britain beyond the general one until the British government knows what its eventual partners may request of it.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Were the conclusions of the Barber Commission report discussed with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and, particularly, did he receive any assurance from Prime Minister Wilson that his government would take action to stop reprisals by British tractor companies against British agencies that sell tractors directly to Canadian farm organizations, especially since such sales would seem to be mutually beneficial to both countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was assured, Mr. Speaker, that this question had already been raised with the British government at the level of officials and for that reason I did not reopen it with the British Prime Minister.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in previous discussions about Britain's entry into the European Common Market the British had expressed the opinion that one of the things it would seek to retain in the bargaining was the Commonwealth preference, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the British government is still prepared to attempt to retain the Commonwealth preference as it enters into these bargaining arrangements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the previous attempt of the British government is that it gave no specific guarantee to Canada of that kind. Indeed, the Treaty of Rome precludes specific guarantees of that kind. The British Prime Minister certainly took the position that he could not promise in advance anything specific along these lines at this time any more than he could on the previous occasion.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister in relation to his conversations with the British Prime Minister. In view of the British government's specific relationship with the Nigerian government, was the Prime Minister able to suggest on behalf
January 28, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT]of the Canadian government ways in which the British government might use its influence to effect a more effective distribution of supplies in the eastern region of Nigeria, particularly the region formerly known as Biafra, and was there any suggestion by the British Prime Minister concerning the possibility of the airstrip and air transportation being used to alleviate the very serious situation there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had very extensive talks with the British Prime Minister about the Nigerian situation. As he said [DOT]during his press conference following his meetings with us, both the British and Canadian governments are willing to offer help in any way that would be useful.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether any formula was worked out which might alleviate the transport situation? Also, in respect of the invalid Biafran currency is any program being suggested with regard to exchanging Biafran currency for usable Nigerian currency in order to provide the destitute people in the region with the money to purchase the food available there?


Mitchell William Sharp: These are questions which should be directed to the Nigerian government rather than the British government. As General Gowon has made clear, it is the Nigerian government's responsibility to look after the welfare of its own people.


Mr. Speaker:: Might I suggest that we go on to another question.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the statement by the President of the Canadian Gas Association to the effect that a number of gas companies intend to make applications for increases in gas rates, is his department looking into this matter and has he ascertained whether or not there is any collusion or pricing arrangement between the gas companies? If so, what action does his department intend to take in respect of this matter?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have

not seen the statement to which the hon. member refers. I presume he must be referring to applications which might be made to the National Energy Board under the Act and on which the board would have to rule.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that these applications are not for the export of gas but concern rather consumer gas prices, which come under provincial jurisdiction, I ask is there any question of price fixing or collusion in respect of price fixing, and is the department looking at these applications which, if granted, would have an inflationary effect upon prices for natural gas?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I have said, I have not seen the statement to which the hon. member refers. I shall have a look at the statement to see whether or not my department is involved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel he should be aware of what is going on and should be looking at these matters more closely rather than pleading ignorance as an excuse?


IMMIGRATION
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has he received from the Quebec Minister of Justice a request for the deportation of Cohn-Bendit and if so, has he given it some consideration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a communication from the Minister of Justice of Quebec involving the granting of an extension to Mr. Cohn-Bendit in respect of remaining in Canada. I replied to the Minister of Justice of Quebec by telling him I would consider any evidence he might have that Mr. Cohn-Bendit was a prohibited person under the Canadian Immigration Act and any opinion he might have that his continued presence in Canada would lead to serious public disorder.


DEPORTATION OF JAMES AUTRY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
January 26, 1970

Manpower and Immigration. Can he advise whether last September officials of his department, either directly or indirectly, in writing or verbally, requested that United States officials ask for the deportation of James Autry under the Visiting Forces Act so as to avoid political controversy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is referring to a situation which, according to the way the question was asked, dates back some months.
I wonder in these circumstances whether it might not be the type of question which should be placed on the Order Paper.


Gerald William Baldwin: With respect, Your Honour, I would point out that proceedings are contemplated in this country and are in process in the United States. The answer the minister may make is of some essence and in that regard is urgent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my hon. friend I will be happy to advise him on this question later. Inasmuch as the Visiting Forces Act is under the administration of the Department of National Defence I should like to discuss the situation with my colleague.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister have this discussion and be prepared to make a statement later?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will undertake to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is making a statement on this matter, would he deal with the suggestion that when Mr. Autry applied to have his case heard by the Immigration Appeal Board his request was refused? Would the minister also ascertain why he was refused the right to have a lawyer represent him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be happy to deal with these points in my later answers.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Justice in respect of the same case. Would he look into whether Autrey's arrest and subsequent handing over to the United States military authorities under the Visiting Forces Act was illegal in light of the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in another case, and will the minister determine whether a question of reparations may be involved in this case?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: will consult with my colleague.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon member put his question, please. It seems tc me the preface is rather long.


John (Jack) McIntosh: My question is with regard to the reply by the Prime Minister of Great Britain that this matter was not currently under discussion between the two governments. Can the Prime Minister clarify the situation and say whether the subject is now to be considered closed and forgotten?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot make any comment on the specific point made by Prime Minister Wilson, if he was correctly quoted. I know, and the Minister of Agriculture has confirmed, that some of our officials have been in contact with British officials, but it is possible that the British Prime Minister was not briefed on this matter because he might have felt that, since the discussions had begun, there was no need to put the matter on the agenda as a specific item. For that reason he may not have been prepared to discuss it.
2806	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that tractor prices were not discussed by the Prime Minister and Mr. Wilson over the weekend, what action, if any, does the government intend to take with regard to the great disparity in tractor prices between Great Britain and Canada?
Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture)':
Mr. Speaker, as is pointed out in Dr. Barber's report, there are a number of recommendations. One is to have discussions not only with the U.K. government but also with officials of the U.S. government. In addition, Dr. Barber recommends that we start discussions with the farm machinery manufacturing companies. We are setting up these discussions today because the machinery companies have now had a copy of the report for a little over a week and we think that now is the appropriate time to call them in and have a discussion with them. So far as other recommendations are concerned, I am sure the hon. member will recognize that a sequence of actions is outlined in the report and that the government has proceeded on several of them.


George Robson Muir: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After these discussions have taken place, does the government intend to take action in this regard?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It would be impossible, if not improper, to predict what we would do until we have ascertained the attitude of the farm machinery companies toward the findings and recommendations contained in the report.


An hon. Member:: It is not hard to predict. [Later:]


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can tell the House when the Barber Commission will report on the cost of farm machinery repairs since charges for such services are even more exorbitant than the prices of new machines?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Dr. Barber has indicated that he will bring in his final report, which will deal with those aspects of his inquiry, some time this summer. I was trying to remember whether he said it would be in mid-summer or late summer, but I am not quite sure.

DEBATES	January 26, 1970


NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of his responsibility under the statute of 1960 known as the Canadian Bill of Rights. In view of the fact that the National Press Club has taken a stand-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry, but this is serious. In view of the fact that the National Press Club has taken a stand against the admission of women to its membership and in view of the fact that the club occupies quarters in a building owned by the government of Canada, will the Minister of Justice look into the question of what he should do about this apparent violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because a delicate issue is involved here, I would like to have an opportunity to study that proposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the minister is studying the question, will he also examine the propriety of the members of this House of Commons being made honorary members of such a club, that is, all of us but one who happens to be a woman?


INQUIRY AS TO ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wish to direct to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he indicate to the House when the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women will be tabled in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as it was last week. The Royal Commission has not taken me into its confidence with regard to the rapidity of its procedures, perhaps because the members have some cause to believe that I am not the right person to whom this can be told.


ACTION RESPECTING ILLEGAL FEED GRAIN SALES
Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: In the absence of the Minister without
January 26, 1970

Portfolio responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, could the Minister of Agriculture assure the farmers in the Peace River area of British Columbia that Canadian Wheat Board inspectors will investigate and charge firms and individuals who have sold off-board feed grain illegally?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it can be established that this has been done illegally. However, I should draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that it is not an illegal act to sell grain within a province or, indeed, to sell it to a feed mill which might then sell it to another farmer.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister discuss also the very serious question involved in the picketing now being carried on by members of a farmers' union in British Columbia to prevent farmers in the Peace River section of Alberta from hauling grain to elevators in respect of which they have lawful licences and permits?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, I will draw that to the attention of the minister who answers for the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would he also investigate the propriety of putting restrictions on the sale of feed grain within Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It has been a long and well established law in Canada that the movement of feed grain across provincial borders, grain which is not sold and bought from the Canadian Wheat Board, is an illegal act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has been asked by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board to start a thorough investigation into the bootlegging of millions of bushels of grain in western Canada as a result of the rigidity of the Wheat Board which does not allow trading between provinces even though the farmers need money?


An hon. Member:: That is the regulation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Change the regulations.


Gerald William Baldwin: Change the government.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell the House whether he was stating government policy when he said in Vancouver that he was in favour of the two-price system for industrial milk, that is $3.60 per cwt. for the industrial milk subject to the quota system and twice that amount, depending on market conditions, for surpluses?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as put is not in order. However, the hon. member may, under Standing Orders, ask the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the minister in question expresses the policy of the government.


INFORMATION
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has a member of the cabinet been appointed to direct the operations of Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Information Canada has as yet no real existence as a specific project. I explained to the House the other week that we did have officials preparing a statement on government policy and the government position, and that the cabinet had been discussing it. However, until we announce the setting up of such an agency, a minister naturally will not be appointed to operate an agency that is as yet not legally in existence.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Could the Prime Minister advise the House when he intends to make a policy statement on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be soon; that is to say, within a matter of a week or two.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could the
January 26, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry minister tell us whether he studied the proposal of a group of French-speaking immigrants to Quebec to establish a co-operative, vertically-integrated farming complex before referring the group to the Unemployment Insurance Commission or to local welfare offices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have studied the proposal. There is no policy now nor has there been a policy to undertake a mass movement from one part of Canada to another.


Mr. Bell:: Walter Gordon tried it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In this case there was no evidence forthcoming to justify such claim that 10,000 families were involved. In any event, we offered to this group all the services available to immigrants to Canada and all the services available to Canadians from the department. It was when I received a letter stating that there were certain individuals urgently in need of assistance that I recommended in order to meet the situation, if it did exist, that such people should make use of the Canada Manpower Services or the welfare services of the provinces. In all our dealings with this group we have attempted to be helpful but also realistic.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker I have a supplementary question. What steps does the minister intend to take in view of this group's charge that immigration brochures distributed by Canadian embassies and consulates contain "lying propaganda" and that this group was lured here by false promises about a golden land of opportunity?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They do not like the cold weather.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that one has to
analyse the group, Mr. Speaker, and know what numbers belong to it before one can answer the question. There is some doubt that it does represent a large number. We do attempt to give a realistic picture of what immigrants will meet in Canada, and I believe the experience of immigrants since the last war does not justify the claim made against Canada in this particular instance.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did you tell them about inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Since we will shortly be running out of time I have to seek the co-operation of hon. members regarding supplementaries.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I should like to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Inasmuch as the government has just received the report and study commissioned by it from a group of students at Toronto Glendon College about the attitude of students toward the native Indian, would the government, through the minister, be prepared to make a statement in a few days with respect to the recommendations contained in that report?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shaE discuss this matter with the minister.




Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in reference to a matter I brought to the attention of the Prime Minister on Friday. Has the minister been advised by the government of the United States that they expect to move five shiploads of nerve gas from Okinawa through the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Bangor, Washington, for shipment to Hermiston army base, and have representations been made asking that this nerve gas be detoxi-cized before being moved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had our ambassador in Washington make inquiries. I have not yet received a report but as soon as I do I shaU inform the House.


AGRICULTURE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what steps his department plans to take to dispose of the very large quantity of skim mEk powder at present on hand in Canada and which has been overhanging the Canadian milk market for a long time?
January 26, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture): pation. I think this would be an inflationary Mr. Speaker, I shall make a better suggestion move on their part as they have no way of and that is that the hon. member spend some knowing what the increase win be. Perhaps time at the meetings of the Standing Commit- they should be good Canadians and wait tee on Agriculture which has been studying before raising the rates, this question for two or three hours twice a
week for the last two weeks.	COMBINES


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I am simply asking the minister to say what the department intends to do. As he knows, at the last meeting of the Canadian milk producers he had no answer whatsoever and could tell them nothing. He said absolutely nothing.


An hon. Member:: Learn the rules.


George Harris Hees: He knows absolutely nothing.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the government to phase out the marine division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, how soon will this take place, within the next few months or over a longer period of time?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: No,
Mr. Speaker, there is no such intention but I shall try to bring forward some further information on the subject if the hon. member wishes.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his statement that there is no intention to do away with the marine division of the RCMP.


TRANSPORT
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has any information that shipping companies are increasing their rates because of the real danger of labour difficulties on the west coast when the 90-day cooling-off period will end on February 5?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are proceeding normally. I am rather surprised, however, that management would raise the rates in antici-


REPORTED COLLUSION BY BANKS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND AUTOMOBILE DEALERS AFFECTING BUYERS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether his department is investigating reports of collusion between banks, finance companies and auto dealers affecting car buyers so far as Canada is concerned?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we are always interested in such reports and if the hon. member will send us the report she is referring to I shall look into it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to inform the House if operations have resumed on the Alberta Newstart program at Lac La Biche? While the minister is on his feet, perhaps he could tell the House what the future of this experimental program is across the country?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the second part of the question should be answered by way of a statement on motions.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the reply to the first part of the question is negative.




Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs when we may expect the white paper, or a white paper, with respect to the government's foreign policy? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because the study has been going on for
January 26, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry some two years. I recognize, of course, that the government cannot determine its defence policy until it determines its foreign policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: If any.


An hon. Member:: So said a famous
Canadian.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the white paper on foreign policy is in draft form and as such has been before the cabinet. I hope it will not be long before it is published. It is our intention to publish it in the present session.


ACCEPTANCE BY VATICAN OF FEMALE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, to go back to the question of discrimination against women, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in light of the Vatican's recent refusal to accept the credentials of an official from the government of West Germany, he can inform the House if the Canadian government, during the negotiations to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican, undertook to appoint only men as high diplomatic officers?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the Vatican, in light of the ecumenical movement that is going on, will in due course accept women whom I regard, as I am sure my hon. friend does, as the equal of men in all respects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell that to the press.


ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize for not giving him notice of it. In view of the announcement by President Nixon of additional arms aid to Israel, reminding the world of the constant and dangerous escalation of the arms race in the Middle East, is the government making representations with a view to bringing about direct negotiations between the parties to the conflict in the area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Canadian government with respect to the

conflict is to support the operation of resolution 242 which we helped to draft, and until it is clear that there is no possibility of reaching agreement under the terms of that resolution we have no intention of changing our policy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliefie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Dairy Commission always announces its new policy just before April 1, which is highly inconvenient for the dairy industry, could the minister inform us whether this year he will ask the Commission to announce its policy earlier? [English']


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can announce the policy somewhat sooner. As the hon. member knows, we have invited not only the standing committee of this House but indeed the whole of the dairy industry to assist us in formulating and designing a program that will meet some of the surplus problems which have been raised during the past 12 months. It seems to me it would be a disservice to the industry if we were to announce the programs before we had received their recommendations. If their recommendations are received in time to allow us to consider them carefully so that we can announce the policy a few days before April 1, we will certainly follow that course. On the other hand, I think we shall have to wait-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Gander-Twillingate.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government plan to heed the request of Francisco Aquino, Director General of the World Food Program, that Canada's efforts under the program should be modified and that we should send different types of commodities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this information ought to be given to the House by way of a statement on motions inasmuch
January 26, 1970

as the subject matter is very general. I would think the hon. member might wish to give some thought to that.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture because the Prime Minister obviously does not know the answer. May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No matter whether the hon. member asks his question of the Prime Minister or of the minister directly concerned, I suggest that he should limit his question to inquiring whether a statement might be made.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my original question was whether the government was going to modify its effort under this program. It was a very simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case it could be placed on the Order Paper, I suggest.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Elliott 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;
Thet 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.
Canadian Constitution
He said:

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of considering the motion standing in my name on the order paper, but I think that hon. members will want to take this opportunity to discuss the whole process of constitutional review. Indeed, at the time of the last public federal-provincial conferences on the constitution, the House deemed it appropriate to discuss the process of constitutional review, and following the December conference, leaders of all parties agreed to initiate this debate on the constitution.

We are faced, in a sense, with a paradox when we face this motion. The presence of this motion on the order paper is indicative of the interest of all parties in debating the process of constitutional review in this chamber. 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. But I spoke of a paradox, because at the same time there is a feeling in certain provincial quarters, and even in the country at large as expressed by members of provincial legislatures and, indeed, perhaps by some members of this House, that there is basically nothing wrong with the present constitution, nothing at least that, would put it very high in priority on the order for action.
There is a feeling indeed in some quarters that this government is a little bit hung up on constitutional matters, that we are giving them too great a priority, that we are spending too much time on the constitution and too little on other things, and that the debate is taking too long. We have even heard in some quarters, and I am merely repeating that in this operation we have in mind only Quebec; that the rest of the country is not very interested in the process of constitutional review. I say this is a paradox, Mr. Speaker, because if we examine the origins of the constitutional debate we will see that it really began at the instigation of the provinces, indeed, of all the provinces. It would be fair to say that they started the process of constitutional debate. They are the ones who-embarked the country on this long and important process. I say this as much to their credit as to their debit because I believe that.

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
the process of constitutional review is an important process.
It is necessary, however, in order to explain this paradox, to remind ourselves once again that it began at the November 1967 conference, convened by the Prime Minister of Ontario, Mr. Robarts, and which was attended by the premiers of all provinces, barring that of British Columbia which was represented by its attorney general. The provinces at that time pressed the federal government to participate and I think members of opposition parties will recall that they, too, were pressing the government to attend the Confederation for Tomorrow Conference in Toronto. They chided us and urged us to get into the constitutional debate.
Notwithstanding that that was the position of the opposition, the federal government took the contrary view. Not only did we not participate in the 1967 conference, hut 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.
I think the change in attitude on the part of governments is easy to explain, Mr. Speaker. The provinces realized in 1967 that new power relationships were being developed between the federal government and the provinces. It is perhaps natural that they wanted to insert these power relationships into a constitution which would be redefined. Hon. members will recall that around that period the provincial responsibilities in financial terms were increasing at a very fast speed compared to those of the federal government.
Statistics show that between 1954 and 1964 federal expenditures increased 56 per cent. In that same period provincial expenditures, including municipal expenditures, increased 204 per cent. This is evidence of these new relationships that were developing, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely because of that that the federal government was preaching against haste in upsetting the constitutional relationships between the federal government and the provinces until a fair amount of preparatory work had been accomplished.
We realized that once a questioning of the consensus on which the country was built,

began, and once it was agreed upon by Canadians to reopen the fundamental law from which all authority and power flowed in this country, it would be impossible to close that issue until we had dealt with it thoroughly. This was the position taken by the government under the leadership of hon. L. B. Pearson. It certainly was the position of many members on this side of the House.
/ I, personally, went on record as saying that rof all the urgent problems facing Canada, in my view the constitution had lowest priority. In September, 1967, a couple of months before the Confederation for Tomorrow Conference, I was speaking to the Canadian Bar Association in Quebec city. I told them we should be very careful before opening the basis for all law, order and authority within the country, that we should do our homework first. I emphasized the need for preparation in order that changes in the basic and fundamental law would be orderly and progressive and not arrived at piecemeal, bit by bit. That is why I proposed on that same occasion, with the approval of the government of that day, that we begin with a discussion of a fundamental Bill of Rights in order to ascertain the values which united Canadians before going on to issues which might divide them.
This is the paradox that has to be explained, Mr. Speaker. We should not forget the urging on the part of the provinces and, I repeat, of the opposition, for the government to get on with writing a new constitution for Canada. We remember all the cliches of those days; that the constitution was 100 years old that it did not read well; that we should have a more inspiring document for our centennial, and that the previous government was lax in its desire to get on with this review. Nevertheless-and this is the paradox, Mr. Speaker-in addition to these pressures, we began to hear more and more from the provinces and other quarters that this whole constitutional thing was a hang-up of the federal government; that the present government was too concerned with these matters and should be getting on with other things. How does one explain this paradox?

Canadian Constitution
and that the solutions cannot wait until a new constitution is drafted.
This process of increasing provincial powers was foreseeable. We live in a civilization, in an industrial society, whose industrialization rate tends to increase. I feel it is true to say that Canada is perhaps one of the countries with the fastest industrialization and urbanization rate in the world. And I think that urban growth has caused a great number of problems, particularly at the municipal level. We have witnessed, for example, problems relating to welfare, slum clearance, air and water pollution in the cities, housing, urban transportation, fire and police services, water supply, telephone and communication systems, even recreational activities which have brought cities to provide more parks, more recreational centres and more libraries. These problems all emerged at the municipal level and therefore were also of provincial jurisdiction. I believe that after several years of debate on constitutional matters some provinces and municipalities realize that they really have much left to do and that all these problems must find a solution before the constitution is to be revamped. I think this is the reason why the provinces and municipalities very frequently suggest that the constitution is really of relative importance and that the federal government should not spend too much time considering it.
On the other hand, we cannot, at the federal level, take that position, because we are, by the very nature of federalism, elected to deal with national unity. Indeed, we are commissioned to consider the problems that might lead to the disruption of Canada as a whole.
It might be advisable at this time to quote a letter that Sir John A. Macdonald wrote in 1886 to the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia. This will help explain that at that time as it is today, it was normal for federal members of Parliament to concern themselves with constitutional matters more than would be the case for members of the Legislative Assemblies. Here is the letter:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

Should your ministers found their advice for an early dissolution on the ground that they desire an immediate expression of the will of the people as to their remaining in the confederation, you will, I have no doubt, feel it your duty as a Dominion Officer to decline to allow that subject to enter into consideration at all. The representatives of Nova Scotia as to all questions respecting the relations between the Dominion and the Province sit in the Dominion Parliament and are the constitutional exponents of the wishes of the people with regard to 21611-39
such relations. The Provincial members have their powers restricted to the subjects mentioned in the British North America Act and can go no further.

The quotation is to be found at page 379 of Pope's collection of the correspondence of Sir John A. Macdonald.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that quotation explains that at that time as well as today, it was natural for the federal members to have a greater interest in constitutional issues because they have as it were the prime responsibility to ensure that this country is going ahead, all the while maintaining unity in every part.
As to national unity, Mr. Speaker, it is important to mention that it is not only a problem which affects the province of Quebec, and which deals mainly with language issues. Indeed linguistic differences between the French-speaking and the English-speaking communities raise a problem insofar as national unity is concerned. The government of the right hon. Lester B. Pearson as well as ours have always squarely tackled the study of this problem. The solutions we have recommended in the field of bilingualism and the legislation of this session are recognized, I believe, as a major contribution towards maintaining national unity.
Admittedly, national unity also involves certain economic aspects: disparities between regions and between the various classes of society can contribute to destroy national unity just as much as linguistic issues can. This is why our government has taken important initiatives concerning regional economic expansion and its powers to spend, not only as regards the overall power to spend through which we transfer certain financial resources to provincial governments by way of equalization payments or otherwise, but also as regards the power to pay certain allowances directly to less fortunate people in order that the more affluent Canadians be more adequately taxed, which will contribute to maintaining a regular income for Canadians.
Another aspect of national unity has to do with the very geography of the country and the scattering of the population; today, as in the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, we have to tackle straight off the problem of communications. At that time, it had to do mostly with the railways, and then the telegraph. But we realize that today the problem of communications covers a much wider field. In fact, not only people, but messages and information have to be conveyed to their destina-

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
tion. It will be with that in mind that this session will have reviewed the policy of the government in this connection.
Finally, national unity is embodied in the federal-provincial relations I dealt with earlier and which brought this government to take on still more energetically constitutional matters. The point is not to believe that the federal-provincial meetings on the constitution alone tackle the problems of national unity. In fact, the federal government took it upon itself to call a conference next February-that is in three weeks-not on constitutional problems but on federal-provincial relations in non-constitutional fields.
Surely, these are as many facets of the more general problem of national unity. While considering them, we can see that if a country is to survive, it should solve the constantly recurring problem of national unity.

In other words, the unity of a country can only be built up on the basis of a consensus of the people, on the desire of the people to live together within the boundaries of the same country. I think modern history has shown us that there is really no other basis for national unity than this. It is impossible to hold that countries are the product of boundaries which are given by nature and which cannot be moved, and that the people living within those boundaries must forever form a country because those boundaries were destined to the people by the laws of nature and of God. We have only to look at our own boundaries, at the 49th parallel or the Alaskan panhandle, to realise that there is nothing written on the surface of the globe which says that this country was obliged to have these boundaries and that the people living within them were bound to form one nation.
I think it is true, also, to say that speaking the same language is not in itself the foundation of one nation. We know there are nations separated by artificial borders whose inhabitants speak the same language and, conversely, we know there are certain nations within whose boundaries two, three and even four languages are spoken.
It is neither geographical boundaries, nor language, nor, indeed, history which determine the existence of a nation. We are aware that nations are not eternal and that history has changed them all over the centuries. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the only basis for a nation is a consensus, a willingness of people to live together. People

choose to form a nation. There is a nation if the people want a nation to exist. In this sense, the French philosopher Renan can describe a nation as "un plebiscite du peuple de tous les jours"-a plebiscite of the people every day, not in a literal sense but in a literary sense. The people have to be willing to recognize that the nation exists in order that it might continue to exist. This means, in reality, that all major groups, all important participants in a nation, have to feel that they are better within the nation than outside it. So long as we cannot ensure the continuation of this consensus, so long as the institutions of a country and, singularly, the constitution of the country, does not correspond to a desire of the people to stay within a nation, its basis is very frail indeed. It is this principle which guided federal action and, indeed, federal strategy in its whole approach to the constitutional question.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It was our belief that the nation could only be based on such a consensus that guided us in the process of constitutional review. First, we took as a principle that there was a great deal of preparation needed before the constitutional review should be embarked upon. Indeed, as early as 1966 the federal government was setting up a special section and engaging the services of specialists in order to get on with the preparations for a constitutional review.
The second principle was that the review should not begin until there was both a recognition, and a desire on the part of enough Canadians that the review should not only begin but that the whole area of federal-provincial relations should be re-examined. This, too, explains in part the fact that the federal government made haste slowly in embarking upon the process of review. In our view it would have been a mistake to open the constitution for debate if there were not a widely shared desire on the part of the Canadian people, and of all parties in this Parliament, to embark upon such a review.
Third, it was important that the review only proceed within a country which was fairly stable, and by that I mean at a time when the federal government and the provincial governments were both strong. As far as we were concerned at the federal level, we always made it a condition that the whole of the constitution could be re-examined but that two basic principles had to be maintained.
January 26, 1970

The first was that Canada would continue as one federal country. By this we meant that the federal form of government should be preserved. The second principle was that we did not want to see the development of any constitution which would create forms of special arrangements whereby the members of Parliament from one part of the country would have, at the federal level, less power than the members of Parliament from another part of the country. This did not mean that the federal government could not in the future, as it had in the past, embark upon certain specific special arrangements with one province or another.
But any move towards the so-called special status, Mr. Speaker, a move which would have ended with the setting up of a federal form of government wherein at least one province had much stronger powers or jurisdiction than the other provinces, would inevitably have resulted in a situation where the federal members of Parliament from that province could not speak in the federal government with a voice equal to that of members from other provinces. Inevitably, that would have led to a downgrading of the federal presence from that province. Thereafter the people of that province would have been less interested in their representatives in the federal government, and in its ways and procedures, because their representatives would have less power and less significance than members from other provinces.
I repeat that that is why we always stated as a precondition that the debate on the constitution only be opened at a time when the federal government was sufficiently strong to be able to assert what was needed in order to maintain essential federal powers. But apart from these two principles-that of the maintenance of one federal country, and the other that the central essential powers be maintained-we agreed that all aspects of the constitution should be considered. Indeed, it is important that Canadians realize that we are discussing all of the aspects which are of immediate concern to them, questions which have to do with the responsibility for the cities, for pollution, for poverty, for education, and for Indians. These precise questions are part of the constitutional review upon which we have now embarked. There has always been a willingness, indeed a desire, on the part of the federal government to get into these discussions but this was contained until we had been assured that the new constitution would emanate from a stability and a 21611-395
Canadian Constitution
consensus freely arrived at rather than from violence and revolution.
The fourth principle, Mr. Speaker, is the importance of looking at all aspects of the constitution, but having respect to the two principles I just mentioned.
The fifth is the insistence on the part of the federal government-and I repeat that this is part of our approach, and no doubt one on which the opposition parties will wish to comment-that the debate begin on the values that deal with people and with subjects which unite people rather than divide them. It is this principle that explains why our agenda for the constitution began with a discussion of a fundamental Bill of Rights to be written into the constitution. We felt this was a proper vehicle for all Canadians to discuss the questions of value which unite them.
From there, the next step was to discuss the institutions of government themselves- the authorities and the legal entities set up under the constitution to look after people to preserve their rights, and to defend their rights under the law. This led us to consider the second broad aspect of the constitution.
Only following consideration of these two aspects did the provinces and the federal government feel it wise to place on the agenda the specific issue of the division of powers. We felt, and I believe it was also the feeling of the provinces, that rather than start with a debate of the division of powers between federal and provincial authorities it was important to debate first those values which united Canadians. Fundamentally we believed that Canadians were interested in being well served by all their governments, whether federal or provincial, and that only secondarily were they interested in quarrels regarding authority and influence between these levels of government.
The sixth principle is one of controlled development of the constitution, and I suppose this is a way of explaining why the whole process takes time, Mr. Speaker. There are certain circumstances where a constitution must be written fairly quickly. After a revolution, when anarchy exists, when society has no authority by which to govern itself, it is necessary to get on rather quickly with the constitution, that is to say, with the definition of the power relationships among the various authorities within the country. But we wanted to do it not after a revolution, and' indeed not after the founding of a new country. We wanted to take a country which

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
existed and which had desired to take another look at itself, a second century look at itself, and to re-examine the consensus upon which it existed. We were trying to devise a new constitution for a nation in a period of peace, without upsetting the consensus, without giving cause for violence, or for violent upsurges within the country. This, inevitably, takes a long time to complete.
If the consensus is to be continued, it is certain that all the aspects of the constitution can only be discussed and examined within a process of development which is controlled, which is not haphazard but which is well planned. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the adjustments to the new power relations, if there are to be any in Canada's new constitution, have to be gradual. If the adjustments were to be rapid, it would mean the upset of old power relationships, of institutions and of views, and this is the way of revolutions. Obviously the transfer of any influence, power or authority has to be gradual or otherwise it will not have the consent of the people who believe in the democratic way.
The seventh principle is that, while this long process was continuing, one fundamental principle had to be observed and respected: that was that during the whole process of constitutional review the constitution had to be obeyed.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If the provinces or the federal government had found themselves authorized to say that, the constitution was up for a new deal, that we were rewriting the fundamental law of Canada, that in the meantime the federal or provincial governments could usurp whatever powers they wanted because this was the way they saw the new constitution in the future, then obviously we would have had chaos. It is for this reason that the policy of the federal government was to insure, as far as it was concerned, total respect of the constitution during the process of constitutional review. We have repeated often enough that the only basis for liberty, freedom and order in our country is the constitution, and that if the constitution is not obeyed by provincial and federal governments there is no reason why citizens should have to obey federal and provincial statutes and laws. That is why, though some quarters have indicated impatience with the federal government's position, that we have always said that until the constitution is changed, and until we agree on a new constitution, this government intends to obey the present constitution.

This leads me to the eighth principle, Mr. Speaker, and this is the last one I want to mention. It is obvious that, during this long process of constitutional review, other priorities must be met. It is important that the people of Canada realize that as far as the government is concerned no program has been delayed because of the constitutional review. I am not saying that there are not some things that we, as the government, have not done because of the constitution. On the contrary, because of the constitution we have not done certain things which we felt were not within our jurisdiction, but we have not delayed any programs on the pretense that the constitution was being debated and we were not sure that we should proceed with them. There are many examples which I could give but which I must shorten. Whether programs concerned minority rights, pollution, Indians or, indeed, many others, we have always taken the position that the federal government would and should discharge its responsibility under the present constitution and would continue to do so until the constitution was changed.
Nor has the process of review precluded federal-provincial meetings on other subjects. This is why the federal government took the initiative of inviting the provinces to the forthcoming February conference where we will be discussing non-constitutional matters.
I reach the end of my intervention at this stage, Mr. Speaker. We are to vote on a motion to set up a parliamentary committee. Let me make three brief points on that motion.
We believe it is the role of the parliamentary committee to review and judge the actions of this government and the position it has taken on the constitution. I think this is a welcome development and it is all the more imperative because of the need for consensus that I was discussing earlier. It will be important for all parties in this Parliament, and indeed, for all people in Canada to review and to judge the actions of this government in the constitutional review.
Legitimacy of a constitution cannot be founded, and will not be founded on force in this country. It can only be founded on consent, and it is this consent that we think can only be the result of a widespread debate on the positions which have been developed by the federal and provincial governments. The parliamentary committee will provide a forum where the Canadian public can learn about and discuss federal proposals. As the
January 26, 1970

Canadian Constitution
terms of reference appear on the order paper, it is apparent that we are encouraging the committee to hold hearings across the country and to become a fundamental part of this process of education of Canadians. I mean by this education, not in the sense of proposing particular principles for government, but education in the sense that people will be invited to evolve for themselves their notions of the principles and consensus on which they want this country to be based.
We know that certain provinces have set up parliamentary committees of their own to examine the proposals put forward by provincial governments. We feel it is quite proper for the federal parliament to have that kind of a parliamentary committee and that kind of a forum. From what I have said, I think it follows that no one expects early results. The committee's work will, I presume, take as long as the review process itself. It is impossible that the committee will be expected, even at this session, or even within the next, to bring in a final report. I take it that the committee, and this is authorized in its terms of reference, will prefer to make periodic reports on specific aspects of the constitution that it has been examining.

Those are the few points I was anxious to make on this subject. I believe that the committee's terms of reference result from the very matters agreed upon between federal and provincial representatives for the process of reviewing the constitution. Should this recommendation be adopted by the House, as I hope it will, the committee will definitely have to assume heavy responsibilities not only toward the House, but also toward the whole country.
And all Canadians, as well as ourselves members of Parliament, will have to exercise great courage, patience, far-sightedness and dedication. We are certainly at a crucial point in the constitutional development of the country, and the eyes of the nation are upon us.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Prime Minister would permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was rising at this time to participate in the debate. The time allocated to the right hon. Prime Minister by order of the House earlier today just expired. Perhaps the
hon. member could be allowed to ask a question with the unanimous agreement of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the Prime Minister theorize and hypothesize as to what sort of forces hold a country together. I wonder whether he feels that this theory has been upheld by the recent events in Nigeria?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we just listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) discussing the problems of the constitution very earnestly apd very quietly. I do not know that I will be able to be quite as quiet as that all the time, but I want to assure the Prime Minister and members of the House that I have never believed in injecting any partisan controversy into a discussion of the constitution. On the other hand, if we are to make progress I think we have to talk to each other quite frankly on occasions such as this.
I enter this debate with quite a strong feeling that this is an occasion of some considerable historic significance. I do not know how many times in recent years or in the past the House has engaged in a full and wide-ranging debate on the constitution. Be that as it may,
I think we are holding this debate at a time when the constitutional discussions initiated by the Government of Canada, through a series of federal-provincial conferences, have bogged down. It seems to me it is not exaggerating at all to say that the successful development of constitutional discussion in this country will depend in a very real way upon the workings of the committee of the House we are about to establish.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Federal-provincial meetings have demonstrated practically no progress. If progress is to be made, it must be made by or at least with the assistance of this committee. I believe we have gone much too far in the direction of turning our constitutional discussions into something so complicated, and perhaps so colourless and lacking in immediate relevance to our people, that even the most important constitutional questions excite very little or no public interest except when they stir some emotions. Of course, when emotions are stirred this does not make it any easier to reach a new consensus. During the past number of years there have been many feder-

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
al-provincial conferences dealing with attempts, some of them successful, to make fundamental changes in the structures and ways by which we govern ourselves. But these federal-provincial conferences have been carried out by heads of government, both provincial and federal, or by persons delegated by the heads of these governments.
Never have Canadians as a whole or as groups been involved in this process; nor have the representatives the people of Canada have elected, either in Parliament, the legislatures or in the local councils, been involved in any meaningful way. So, I hope this committee will give a voice to the views and the actions of the Canadian people. I hope the committee itself will provide opportunities to Canadians everywhere to make their views heard and have them considered and publicized rather than filed away and forgotten.
Today marks the beginning of a change in our approach to constitutional reform in this country. The Prime Minister almost suggested that we entered this process, if not by accident, at least without fully intending to do so. Certainly, the constitution is too important to be left to lawyers, prime ministers and provincial premiers. The change I suppose is not very startling in terms of the experience in other countries. It simply lacks the involvement of the Canadian people to a considerable degree in the constitution and rephasing of our constitutional procedures.
Why should the constitution be significant to the average Canadian? After all, he probably cannot tell one very much about it. So, why not leave it to the constitutional lawyers, the premiers, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who sometimes professes to know what is best for us. Political authority in a modern state must include more than providing the possibility of using our collective strength to clean up our environment or improve our standard of living or health, important as these matters are. Surely, the political process is the means by which we make the hardest choices we have to make collectively. Quite simply political authority is a life and death affair and our constitutional process is the one workable way we in this country have developed to make sure this life and death authority is organized on terms favourable rather than unfavourable to the Canadian people. This is the reason the constitutional proposals made by the government of Canada cannot and should not be decided upon simply on the basis of government.

Our ministers must not alone decide everything about the way in which we are to be ruled. In any event, it is painfully evident to all of us that the present method of approach outlined by the Prime Minister, that of federal-provincial conferences-federal-provincial conference after federal-provincial conference-is not working. Bringing the public into the discussions through a parliamentary committee might just break this log jam. For some years our party has been pressing for the establishment of such a parliamentary committee on revision of the constitution. It has always seemed to us absurd that serious discussion of constitutional revision should be taking place almost everywhere-not primarily everywhere but any place-other than in this House of Commons and in Parliament. This after all, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, is the only institution which is entitled to speak for all Canadians.
Various provincial legislatures have had either parliamentary committees or citizens committees studying and reporting on constitutional matters. There was a Confederation of Tomorrow conference in 1967, a series of federal-provincial conferences beginning in 1968, the Etats Generaux of Quebec and a great many other privately sponsored conferences and studies of constitutional ideas. But the federal Parliament surely has been left out of this process. Last year the Prime Minister refused to co-operate in the establishment of a committee such as this. I regret this, but am delighted he has changed his mind in the meantime. Obviously, we welcome and will support the motion to set up the committee. It is sad indeed that the committee was not set up long ago, but this can be said: The need for the committee obviously is greater now than the need has been in the past. We have always seen this role as being not just one of study and discussion of various constitutional ideas. It has been our thought and hope all along that the parliamentary committee and, through the committee, Parliament itself might be used as a means of reconciliation and a means of arriving at a national consensus.
I was very interested that the Prime Minister took the time he did to develop the thought that the consensus must lie at the very basis of nationhood. I believe this is so. There is not a consensus in this country today with regard to the constitution. I think we must face this. It has been our hope that a parliamentary committee of this sort, made up of elected representatives representing the
January 26, 1970

various parts of the country and the various ways of life in this country, could help the Canadian people achieve a consensus with regard to the constitution. Let us see if the people's elected representatives, consulting each other, consulting other members of the House and listening to and drawing in the people themselves, can begin the task of overcoming the differences and divisions from which obviously the government of Canada and the provincial governments have suffered in the discussions which have taken place at the federal-provincial conferences. I think this can be a useful way to build an understanding about the basic issues which will knit Canadians together and not divide them.
This means the committee must hear groups and individuals from all across the country. The committee evidently has this power. The results of public hearings and consultations with the people sometimes are somewhat painful and a little surprising, but whether this be so or not these public hearings and consultations are necessary to the process of building a real understanding of the problems. There is one important group of elected people who, besides members of the House of Commons, have been almost entirely left out of constitutional discussions during the past number of years. One very serious result has been that the federal and provincial governments together have not been nearly as diligent about confronting some of our most serious problems as they should have been. I am referring to the absence of municipal representatives from these discussions.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am not arguing that they should necessarily have the authority to attend federal-provincial conferences ex officio, but we have suffered from the fact that they have not really been able to take part in the discussions at any level. It is my hope, and the hope of those who sit with me in this House, that the parliamentary committee will provide for the representatives of our cities, towns and counties precisely that forum and that public platform which has been denied to them through the past quarter century with regard to this matter. Indeed, I would go somewhat further and suggest that if the committee is to have some resource people to help it, it should consider consulting the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities in the course of selecting some of its personnel, because I think it is only in this way that our
Canadian Constitution
members of Parliament can be assured that the interests of both the great metropolitan centres and the bustling frontier communities are properly taken into account.
All this will not be possible if the government adopts toward this committee a narrow, partisan approach. Individual members of the committee ought to have the maximum freedom to consider and discuss ideas, to present their own ideas and to convince each other of the merit of these ideas. Let us keep the whips away and, if I may say so without offence, let us all agree that this is no place for the sometimes hamhanded interference of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald).
I think the committee should be representative in every sense of the regions and the people of the country. There should be a co-chairman representing the official languages, and I think consideration should be given to one of the co-chairmen being a member of one of the opposition parties.
The terms of reference and their interpretation must not be restrictive. The wording of this resolution is a little curious, but I think that is mainly because of its parentage rather than for any other reason. It is a vast improvement over the first draft that I saw on Friday which seemed to have the effect of confining the committee to the consideration of matters that have already been proclaimed by the federal government. This would have had the effect of preventing this committee from considering on its own the proper way to approach constitutional matters. It would seem to confine the committee to staying in locked-step with discussions at federal-provincial conferences. As I see it, this defect has been removed, and the resolution that is now before us would permit the committee to consider all matters which the federal and provincial governments agreed to discuss as constitutional matters back in 1968, which, I believe, includes just about anything that one is likely to want to discuss.
It is certain that this committee must consider its method of approach to constitutional matters. It may very well decide that the method chosen by the Prime Minister and the government, and outlined by the Prime Minister this afternoon, is not working and that another method of approach, perhaps one quite substantially different, might well produce results.
The Prime Minister has said that the role of the committee is to review and judge the job which, in effect, the government of

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
Canada has been doing with regard to constitutional review. I would put it differently. I think the job of this committee is to review what has happened in connection with constitutional review, but also to decide what is the best method of proceeding with constitutional review and what method is most likely to produce the results that we want in this country.
If there is any doubt about the interpretation of the motion or about the ability, capacity or authority of this committee, then I would certainly want it corrected because it must be admitted that the approach taken by the federal government and imposed on federal-provincial conferences has so far been a failure. If there has been any progress, it is hardly measurable. The Prime Minister referred to this when he said that discussions had commenced with an outline of the program concerning human rights. As the Prime Minister has reminded us, the government put this forward as a measure for uniting rather than dividing Canadians. Yet, last December the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) had to report to the federal-provincial conference that there was no progress, or, to put it more accurately, he had no progress to report after almost two years of discussion.
In the spring of 1968, the federal government brought down, practically on tablets of stone, its white paper on international relations. I felt that that white paper was somewhat over-simplified and ignored some of our history, but certainly on the basis of that, no progress at all has been made toward the solution of one of our long standing constitutional problems. I refer to the question of how it would be possible for us in this country to sign treaties which involve, in whole or in part, implementation by provincial legislatures. There has been no progress in this regard. The whole matter seems to have become a contest between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec. This does not seem to have been resolved, either. Certainly, there has been no progress in filling in some of the great gaps in our constitution regarding matters of great importance such as, for example, the right to sign treaties involving implementation by provincial legislatures.
The white paper seems to be rather useless with regard to any of the policies of the federal government, which so far it has been unable to enforce. Indeed, I am a little puzzled about this whole thing because on reading some of the Prime Minister's earlier works I

noticed that he quoted with approval F. A. Angers. This is what he wrote:
I cannot express it more concisely than F. A. Angers who said: "In general, the Canadian state is not the central government, but the central and the provincial governments taken together... In matters of education the Canadian state is the provincial state, and none other."
I am puzzled as to the bearing of that statement on, for example, the authority in this country to sign treaties involving areas that call for implementation by provincial legislatures.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you disagree with the quotation?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, I just said I am puzzled.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member obviously quotes me as though he did not approve of what I said. Does he disagree with the quotation?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not necessarily disagree with it. It may be right with regard to domestic matters, but I am puzzled at the deduction which the right hon. Prime Minister would draw from this quotation with regard to external relations and, for example, treaties relating to this. This is what puzzles me in the light of the government's white paper on this matter.
The failure of the constitutional conference was summed up rather succinctly by Professor Denis Smith in the Toronto Star last Friday, January 23 as follows:
And so, as the meetings go on, the country is faced with one failed federal proposition after another: the reconstitution of the Senate and Supreme Court; the entrenchment of a bill of lights; the proposal for maintaining the federal role in social services such as it is, against the intransigency of Quebec; the claim for federal "paramountcy" in the field of pensions. The Prime Minister's claim that this is progress cannot be taken at face value; one can reasonably argue that Mr. Trudeau's constitutional program has collapsed in shambles.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
That is why I think the work of this committee is going to be particularly important. I have taken the position all along that the responsible course for the loyal opposition to take in matters of constitutional review is to give the Prime Minister and the government of Canada time and full opportunity to proceed as they think best. I think members of the House will agree that we have done nothing to interfere or deepen in any way the difficulties of the government with regard to constitutional review.
January 26. 1970

In our desire to give them plenty of time and opportunity to put their approach to the test, we have taken a non-partisan approach. This is not because I regard myself as a knight in shining armour riding a white horse, but because I recognize the great difficulty of achieving a consensus in this country with regard to a revised or a new constitution. I recognize also that such an achievement will require the co-operation and best efforts of us all. This has been our attitude. Our attitude is also that should the Prime Minister and his government be able to achieve agreement with the provinces and arrive at a new or revised constitution satisfactory to Canadians generally by following their own approach and on their own terms, well and good. We would support this, but so far it is clear that the government has not been able to achieve it. 1 say this in an objective way: so far there is nothing but failure to show for the methods followed. Parliament and the country have to be concerned about the implications of this failure and about the consequences of continued failure and deadlock.
As to the implications of failure, I am much more concerned than the Prime Minister seems to be. In fact, I am not sure what the Prime Minister considers to be the implications of failure because he has contradicted himself a little on this subject several times. In the House on February 14 last, speaking of urban renewal, housing and urban transport, he said:
Until the constitution is brought into the twentieth century in some of these respects, governments are to a large degree powerless to solve the problems either by acting alone or in co-operation with other levels of government.
In other words, we need a revised constitution before we can tackle some of these important problems confronting the country. Two months later, on April 24 last, the Prime Minister said in an interview that:
-Most of the fundamental issues in this country could be settled under the present constitution through co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.
That statement of course was made when the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) resigned as Minister of Transport, and was made in reply to an accusation by the former minister that he resigned because we did not then have an adequate housing policy in Canada. So, the Prime Minister's theory of confederation does not allow the federal gov-
Canadian Constitution
ernment to deal effectively with the modern problems facing this country. This, Mr. Speaker, was a dispute within the government. This was certainly the basis of the resignation of the former Minister of Transport and it seems to be the basis of the grievances of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens).
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I do not consider the Prime Minister reluctant to assert federal authority in constitutional discussions with the provinces in certain areas. It seems to me the question is, rather, which areas has the Prime Minister chosen for an assertion of federal authority? This government has been quite aggressive in constitutional discussions in certain areas vis-a-vis the provinces, notably in the field of welfare as the most recent example. Certainly, this government has pushed to increase the constitutional authority of the federal government with regard to pensions. It may very well be, and I suggest it is, that because of the aggressive position of the federal government in these areas it is neither exercising nor seeking adequate authority in other areas where federal leadership is generally considered to be required today. Insofar as the subjects mentioned by the Prime Minister himself are concerned, pollution and urban problems for example, presumably he does not wish to be regarded as a thorough-going centralizer.
I want to emphasize that I believe the federal government has the necessary authority, in co-operation with the provinces, to tackle problems such as pollution and urban problems. But perhaps the Prime Minister believes that there is no such authority. We have not seen any indication in constitutional discussions of a desire on his part to seek an enlargement of the federal role.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Canada water act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think that is a constitutional matter, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite as confused as all that. I think we should ask some questions, and I think the committee should ask itself some questions.
Why is it more important for the federal government to increase its constitutional authority in the area of welfare rather than to increase its constitutional authority in a way that could help to cope with the pollution problem in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not discussed that yet.
2822

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right, they have not discussed that yet; they are bogged down.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Welfare, for instance?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, welfare. Is the Prime Minister particularly aggressive in the field of welfare, I ask, because the province of Quebec attaches more importance to exercising authority in the field of welfare itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are you suggesting that we should not have tackled welfare?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, but this is where the question of urgency arises. Why use welfare to seek an increase in federal authority rather than pollution? Is this the subconscious manifestation of the policy of confrontation? The Prime Minister has indicated that he welcomes the confrontation apparently developing in provincial politics in Quebec. Is the government of Canada consciously or subconsciously seeking a confrontation by following these methods?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member
believe that welfare is less important than pollution?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with this as I go along.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Go ahead.


An hon. Member:: Stop laughing John Turner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not know why my hon. friend should get so upset. I am putting forward quietly my presentation of a point of view. The only reason I can understand for the Prime Minister and the gentlemen alongside and behind him becoming so agitated about it is that they think there might be something to it, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly the federal government is engaged in a protracted struggle to preserve-not only preserve, but to increase-the federal authority in some fields. To date, however, it has been negligent in other areas where difficulties are arising as a result of technology and modern developments. The government has been neglecting areas where most Canadians would argue jurisdiction is pretty important, both as to the exercise of jurisdiction and as a clarification of any doubt existing as to the ability of the federal government to exercise that jurisdiction.
My point is that I would like the committee to consider the practicability and the possibility of some adjustment in the direction of

federal thrust. I should like the committee to consider whether it is possible that the federal thrust for additional authority might be changed, and whether this might not lead to the prospect of a genuine reconciliation, as well as to the prospect of the federal government having the authority it needs to deal with national problems. It is not a question of reducing the ability of Parliament or the federal government to serve Canada. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that the committee may well consider methods which would show how the usefulness of the federal Parliament and the ability of the government to serve the Canadian people would be increased. This is something the committee should be prepared to consider.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is said by some that the Prime Minister and members of the federal government are going through the exercise of constitutional review merely to prove how impossible it all is. I have to say, after having listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon that it seemed to me as if his heart was not in it. He seemed to feel that it was unfortunate somebody else had started the process because, certainly, the Prime Minister's heart was not in it.


J. Michael Forrestall: His heart cannot be in it because some allege he has no heart.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder whether the Prime Minister intends to show us that, since the federal government and the provinces have failed to agree, the provincial premiers can go back to their offices reconciled to the workings of the present constitution. Would it really be as easy as all that, Mr. Speaker? Could we really say, as the Prime Minister has suggested,-forgetting for a moment what has just happened-that we cannot drop this matter until we have fully explored it but, once we have fully explored it and shown that we cannot reach agreement, we should forget about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When did I say that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was the suggestion. The Prime Minister said that, having put our hand to the plow and having started this thing, we must explore it fully. But he did not indicate at all whether he would be really concerned if the process failed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, oh; listen to the hon. gentlemen groan. The point I wish to make is
January 26, 1970

that I gravely doubt whether it is as easy as all that; I gravely doubt whether our future as a country would be so serene.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And just where, did I say that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asks where he said that. Let me say this: If the Prime Minister is convinced that a failure of this procedure would have very serious consequences for the country, why did he not say that? Why did he say that we must pursue this process to the end?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because I do not think there will be a failure, that is why.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If this constitutional conference fails, and if the constitutional process fails then, surely, we will be a lesser country. Surely, that will be demeaning to our self respect as a country and undermine our capacity for achievement as a united nation. Surely, such a result will be destructive to any spirit or hope of unity. And, Mr. Speaker, I pause before I say this but I think I must say it, our days as a nation would be numbered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. gentleman is saying that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If, as Canadians we are unable to agree on a consensus relating to our constitution and unable even to agree upon how to amend it at home, I ask, what would be the consequence in the Prime Minister's home province of such a failure? Would it have a settling effect, or the opposite? Would such failure strengthen those who believe in Canada or would it strengthen those who do not?
Some seem to think that the way to resolve the issues in Quebec is by some sort of high-noon confrontation between the theories of the Prime Minister on the one hand, and the theories of Rene Levesque on the other, with the winner taking all.


James Aloysius McGrath: A shoot out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You people seem to want it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Some of us do not like the idea of gambling with the future of Canada in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So, instead, you people are wishy-washy about federalism.
21611-40J
Canadian Constitution


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To put it bluntly, some of us think Canada is bigger than the theories of the Prime Minister and Rene Levesque put together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We think that the way to build for the future of Canada is not by causing confrontation but by seeking reconciliation. We also think that there are so many serious problems facing the people of Canada that Canada just cannot afford the luxury of this continued stand-off, this constitutional deadlock, between the federal and provincial governments.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why the hon. member's party came up with the concept of special status.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister made his speech, Mr. Speaker, and I am now trying to make mine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But the hon. member is attacking me. I did not attack him.


An hon. Member:: He is becoming nervous and excited, and cannot help it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Although the Prime Minister has misrepresented my position in the past after I have spoken, this is the first time he has done so before I have finished my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest that this committee must question some of the current dogmas of the federal government and explore other methods of reaching a constitutional consensus. I assume that in order to achieve such consensus, to achieve an arrangement that is in the best interests of the country, there must be some modification or redistribution of powers. There must be, on the one hand, a clarifying of and expanding of federal powers in some areas and, on the other hand, a clarifying and expanding of provincial powers. Some may say this would not lead to agreement or consensus and that if the federal government yielded any powers to the provinces related to any areas of dispute, more would be demanded of the federal government.
But I say that we must try, Mr. Speaker, and we ought not to accept defeat or failure before we try. For example, is it essential to good government in Canada that the federal government should claim all the constitutional authority in the field of welfare and of the

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
related field of pensions. It asks for this in its white paper on the subject and that would bring about an increase in the power of the federal Parliament as compared with existing power. This government has said it is going to get out of a number of shared cost programs such as the hospital plan, the medicare plan and a number of other federal programs. These plans relate primarily to health; but they also relate to welfare and to income maintenance. The government has its own reasons for wishing to get out of these programs; and, in getting out of these programs the government will be reducing the authority it will be exercising in these areas. Nevertheless it seems to take the position that it is in the best interests of the country for it to do so.
This indicates that in the view of the government there is nothing really sacrosanct in maintaining the federal government's role in welfare and income maintenance at precisely its present level. Of course, it does not follow that the position put forward by the province of Quebec should be accepted, although the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) for one said sometime ago that it should be. There may well be some ground in between that is acceptable, and I should like to see the committee explore that. I mentioned two areas as examples.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired unless there is unanimous consent for him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as I can. Instead of hanging on stubbornly for more constitutional authority in this area, the committee should consider whether an increase in federal authority would be more useful in other areas. The committee should also consider whether some restricted form of delegation between the federal and provincial governments might play a useful role in reaching a consensus. I know the Prime Minister used to be against this. I do not know his current views. There is nothing new in this.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The late Angus L. Macdonald, the distinguished former Premier of Nova Scotia and federal cabinet minister, advocated some form of delegation as a means of overcoming certain problems in our federal system. Twice in

the last decade, the federal and provincial governments have virtually reached agreement on the principle, although not on the details. I think the committee should address itself to this question.
The Hon. Walter Weir, at a federal-provincial conference in February, 1969, put forward a formula in some detail which contained five classifications of legislative power. It made some provision for a delegation. This is an approach that should be considered, with the power of delegation being clearly defined and restricted. I ask the House and the committee which this House will appoint to bear in my mind that we do not have all the time in the world to arrive at some workable arrangement.
The Prime Minister spoke about the length of the process, but the situation in Canada today is such that the people across Canada are becoming increasingly impatient and frustrated by the apparent preoccupation of the federal government with constitutional questions. The Prime Minister may think this is not exactly fair and perhaps it is not. But the impression in this country is that the federal government is unable or unwilling to take effective action with regard to other problems.
The Prime Minister recognizes that the government appears to have a constitutional hang-up and Canadians are becoming fed up with this. On the other hand, if the situation in Quebec has not deteriorated it certainly has not improved in the last year or two. The people of Canada want to see an end to this constitutional deadlock, a break in the logjam, so that they can have answers to their questions and action on their problems.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that nothing is much easier than announcing a policy that is uncompromising, immutable and utterly irreconcilable with other points of view. Nothing is easier and more popular at certain times, but countries survive and grow, just as families get along together, by way of adjustment and honourable accommodation. Far from being a sign of weakness, honourable accommodation is the most successful and civilized kind of leadership. It serves to reconcile and unite rather than polarize or devise. It serves to overcome pettiness, suspicion and animosity. Successful and honourable accommodation and compromise summon from the people of a country, as is required from members of a family, the best of tolerance, generosity and understanding that is in them.
January 26, 1970

Canadian Constitution
In that spirit, there is greatness for a country. In that spirit I trust this committee will examine, with open minds and in an objective way, all the possibilities for a consensus of understanding, that the committee will work for reconciliation and seek a national consensus so that the present deadlock may be broken and governments can get on with their jobs.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to underline at the opening of my remarks on behalf of my colleagues and myself that, although I share the disappointment that I am sure all hon. members feel at the slow pace at which the constitutional conference is proceeding, I am not prepared to contemplate failure of that conference and I am not prepared to discuss the evil consequence of such failure. Despite my political disagreement with many leaders of governments in Canada, I believe that they and the people of Canada have a determination to make this country work, make this country great and, with that determination, failure should not be contemplated at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: January 26. 1970
Canadian Constitution
New developments in society cry out for a revision of the distribution of powers and responsibilities in our country and for a fresh consideration of the fiscal capacities of the several levels of government. This is known to everyone; I am not being original when I say this. I would remind the House that the powers now given to the provinces and municipalities, as well as the magnitude of expenditures, cannot be exercised or carried out by them. The burden is too great for them unless there is some kind of federal participation on an effective and substantial scale.
Everybody talks about urbanization and the effects of urbanization. The fact is that this is the source of the demand for a review of the constitution. Canada today is no longer what it was in 1867, a country with a small population the greater part of which was rural, a country in which education was merely a luxury for those who could afford it, a country where health was something to be left to God and the environment, because little else could be done about it. We are no longer that kind of country. Seventy per cent of our people are now living in urban areas and by 1980, 80 per cent will do so. All the problems the Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon, urban transportation, housing, urban renewal, recreation-particularly for the children in these huge agglomerations of high-rise apartments and choking streets-pollution and so on, have descended upon our society and will become more evident as we continue. Many of them do not recognize provincial boundaries-water pollution is one example. Many of them are beyond solution by local people, whether their representatives be municipal or provincial. What is required is the kind of national approach which the present government has refused to take, as I shall show in the course of the next few minutes. This is another reason why the need to reconsider the powers of the various levels of government and the financial capacities of those various levels became essential in the 'sixties and remains so in the 'seventies.
Another development in our society which made it necessary to examine our set-up and try to find ways of improving confederation is the tendency-one which perhaps my hon. friends and I welcome more than others in this House-for an increasing degree of government intervention in the economy, and toward an increasing provision of welfare and the benefits of a good society to our people. Whether they welcome this or not, I am sure

hon. members in all parts of the House recognize this tendency. We feel, moreover, an obligation to continue collectively to provide for the welfare of the people of Canada. This has involved a much larger degree of participation by government at all levels in the development of the country and in bringing costly amenities of life to our people. It has involved, particularly at the federal level, a search for means whereby these obligations of government in a modern society can be fulfilled.
There is a fourth development which has demanded an examination of our constitutional set-up. There is ever-increasing acceptance by people of all parties that there is a collective responsibility to achieve equality not only of opportunity but also of condition for all people in all areas, and not merely in one's own country but all over the world. This was not accepted years ago. When I first became active politically some decades ago in Montreal, I recall having to debate with people who held that if we provided unemployment insurance it would simply make people lazy; that if we gave them pensions it would destroy their souls; that if they walked in shoes with holes in the soles they were great people because they could be proud of the fact that the holes were their own. This was the attitude taken not only in Canada but in societies all over the world.
It has now been discarded, and increasingly people all over the country are demanding that governments in Canada should provide greater equality for all our citizens from coast to coast. The difficulty which arises is: how can all this be achieved; which level of government can best provide for bringing about equality of condition as between the people of Newfoundland, Ontario and British Columbia; which level of government has the means, the authority and the fiscal capacity to bring about the economic, cultural and educational development of any area? This is a pre-condition for giving the people in the disadvantaged areas of Canada an opportunity to hold their heads at least as high as those Canadians who, by accident of birth or by immigration, live elsewhere in our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: These are the reasons for reviewing the constitution, and if they are not the reasons, that review is a waste of time and a futile exercise which we ought to stop right now. It is the failure of the Prime Minister and the federal government to set before
January 26, 1970

the constitutional conferences these basic and human reasons which in my opinion have been responsible for the marketplace haggling which is a characteristic of these conferences instead of genuine co-operation among those who seek a common goal for all Canada.
The fact is that we have not made much progress at these meetings.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)

The constitutional conference is now entering its second year of proceedings and does not seem to have made very substantial progress. In fact, the situation tends, it seems to me, to become more serious in many fields. The problems which the conference must face are obviously complex and difficult. It is not my intention to blame anyone for this lack of progress. However, I would say that in several fields the position taken by the government and the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) reveal a lack of flexibility which puts obstacles in the way of the difficult discussions which must be carried on by the heads of governments in Canada.
To my mind, the Prime Minister's refusal, as emphasized by him this afternoon, to admit that Quebec is confronted with particular problems calling for special solutions is and will always be an insuperable obstacle to the constitutional review.
Mr. Schreyer, my colleague who is premier of Manitoba, mentioned this fact to the conference and also to newspapermen. Obviously, the whole system of shared cost programs as well as the problems concerning housing, urban renewal, pollution, manpower training and some aspects of social welfare, for which federal initiative and participation are required, are in danger. In my view, that is due to the obstinate refusal of the Prime Minister to discuss such problems with Quebec in a different way than with the other provinces.
I do not mean by that that we should give in every time the Quebec government makes requests to Ottawa. I agree with the Prime Minister that Ottawa should not concede, as Quebec wants, that the federal government must never allocate funds for social security programs concerning Canadians living in that province.
Evidently, it is essential that Canadians throughout the country enjoy the services of the federal government and that they maintain direct relations with its institutions. It is therefore also important that Quebecers, just
Canadian Constitution
like the citizens of other provinces, make use of Ottawa's special services, in order to judge the importance which the federal government attaches to their problems as well as to those of other Canadians.
But to insist on this basic principle in a federal state does not mean to deny some special problems and an unfaltering will to solve them by special means. I can hardly understand how someone like the Prime Minister who has the future of Canada so much at heart and who has a thorough knowledge of our constitutional history can remain so impervious to things that are essential to our country.
It is unfortunate that another problem, bilingualism, seems to be getting worse. Two years ago, one could see real progress towards the recognition of bilingualism in Canada. Some provinces had made considerable efforts in that direction and everywhere there was a growing interest in the advantages to be derived from bilingualism, not only for greater unity but also for increased fairness and wealth in Canadian life and culture. Regretfully, linguistic quarrels and a few unfortunate events in Quebec created an unhealthy atmosphere that threatens the spread of bilingualism in the other provinces. I should like to give an example which is rather distressing for me. I was educated in Montreal in the English language, and I am aware of the rights I enjoyed, as are my friends and colleagues. Today however in the province of Quebec, people are wondering whether those rights will continue to exist in the future. Not only the extremists' position in Quebec is to be dreaded, but it seems evident that at the administrative level, the attitude of the Quebec government is making the problem worse.
The members from Quebec know, I am sure, that there is a new procedure in that province with regard to higher education. When a student graduates from a secondary school, he must attend a junior college for two years before being admitted to university where he has to study another three years in order to obtain a B.A. or B.Sc. degree.
I have learned from reliable sources that presently, there is only one English-speaking college in Quebec. Now, to be recognized, such a college must get approval from the Provincial Department of Education, and I am told that so far, they have refused to approve the creation of other English-speaking colleges.
The result, if such information is accurate, is that next fall, about 3,000 English-speaking

January 26. 1970
Canadian Constitution
high school students will be unable to be admitted to a CEGEP, and consequently they will not be able to take up university studies.
This is an unfair situation unlikely to serve Quebec's or Canada's interests. Such a policy only aggravates the situation and reduces the hope for a united Canada and the development of bilingualism throughout the country. We must face this situation as openly as possible, because today, higher education is no longer considered a luxury for the young, but a necessity for economic and social progress, in these times of technological revolution.

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, and to underline the feelings which I have that far from improving the situation in Canada the exercise of reviewing our constitution, not the exercise as such but the situation despite this review, has resulted in a great worsening of the attitude of one community to the other in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that we in this party, as I have already said, are not concerned about the time the review may take, but we are quite concerned that despite the brave words of the Prime Minister today, and on some other occasions, the constitutional review be not used as an excuse for inaction in any areas in which this country needs action immediately. The Prime Minister says that although the exercise was really initiated by the provinces they now seem to be a little less interested in the constitutional review, and that some newspaper editorials underline their lack of interest.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Let me say to him that I am not surprised at that. Let me say to him, I hope without presumption, that he is misunderstanding the attitude of the provinces and most of the writers of newspaper editorials. They are not disinterested in constitutional review. They are in despair at the failure of the federal government to deal with the problems which press upon the provinces, the municipalities and the people resident in them while this review is going on. That is the reason for their disinterest. It it not a rejection of the need to review and rewrite our constitution that our Prime Minister is witnessing. It is a cry from the heart that the Prime Minister stop fiddling, which is the way they look at it

in this context, while their issues and problems mount or while Rome burns.
For example, how can the leader of any federal government expect that the provinces will look at constitutional review with open hearts and minds when right in the middle of that review they hear from spokesmen of the government, and I am not exaggerating even though I am not quoting, that as soon as it is possible the government intends to withdraw from the cost shared programs-perhaps not all of them but a good many of them? Just imagine what that means for the provinces. They are induced to come into the program because of the federal participation and then they are told, a year, three years or five years after that, the federal government is going to withdraw. It is true the government will make provisions for certain financial returns, but it intends to withdraw and from then on the responsibility will be entirely upon the provinces.
How does the Prime Minister expect a representative of any government in Canada to sit with him and discuss the allocation of powers under the constitution when the premiers or Prime Ministers of the provinces see the federal axe hanging over them, over the residents of the provinces, over the treasury and over the entire program of social security which has been so painfully built? It is this attitude of the federal government I condemn, not the time they are taking or that the Prime Minister is taking in getting these conferences going because they cannot be done fast.
At the same time that this review takes place, the federal government makes threats about withdrawals from programs which are the very lifeblood of the provinces and which attack the basic welfare of the Canadian people from coast to coast. How can the Prime Minister expect representatives and the Prime Ministers of provinces to feel at ease and leisurely consider the many complex legal and social issues involved in constitutional revision when every one of them knows that in the large cities they have programs for urban renewal. While there has been some research done, the federal government and its minister responsible for housing sit in offices reviewing, reviewing and reviewing but obviously becoming more confused daily. The more the minister reads and the more he reviews the less he apparently knows of the problem. The provinces and municipalities sit with the Prime Minister and demand that something be done about
January 26, 1970

urban renewal in the large cities of this country, yet they are expected to come to a constitutional review in a leisurely way to sit and discuss constitutional problems as though there were not very urgent matters pressing upon them at home. What we resent and think is a betrayal of the needs of Canada and the Canadian people is that we are constantly being threatened by this government about our system of social security. We do not know what the result will be but we hear about task forces investigating the total system of social security and reporting. We hear statements from the government about the need for selectivity instead of universality. I am certain that every representative of every province in this country is wondering what this means for the various programs which the people in the provinces enjoy and which they share in many cases with the federal government.
How can anyone expect the Prime Ministers from the disadvantaged provinces of this country to come to the table to discuss constitutional revision when the gap between the income of their people and the income of the people in other provinces increases while this constitutional review is going on? In spite of all the reorganization of the federal government and the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the fact is that the gap in income and welfare between the people in the Atlantic provinces and the people in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta has increased in the last few years. This has not narrowed. How can any Prime Minister representing a province in dire need like the Atlantic provinces are, and like the province of Manitoba is to some extent, come to the table and sit with the federal government in a leisurely manner discussing the social and legal implications of constitutional review?
These are the problems that make constitutional review appear irrelevant to the representatives of the provincial governments. These are the problems that make the constitutional review misunderstood and perhaps irrelevant to the people of Canada. These are the problems that make the constitutional review irrelevant to so many people in the province of Quebec. I say to the Prime Minister and the federal government that if they are serious about the unity of this country, and serious about building a new constitution as the basis for that unity, they have to tackle these problems immediately, with some verve, some imagination, some heart and some generosity.
Canadian Constitution
I say that history is full of examples that when people sit down to write a document, a constitution, an agreement, a contract or whatever it may be for something in the future while they ignore or appear to ignore the problems that choke the people at present, the documents are not going to be written or if they are written are not going to be any good, and to the extent that they are any good, will not be worth the paper they are written on because underneath them will remain social bitterness and social misunderstanding and a great deal of regional resentment that will not allow any constitution to work.
The solution is not easy. This cannot be done overnight, but I say that the solution to the constitutional problem of Canada will not be found by merely writing a new constitution and not by merely modernizing the division of powers, but it must be based in my view and the view of my colleagues-I am sure I speak for them-on action now by the Parliament and the Government of Canada on the problems I have indicated and the many more that are well known to the Prime Minister. This should be done while this constitutional review is being carried on so that the representatives of the provinces will be sitting down with a federal government which recognizes these problems and is doing something about them. They will then, perhaps, see a better future for the citizens of the provinces and will then be willing to discuss constitutional review in a much better mood than is now the case.
I am not going to attempt to give a blueprint of the kind of thing that the committee ought to discuss because I do not think this is the purpose of this debate today. We support the setting up of this committee not only because it will enable members of opposition parties to participate in discussions on changing the constitution, but even more important, as far as I am concerned, this is the only way in which the people of Canada, through their various organizations, can be heard on the subject of constitutional change.
I am not saying this in terms intending to belittle anyone of the provinces or anyone of the governments, but you sit at these constitutional conferences and watch 11 men who have been thrown up by the accident of election with the duty and the obligation-


An hon. Member:: You better amend that
now.

January 26. 1970
Canadian Constitution


David Lewis: I am not amending it. This applies to my friend Mr. Schreyer as it does to the Prime Minister of Canada. By the accident of election 11 men, some with one view of Canada and some with another, some thinking they are Gods and some thinking they are demi-Gods, but no one less than that, sit there settling the future of my country. These may be the people in Canada to do it, but all of us will have some doubt about some one in that group of 11.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Particularly one.


David Lewis: I do not know what the alternative is. There probably is none, but as I said there is a serious question about 11 men who are there by accident of election-11 men, no more. It is true there is a cabinet, but essentially the present system means that it is the Prime Minister who settles the constitution and the future for all the people of Canada. By this means I feel there is no opportunity, except in an election or in elections, for the people of Canada to express themselves and to take part in the process of constitutional discussion and constitutional change. This is the reason we, like members of the official opposition, asked a long time ago for a parliamentary committee. If I remember correctly, my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) asked for this back in 1966 when the present Prime Minister was minister of justice, and at the time the justice minister rejected it as he later rejected the request of opposition members.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that he was wrong. It may be that the Prime Minister and the premiers, 11 of them, sitting in the constitutional conferences might have behaved differently than they have behaved if the people of Canada had been given an opportunity to appear before parliamentary and legislative committees across the country and have their say about Canada and its future instead of leaving it only to the Prime Ministers. This committee will provide an opportunity for appearances by the Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Labour Congress-


An hon. Member:: The CM A.


David Lewis: The CMA, if that association has anything to say and the Canadian Bar Association if it has anything to say that concerns the welfare of the people of Canada. All these organizations and many others will

have an opportunity to appear before us and participate in this historic event.
We in this party object-and we so informed the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald)-to a joint committee on which the Senate is represented. Personally, I love every Senator individually but do not want to sit with them on any committee such as this despite my love for them individually. Aside from our opposition to the Senate as an institution in this Parliament there is another reason why in this case I object to a joint committee. I do not intend to move an amendment in this regard but I wish to place this on the record. They were not elected by the people. They do not represent the people of Canada. They were appointed by some prime ministers over the years. Many of them are defeated candidates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whom are the members of the CMA elected by?


David Lewis: They at least represent the doctors. If you want the Senators to appear before the committee to present their case for the Senate, we will hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: It is their presence on this committee to which we object. However, I shall not say any more about that. In any case, my time I believe is about up.
The second point I wish to make is that made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I am probably wrong, but I was under the impression that an earlier draft of the motion contained in it a provision giving the committee permission to hire counsel and other experts. I regret very much the omission of such a provision and I hope, after the committee is established and meets, that it will come back to the House of Commons and request and receive authority to hire whatever experts and whatever assistants members of the committee may think necessary.
Some others of my colleagues will speak in this debate and will indicate some things we believe might be done immediately, such as the inclusion of a provision for delegation of power which might solve present problems without the necessity of waiting for the total revision of the constitution.
Since the clock tells me I must, 1 shall conclude by saying this not very original thing to the House. I agree with the Prime Minister that countries and nations are not,
January 26, 1970

Canadian Constitution
despite what some people think, ordained by God and are not the result of any tablet from Mount Sinai. They are the historical development resulting from many things which it is difficult to indicate. When I wrote an article for a Canadian magazine about three years ago I said, when in certain circumstances I was asked why I was going back to Canada after I had finished my studies elsewhere, that this is rather difficult to answer and that I can only say, like Gertrude Stein, my country, my country is my country. But it is a great country; it is a tremendous country; it is a beautiful country. It is a country which has great riches underground, in the forests and in the waters. It has a great people, not greater than any other but just as great as any other people in the world.
We have the possibility of building a model society for the peoples of the world to see. We have a duty to build it because we have the resources with which to build such a society. The leaders of governments in Canada will go down in history as destroyers of human hopes if they do not succeed in this constitutional revision. The people of Canada will never forgive them if the result of this revision is not a better constitution serving the interests of the people of Canada, and indeed of the people of the world, better than our constitution has served us until now, although it has served us. As has been said, historically we face an important task. I hope and pray we are able to fulfil it with distinction and with justice to the people of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher)- Post Office-assignment of new productivity executive; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr.	Orlikow)-Manpower-adult
retraining and educational programs-alleged wasting of money; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Pollution- dumping of oil and other waste in Great Lakes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons he 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-committee 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.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr.   C.-A. Gaulhier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say a few words this afternoon on the motion introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for the setting up of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to study the constitution and amend it slightly if need be.
Under the circumstances, we support the appointment of that committee which will enable us, first of all, to update our constitution, which is over 100 years old with a view to improving it and repatriating it, patching it up or renewing it if necessary. Indeed, that agreement has too often been bandied around by federal administrations which could not see beyond their centralist limits.
Today, when he came to the house, the Prime Minister did not agree with the constitutional review. He finally reconsidered his decision, and I congratulate him on it, and

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
allowed the creation of the present committee to study our constitution.
This review will be most fruitful at the coming federal-provincial conferences. I am convinced that it will depoliticize the conferences and encourage various groups, and even some responsible individuals, to give up their personal concepts and adapt themselves to the aspirations of the majority. Finally, it will enable us, members of this House, as well as all other responsible people at the provincial level, to hear opinions other than those of our respective governments and, for once, to have views from Canada as a whole.
One must not be afraid to face reality squarely, to find out why some provinces interpret the constitution differently. For instance, why should I, as a Quebecer, fight for ideas which some of my colleagues do not share?
To review briefly the history of the constitution, Mr. Speaker, allow me to go back to 1867, the year it was born. In 1867, Canada comprised Upper and Lower Canada. The constitution was drawn up merely in an attempt to do justice, on the one hand, to Lower Canada which was mostly made up of French Canadians settled on an area larger than present-day Quebec and, on the other hand, to Upper Canada, which territory was mostly occupied by English-speaking people.
When I hear the Prime Minister say that Quebec may not claim any more than the other provinces, I simply do not agree. Had Quebec, as a province, not been different from the others, the present constitution would have been entirely different; it might even never have existed.
History teaches us that our constitution owes its origin to the existence of Quebec. In fact, without the French Canadians in Lower Canada this country today would be administered by a single government, and there would be no need for Confederation.
Under that agreement, the provinces concerned agreed to form a central government, whereas up to then, every one of them had managed to administer itself. It must be kept in mind that the federal government owes its power to the provinces.
The numerous quarrels we have had for so many years are due to the fact that federal governments believed they had founded the provinces. We will achieve Canadian unity only if those provinces remain strong, with free government that respect the union, and only if the central government respects that agreement in order to facilitate its negotia-

tions with each of the provinces and to be able to take more effective action in areas of national interest.
I said at the outset that the Prime Minister first opposed a review of the constitution, contending that the present one was adequate to enable the Canadian people to live in harmony. I do not disapprove altogether of his idea because regardless of the snags it ran into, our constitution adequately safeguards the rights of the provinces.
Of course, the central government is highly responsible for those snags which could have probably been avoided had it co-operated more with the provinces instead of always trying to play cat and mouse with them.
In the field of taxation, what has been done? The provincial fields of jurisdiction were first encroached upon and if this continues, some day they will be taken over by the federal government at the individual, municipality and school board levels.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We oppose precisely this evolution, we of the province of Quebec, just as the citizens of other provinces should oppose it. In view of the feelings in some provinces, they remain indifferent because they profit by this attitude, while we, in the province of Quebec, have to fight against this new invasion of our provincial rights. Besides, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, as long as it is not understood that Quebec has requirements that are different from those of other provinces, we shall say that Quebec cannot give up in order to administer and to do justice to its people. We shall hold on until the end in order to stop this process.
During the study in committee, we will have surprises. Some Quebecers will come and testify impartially without indulging in politics or sentimentality, to speak frankly, like Canadians. I know that several other provinces, as mentioned by the previous speaker, are ready to recognize that Quebec has certainly got something that other provinces have not. This must be well understood.
The constitution was made because of Quebec. Quebec has its Civil Code and the other provinces their common law. It is not the same thing at all.
I could enumerate many other things. We are not like the others in Canada but this does not prevent us from being good and perfect Canadians. However-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Will the hon. member allow me a question?
January 26, 1970


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Certainly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member
assume that the members elected in Quebec are unable to represent and speak for this province in the same way as the members elected in other provinces speak on behalf of those provinces?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question put by the Prime Minister. It is indeed possible to represent the interests of one's province and I am here to do so. I sought election in order, to better defend the interests of my province, but in an orderly way.
People come and say that Quebec cannot manage its own administration. We are confronted with a problem: it has to be solved. Taxing powers are not evenly distributed. The federal government is boasting of surpluses and the provinces are registering deficits. The balance should be restored and this, in my opinion, should be done at the committee level. Why is the balance upset? It is because of the intrusions of the federal government in the fields coming under provincial jurisdiction.
There have been all sorts of reasons given for that. War, for instance. War was given as an excuse for encroaching upon three provincial fields of taxation: real estate tax, personal and corporation income tax and estate tax. The federal government maintained that these steps were unavoidable.
It was but an excuse, for the problems were solved through some other means. It was just an excuse to trespass on the provincial jurisdictions in order to get hold of the money in Quebec.
They promised, however, to return it as soon as the war would be over. The war has been over for a long time now but the money has still not been wholly returned. It is taking a long time and meanwhile the federal government goes on collecting money in the provinces. That is how the provinces have been deprived of their three main sources of income.
What can the provinces do in the meantime? They lack money. They also have a right to develop, as pointed out by the Prime Minister and other members. The provinces must keep pace with progress, and for that purpose, they need money which they do not have. The power to accumulate capital for administration purposes was taken away from them and they could not get it back, in spite of promises to that effect.
Canadian Constitution
That is not what the provinces need, and especially Quebec. Quebec should be allowed-and it has this right-to raise the money it needs to survive, instead of getting it from a third party.
There lies the greatest cause of injustice. Today, the same system is still being implemented. Full powers of taxation are enjoyed and all the money required is sought in the provinces.
It is wished to establish an industrial development committee. I am very happy about it. Under the circumstances, we cannot have the whole loaf, only crumbs. The establishment of this committee will enable the federal government to give something to provinces. Therefore, the provinces will obtain money tc promote education and to give assistance to the municipalities, the school boards and ever to individuals.
However, if you consider the whole issue closely, you find it is a dangerous infringement on the part of the federal government in fields coming under provincial jurisdiction.
Why? Because the federal government has all the necessary authority to lay hands on the money earned by the workers in the various provinces and to distribute it like a good father. This is not what the provinces want. They no longer want a federal government which interferes in the fields of provincial j urisdiction.
The committee should recommend that the federal government let the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in matters coming under their competence, while granting them the rights corresponding to their duties. Are not, health, road safety and education within the competence of the provinces?
Let us give the provinces the means to raise the money required to administer, for instance, the areas connected with health or education in the province of Quebec. Then there will be peace and the province of Quebec will have the money required to cope with the situation in the areas of education or health. Thus the province of Quebec would not always have to beg the central government in order to obtain what the latter has hypocritically stolen from that province.
It was a hypocritical agreement that was entered into during the last war. The province of Quebec had been promised that its powers of taxation would be handed over right after the war. That was a piece of hypocrisy.

January 2S, 1970
Canadian Constitution
Today, the money required to administer the province of Quebec is still taken away from the workers. Some seem astonished-in a hypocritical way-that the Quebec government is clamouring for its revenues. What a joke!
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
First you take away a man's clothes, throw him naked on the street, then have the police arrest him because he has nothing on. Such is the situation of the province of Quebec, to whom they say: you need our help because you cannot administer some of your departments. But what do they do? They simply hand over to the province the money which already belongs to it. The committee should finally be able to understand the situation.
I went out West, and I met honest people there. I had talks with them and I believe life would be more worthwhile if rights were respected.
Mr. Speaker, is it conceivable that the municipality should tell the father, the wage-earner: "Turn your salary over to me and I will give you as much as I please. You will eat what I choose."?
Yet that is what is taking place between the federal government and the provinces. Little wonder that Quebec is in a turmoil, and we have not seen anything yet. If the federal government does not put a stop to this thrust, I cannot answer for anything in Quebec, a province well known to me because I travel through it all year long. And let nobody think that only a small minority of 3 or 4 per cent is involved.
The unrest brought about by all this disunion today is due to the hypocritical interference of the federal government in Quebec. Having been stripped, the citizen is covered with a piece of cloth and told: "You're lucky!
I am honest and generous since I cover you with a cloth". That is not what Quebec wants. It simply wants to recover its taxation rights, in order to give its people what they need in the fields coming under its jurisdiction.
I do not know if this is clear enough and if I can be understood today by most members. I am so anxious that this review prove useful. I hope my words can convince some sincere members from the other provinces. I do not think any member would purposely do wrong. If he does, it would be because he is misinformed.
The problem has never been put properly. We have had to learn false histories of Canada and now we are being told false eco-
nomic stories. As I said at the outset, we must face the facts if we want to do constructive work in committee. If we Canadians want to get along with each other and cooperate. I am sure we shall have made a first step towards Canadian unity.
The policy of the federal government in the western provinces has been clearly explained, and the citizens have understood. We do not wish to take anything away from anybody, but we want at least to be allowed to keep what we have to live, like all other Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, had I known that I was going to speak today, I would have prepared my speech and would have been able to make a clearer presentation. I may however have that opportunity if I am appointed to the committee, although I am already sitting on some others.
I am confident that the members of the committee will get to the grass-roots and will discuss the matter without bias. If, for once, this is done within the committee whose sole aim would be to ensure Canadian unity, then the committee will be doing a good job.
It is essential that this review be made democratically and that the witnesses, wherever they come from, be heard with an open mind. The report of the committee should be submitted to the provinces, so that they may be in a position to discuss the future of the country without forgetting that the main point to be considered is national unity.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked my intervention this afternoon to be better prepared, but we do not control the circumstances. I hope that my comments will lead hon. members towards this unity we are all hoping for. Let us co-operate to reach that common goal and everyone of us should apply his intelligence and his goodwill to that task.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) rising to ask a question?


Mr. Thomson:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) would permit a question. In transferring taxing powers to the federal government, in the opinion of the hon. member did the province of Quebec lose more than any other province of Canada?
January 26, 1970


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer the hon. member who wanted to know whether Quebec had endured greater losses than another province in the adventure of Confederation. Even if I tried to do so, I would not have all the statistics. I told the House about the principle of taxation. Those who work want only one thing: to get their pay directly at the end of the week and not through a third party.
Provincial governments have responsibilities to which correspond the right of access to three taxation fields which hopefully will be given back to the province of Quebec, provided it is willing to deal with them. It must be recognized once and for all that Quebec has that right.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was put on the Order Paper I had high hopes that the debate would be a departure from the federal-provincial discussions on the constitution. I hoped that, perhaps by co-operation among members of the House, we might be able to break the deadlock that has taken place in federal-provincial conferences and reach a consensus as members of different parties. I hoped this would be done in a nonpartisan way. I still hope we can do this and that we can make a real contribution in this respect.
However, this afternoon I was a bit disappointed, and that is why I just said that I hoped all these things would be done. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) rose to speak, he also said he would be nonpartisan, then immediately made derogatory remarks about the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and questioned the order in which the agendas had been drawn up. He wanted to know why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had not dealt first with the problems of the cities instead of with welfare. I found all this a little picayune. I suppose if we had started with the cities, we would have been accused of not starting with welfare. The fact is that from the very beginning the Government of Canada under the former Prime Minister set out a program of action for these federal-provincial conferences.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
All the proposals of the government have been set out quite clearly in the constitutional booklets. The first booklet dealt in a general way with the proposals for constitutional
Canadian Constitution
reform and the sociological and political implications that were necessary for making the changes. The next booklet dealt with the charter of human rights. Other booklets are entitled, "The Constitution and the People of Canada", "The Federal-Provincial Spending Power", "The Taxing Powers of the Constitution" and "Federalism and International Relations". We then went into the division of powers. The first matter dealt with in the division of powers was welfare and income maintenance.
I hope the parliamentary committee, comprised of members of all parties, will co-operate in developing a consensus on the Canadian Constitution and will break the deadlock that has taken place in the federal-provincial meetings. I agree this committee may be able to do th'ngs that the federal-provincial conference has not been able to do, because we have not only representatives of the four parties in the House but representatives of the different regions in Canada in a way the government does not. The Conservatives have strong representation from the Maritimes and the Prairies. The Creditistes have strong representation from rural Quebec. The New Democrat'c Party has representation from the Prairies as well as some of the cities. I am optimistic; I think we can work to accomplish something that will bring about a constitution befitting this great country of ours.
In addition to the usual witnesses from the intermediary bodies, trade unions, the CMA and other groups that have been mentioned, I hope we will meet members of the legislative assemblies of the provinces, not only government members but opposition members. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we should meet representatives of the cities either through citizens' associations or the city councils. A committee of this House did hear the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal when we were dealing with the Company of Young Canadians.
I think it would be well for us to hear the representations of the cities in this matter. I believe now is a good time for us to take this initiative. We cannot be dogmatic in this regard. Perhaps it should have been done before, or maybe it should be done later. In any case, we are doing it now and this is a good time because frustration is building up among some Canadians because of the lack of progress resulting from the constitutional conference. It appears to them the conference is not resolving anything.

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
As the Prime Minister pointed out, the provinces which started this process to a great extent have not put forward their proposals in the same precise manner as the Government of Canada. An exception to this is the province of Quebec, which had an allparty committee of its legislative assembly. The province of Quebec put forward specific proposals, but the other provinces have not been so specific. They have discussed the proposals but have not replied specifically to them. Some provinces have from time to time tried to act as broker between the federal government and the government of Quebec, but they have not spoken in specific terms in the same way as the federal government in its seven constitutional papers which have been very specific on the points put forward for discussion today.
Many people, in their frustration, are beginning to say they have had enough of this constitutional discussion and we should get down to discussing some of the problems of Canada which have a higher priority, such as pollution, inflation and the problems of the cities. When dealing with problems such as those I have just mentioned, we must not forget that they are very much related to the constitution. Very often we cannot act in the way we would like to act, because of the constitution. This is natural. The constitution was drafted 100 years ago at a time when technology had not developed to the extent it has today. These problems have grown up around a new technology and new type of society. The legislative categories in the constitution are just not adequate.
We have been successful in doing some of these things through co-operative federalism. This process of co-operative federalism originated in the United States and we have used it for the last ten years. Problems do not fit easily into categories of legislation. No matter how perfect a constitution, if we are to do a good job it is obvious that all levels of government must co-operate and use their different areas of jurisdiction to deal adequately with problems.
Unfortunately, the division of power under our constitution is in many respects out of date. This matter is under review to help us deal with problems more expeditiously and with greater vigour. I do not think it can be said that we have not acted in areas where we have jurisdiction, nor that we have not taken initiatives where the jurisdiction is not clear. An example of that is the Water Act. One might argue that the jurisdiction in this area is not clear, yet the federal government,

following the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, took the initiative and tried to do something about a very real problem. No matter how perfectly we set up these divisions of power and categories for legislative competence, we will still need a spirit of cooperation, a creative federalism, if we are to have a smoothly-run country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, immediately before supper I was discussing the division of power under the present constitution and I said that the powers which the federal government and the provincial governments now exercise are not adequate to meet the technical and social realities of 1970.
It seems to me that under the present constitution legislative powers are too inflexible and too exclusive. In my view it would be better if we made greater use of concurrent powers such as those now used in respect of agriculture, immigration and pensions. These powers belong to both levels of government, though should conflict arise the right of para-mountcy is given to one of the jurisdictions. In other words, both governments are free to legislate, but if there is conflict the constitution states which jurisdiction has paramount-cy.
A solution along these lines was put forward in the recent white paper on the constitution, dealing specifically with income maintenance. I believe that an arrangement of this kind would result in a more flexible and functional constitution. I also believe that in certain cases we should consider favourably a proposition giving one level of government the right to delegate its powers under the constitution to another level of government.
Several problems have arisen in recent years directly related to the constitutional situation. One of them has to do with conditions in our cities. Some people have criticized the federal government on the grounds that it is not concerned with the cities; that it has done nothing to legislate for them. Such statements are inaccurate. We have passed a good deal of legislation which affects the cities-measures dealing with transportation, housing, health and welfare, labour, manpower, and so on. This legislation has had a great impact on the cities. The fact is there is no
January 26, 1970

comprehensive power vested in the federal government under the present constitution which permits the federal government to legislate directly for the cities. The comprehensive powers under section 92 of the BNA Act belong to the provinces.
If we were to legislate unilaterally in a comprehensive way, we would be violating the present constitution and, moreover, doing so at the very time we are trying to negotiate a new constitution with a new division of powers. Were we to take such a course, our proposals at these constitutional conferences would simply not be credible. We cannot legislate unilaterally in areas which belong to the provinces, while supporting an entirely different principle at constitutional conferences. Again, such a course might be taken as a licence to the provinces to intervene in areas which are specifically federal.
This leads us to the field of external affairs. Some provinces have been seeking to conclude agreements with other countries with regard to matters over which they say they have jurisdiction. Nevertheless, as has been well set out in the white paper dealing with international relations as they concern the constitution, if this were permitted, unfortunate consequences might follow. For example, Canada might be following a general foreign policy with respect to, say, Rhodesia or South Africa which included a boycott. At the same time, a province might decide to carry on a teacher-exchange program or an apprentice training program in co-operation with the country concerned, stating that such arrangements fall within the jurisdiction of its department of education or department of labour.
It is evident that the federal government cannot permit arrangements of this kind. Even in areas of provincial jurisdiction, relations outside Canada must be carried on under the umbrella of the federal government. It seems this question is coming to the fore once again: over the weekend it appears there has been a breakdown of the entente between Ottawa and Quebec with respect to this sphere of responsibility. I think the federal government will have to adopt a much tougher attitude in respect of intrusions by the provinces into this area of jurisdiction. Certain sanctions will have to be imposed.
The federal government will have to put its foot down if Quebec or any other province continues to intervene in external affairs. I would go so far as to say we should revoke the Canadian passports of individuals who
Canadian Constitution
blatantly disregard federal jurisdiction in this field. We should refuse visas to officials of foreign countries who wish to come to Canada under arrangements of which the federal government does not approve. If necessary, we should sever diplomatic relations with the countries concerned. In fact, it will probably not be necessary to do these things but we should let it be known that this is the type of sanction which the federal government has power to exercise. Let us make it clear that while we intend to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction, we do not intend to allow them to intrude into federal fields; we shall try to negotiate these matters with the provinces, but if they insist on intruding into federal fields of jurisdiction, sanctions will be brought to bear.
There are other items I should like to discuss, one of which was referred to by a speaker from the New Democratic Party. He mentioned the frustration expressed by the Premier of Manitoba at the close of the last federal-provincial conference. The premier stated in an interview that Quebec had a special set of problems which called for special arrangements. When asked whether it needed a special status, Premier Schreyer replied, "Those are not my words. I said 'special arrangements' ", Well, some have stated there have always been special arrangements for Quebec and for other provinces, too. That is true, Mr. Speaker, but these special arrangements have not been in the area of legislative powers.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In Quebec we have the Civil Code; we have special arrangements with respect to French education and English education. There has always been the right of using the two languages in the legislature. There have been other special arrangements which apply to the province of Quebec, but there have been no special legislative powers which Quebec has and which, for other provinces, belong to the federal government.
It is all right to suggest special arrangements, but I do not think we can expect that one province will have the power to legislate in certain areas that, for other provinces, come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If we do that, as has been suggested many times by the Prime Minister we may end up with a situation where a great many members of this House will not have the same power as other members who sit here. Special arrangements, yes-and let us



'2838 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
be specific about those special arrangements- but special powers, no.
There has been quite a bit of discussion with respect to the proposed charter of human rights, and as an English-speaking person from the province of Quebec I see a great need for this particular item, especially because of what happened in St. Leonard and what might happen in other parts of Quebec. I think we must be certain that our civil liberties are protected in a way which cannot be derogated from or taken away by the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments or school boards. I believe that they should be protected in the constitution through a Bill of Rights or in some other way which would require special legislative power to effect their change.
I do not accept the argument of those who say these rights are protected by the courts. They have not been protected by the courts. If we had such a charter of civil liberties, the people of St. Leonard would not have had their right to education or language taken [DOT]away from them, and many years ago the people of Manitoba might not have had their right to education in French taken away from them.
With respect to the proposals relating to a special or revised Supreme Court of Canada, I Relieve it is extremely important that we have one section of the Supreme Court to deal with civil law cases coming from the province of Quebec, and that civil law cases are not decided by judges trained in the common law. Having practised in that area of law for many years, I can understand how a court dominated by common law judges can often twist the civil law or put an interpretation on it which a civil law judge would not.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one area that has not been discussed and which we must consider for constitutional change, and that is the House of Commons itself. Last year we made a lot of changes with respect to rules of the House, but in my view there are many other problems which will have to be dealt with in a constitutional way.
We talk about whether this Parliament and the House of Commons are really relevant to the demands of the day. In many ways I do not think the House is relevant to those demands. I think the only way we can make it relevant is to change its constitutionality. Mr. Speaker, some of these suggestions have already been put forward. I do not think they suggest we are going to the republican
[Mr. Allmand.l
system, but they borrow some things from that system. For example, I feel we should have a set period for a Parliament, a four-year period or a five-year period. The government would continue in office during that period whether or not its legislation was defeated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am afraid his time has expired.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in 20 minutes there is not too much that can be said about the constitution but I would make some statements which may be of some use at this time. Following the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand), I have just one or two comments to make about his speech. He said something about changing the House of Commons constitutionally. I, of course, would point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying to change it constitutionally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: He is doing his best to sterilize it at the present time. The hon. member also said something about concurrent powers, and he particularly mentioned agriculture. As I look opposite and see the amiable and distinguished Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), I think that while he is operating only under concurrent powers he has made such a mess of trying to do things for the people of western Canada that he could not do any worse even if he had full power. Therefore, I do not see that concurrent power would really be of any assistance.
I am very interested in this motion, Mr. Speaker, because about five years ago I put on the Order Paper a private member's notice of motion along very much the same lines. I went a little further with mine. I think that one or two years later the motion was put on behalf of this party. I was fortunate in the draw, and we had quite an interesting debate on this issue. This was in 1965 or 1966.
I proposed the establishment of a committee of this kind because I believed then, as I more strongly believe now, that only through a mechanism of this kind can we bring before the people of Canada, in a simplified way, the extremely important issues which are involved.
I was rather amused by the Prime Minister, who said everything had been very carefully planned. The right hon. gentleman indicated
January 26, 1970

that all the steps were taken one by one, all according to a deep-laid plan, and that everything was coming out just as he had anticipated. I cannot accept that for a moment.
The Prime Minister was engaging in playing a nice little game. He had his constitutional experts locked up in one little room and his economic experts locked up in another little room, and he was running from one room to the other having a great time. Suddenly the Prime Minister of Ontario called the Conference for Tomorrow, and from then on the federal government and the Prime Minister were kicked into this issue and were compelled to take steps which I do not think they had the slightest intention of taking. I do not think there was the careful preparation to which the right hon. gentleman referred. I think that is so much hogwash, Mr. Speaker-certainly the results would so indicate.
With respect to the terms of reference, this is a rather peculiarly worded motion. I hope that once the committee is functioning there will be no attempt to prevent i!s canvassing fully all the problems and all the suggested alternatives of our constitutional difficulties. I will take one minute to enlarge on this theme.
I have read the motion. It refers to the conference of February, 1968. At that time, Mr. Speaker, there was a series of subjects laid out for the continuing consideration of the constitutional conference. These subjects covered the waterfront. From that time until now this government has put forward a number of proposals, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, dealing in one way or another with all the questions which were first outlined in the agenda and in the report made in February, 1968.
I would take it from that-and I did not understand the right hon. gentleman to indicate anything to the contrary-that when the committee is given jurisdiction in this matter after the motion has been passed, there will be no attempt to inhibit the committee from the fullest and most complete discussions.
I have said something about the various conferences which have taken place. There is no question about it-my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has made this quite plain-that there has been a complete failure so far as the conferences are concerned. I think this was almost inevitable because of the way in which they were developed. All we have had is a confrontation among adversaries, among 11 governments all
Canadian Constitution
seeking to hold the power they have within their respective establishments, and if possible to add to that power. I do not fault them on that score; I think it is perfectly natural and what one might expect of the type of conference and discussion that has taken place. But this is not good enough. We shall not get anywhere if we continue this type of meeting.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Conferences must be held, of course, to capitalize on and consolidate the gains which are made in other ways. However, to the extent to which we hoped in the past that a series of constitutional conferences of heads of government would produce workable changes and reforms in our constitution, we might just as well realize that this will never take place in that way.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What do you suggest?


Gerald William Baldwin: If the minister will wait a while, he will hear some excellent suggestions, although on the basis of our experience with agriculture I do not know that he will listen to them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks before my time expires. I should like to see this committee take a view that is as non-controversial and objective as possible. I do not expect that politics will not be involved. Of course they will, and that is to be expected, but I hope the hon. members who comprise that committee will approach the subject matter in a frame of mind which will be more conducive to light than to heat.
I should like to see the committee composed of members of this House and members of the other place who will travel from place to place in Canada. I do not expect we will have a repetition of the famous confederation parade which took place in 1964 and 1965, but I think we can absorb something from that. After all, this is not a means by which we are going to settle conflicts between governments immediately.
The more than 21 million people in Canada are now engaged in the process of looking at the world they live in and should be coming to a decision on how they want to rearrange the powers of government at the various levels. In the first place, it must be abundantly clear that these are simple issues. The constitution as discussed by lawyers may become quite complex, quite difficult and very learned; but there are a number of simple

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
issues which must be put to the people of Canada.
Do they desire, for example, to continue the same kinds of government in the questions involving transportation, education, trade and commerce, and so on and the new problems that have arrived on the scene regarding pollution, our cost of living and inflation? I suggest these problems will continue to be with us for many years. We must consider the problems of our Indian people. They are demanding rights which have been taken away from them. We also have problems in respect of the urban situation. As one hon. member said, 70 per cent of the people of Canada living in urban areas are seeking houses, solutions to the problem of juvenile delinquency, urban reclamation, and so on.
These are problems which have emerged. The people of Canada want to know where the jurisdiction lies and what is to be done about them. I think it is as simple as that. I hope this committee will be able to reduce these problems to simple terms. I suggest to the news media, the press, television and radio people that this will provide a magnificent opportunity for them. We will shortly be dealing with the whole issue of television and radio coverage in this chamber, in committees of the House and places in this building where the electronics media may have access to members for clarification. I hope they will be allowed to play a very important and significant role in reducing these problems to the most simple terms possible for placing before the people.
The committee will be the master of its own destiny. It will indicate what procedures it wishes to follow. I suggest that the committee give serious thought to not only permitting but encouraging radio and television production of its proceedings, so there will be available to the people of Canada an explanation of what is going on and what are the issues. In that way we will do what I think is essential. We will fulfil a condition precedent to the settling of these problems by letting the people "in" on a great national debate. In this way all the people of Canada who are interested will be able to see what issues are at stake and express their points of view. I think only in that way will we arrive at solutions.
Whether the people live in Quebec, Ontario, Peace River, Vancouver or Victoria, they are all Canadians. When the people see what is involved and how these issues have been

reduced to simple terms, they will in due course exert pressure on the respective governments to bring about answers to problems. Not too much time will elapse before that situation comes about. They will not seek the answers of the Government of Canada or the answers of the governments of Saskatchewan, Newfoundland or Quebec; they will seek the answers that they want. I suggest to the members of the committee that will be formed that this is one way in which these questions can be brought home, simply and easily, to the people of Canada in order that they may have a chance to participate. This chance has been denied them up to the present.
Let me take just a minute to deal with some of these questions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) quite properly chastised the Prime Minister because, as he said, he was hung up on the constitution and many of the problems I have mentioned. The federal government has ample authority under the constitution to deal adequately with the serious problem of pollution. What will happen if we accept the government's position on this question? We may wait two or three years before the government comes to a conclusion, if it ever does, as to what authority it has. Only then will we consider legislation. Consider at the weak, pitiful water bill we have been debating: even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), with his usual eloquence, was hard put to it to promote a suitable defence to the criticisms from this side of the House.
The government has jurisdiction under the Navigable Waters Protection Act which prohibits the pollution of water. It has jurisdiction under the Fisheries Act, which contains similar provisions, the Shipping Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. These four pieces of legislation, enacted by the federal Parliament, contain definite and categorical sanctions against the pollution of water. We are compelled to put up with this monstrosity conceived by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his colleagues.
The same thing applies to urban matters. There was a Supreme Court decision not long ago to the effect that rapid transit arrangements in large metropolitan areas are the subject of federal jurisdiction. This is true in respect of housing, and so on. For years the federal government has been involved, with no suggestion that it has been usurping a jurisdiction which belongs to the provinces. It
January 26, 1970

has been involved in these programs. There are such problems as juvenile delinquency, urban renewal and other measures related to the cities. The federal government has a very substantial measure of jurisdiction today. I am not suggesting, in breach of certain obvious rights which exist in the provincial governments, that this federal government or any federal government should rush in hamhanded and deal without consultation and co-operation with these questions. However, there is jurisdiction which can be exercised. I suggest that the right hon. gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture and their colleagues have been using the constitution as a smokescreen. They have been afraid.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: There are a number of areas in which the federal government has jurisdiction to act and in which it could have acted. I do not suggest it should do so without adequate consultation. At the same time, this does not mean there are not a great many areas in which the provincial governments must not only retain but to some extent change or even increase their jurisdiction.
A federal entity comes about because by reason of geography, economy, culture, race, and so on. There are natural divisions which should retain their particular identity. There is nothing wrong with that. I think all people who speak about Canada say it is a great country because it is unique in its diversity. Why should there not be diversification in so far as the provinces are concerned? British Columbia, sheltered behind the Rocky Mountains, is quite different from Alberta. Alberta and Saskatchewan, both carved out of the same rib at the same time, went different ways after a period in which their history was approximately the same. One had a government under the premiership of my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the other had a Social Credit government. Both were as different, ideologically, as can be, but were created at the same time.
That there should be diversity is a fact. Some of us who have been involved in municipal government know that under a common municipal act there may be 20 municipalities, each operating under the same legislation but which because of the people involved and because of certain divergent and distinctive characteristics are different kinds of
Canadian Constitution
municipalities. I think I would be going contrary to the views of the political party to which I have the honour to belong if I did not say I believe in diversity individually and with regard to provincial governments, and that there should be every opportunity to continue to develop the peculiar distinctions between the different provinces of this country.
I see my time is running out, and there is so much more I should like to say. However, there is one other important item with which I shall deal. The federal government now has an opportunity to seek some redress in these constitutional problems. The Supreme Court has handed down decisions which would seem to take away some of the jurisdiction which might have belonged to provincial governments or the federal government from time to time. It may well be, in light of existing conditions, that these decisions should be different.
A recent case in the Supreme Court of Canada, Regina v. Binus, laid down, not as obiter dicta but as part of the judgment, that the principle of stare decisis did not apply. In other words, the Supreme Court of Canada can hand down a decision in constitutional cases different from that which it has handed down in the past. Over the last six or eight years it seems to me the federal government should have been reviewing some of these constitutional cases in collaboration with the provinces. Constitutional history has set governments on paths different from those intended by the Fathers of Confederation.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are growing impatient so I shall await another opportunity to make the few more comments I wanted to make.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the most striking features that emerges in any debate on our constitution is the difference between what the constitution actually is in practice and what the people of this country believe it should provide for and what it should be. When I look over a range of national problems, I see the vast divergence between the constitution as it is and what the ordinary person in this country thinks it should be.
At this time of inflation, the average Canadian thinks the federal government should have power, if it wishes to exercise it, to control rents, prices and the cost of living. We know it does not have that power. The average Canadian thinks the federal govern-

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
ment should have greater involvement in housing and in the control of policies concerning urban planning, major labour disputes and agricultural prices.
The average Canadian increasingly in this day and age believes the federal government should have a good deal more to say about foreign intrusion into our economy. Although I do not like to disturb any sacred cows, the average Canadian of my acquaintance also believes there is and should be some federal responsibility in the field of education. I am sure I am not the only person who has constituents who moved across the length and breadth of Canada and found, each time they moved, that their children lose time in school and some became discouraged to the point that they dropped out of school altogether.
One of the serious problems we face in this country-it is not a technical or legal problem but a serious, practical one-is the difference between what our constitution in fact is and what the ordinary person thinks it should be and wishes it were. The average person is confused by the lack of connection between his idea of who should govern the country and what actually happens. He wonders why the governments of this country are paralyzed in respect of major decisions.
The average person says, and with truth, that the present system lends itself to buckpassing, to the ducking of responsibility and to a patent inability to deal quickly with major problems. I say to all of us in this honourable House that these are things we cannot ignore. They are problems which exist and with which we must be prepared to deal. We cannot deed with them in the traditional way, whereby the provinces blame the federal government for what is wrong, or vice versa, and one party lists a great number of things it thinks another party should be doing or talking about.
When we say we have a constitutional problem, believe me we should mean it, because we have. We should be prepared, together in this Parliament and indeed with all our fellow legislators across the country, to bring about some kind of solution. The confusion about the meaning of our constitution would seem to be the best possible reason for the type of public inquiry which is now envisaged by this resolution. One thing this inquiry might do, as my hon. friend just suggested, is bring the issues out in the open. It will have an educational function.
I hope, however, no one is under the illusion that it is only the public which must be

educated. It seems to me that the people who require education the most are those who represent us collectively in these dominion-provincial discussions of our constitution and other matters of joint concern. We have 11 governments, one federal and ten provincial, which meet to discuss a great variety of issues. I am sure I am not the only person who believes that perhaps they should listen more to the public and less to themselves in some of these discussions.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Who speaks for whom at these conferences? If, for example, the federal government and the province of Ontario were in conflict, which of the two would represent my constituents? Is it true that they would be represented in this conflict, if it existed, by the province of Ontario? Not always. Certainly the problem which has emerged is that the various governments, whose position is established by law, translate it into the belief that they speak for the people where any of then-interests are concerned. I say that this is not so, and what we should attempt to do in the work of this committee first and foremost, is find out what the public really think about their constitution. Surely you can make them more interested by the use of television and by all the other modem means of communication.
I think that this committee would fail in its duty if it did not go out actively to try to find out what the public think. This cannot be done by the kind of formal presentation where one interest group or another comes before the committee in a small room. Why do we not use imaginatively and definitively the means which we now have at our disposal? Let us have polls taken and surveys conducted in an attempt to ascertain the attitude of the people about their constitution and about the authority which they feel should have the main and the leading role to play in the various matters of contention between the federal government and provincial governments.
The present discussions, as many speakers have indicated, have been going on now for a period of two years, and obviously they have not taken the course that some people thought they would. My friend, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), referred today to the fact that sometimes they are like public auctions. But he knows better than I do that these discussions have less of that quality than any previous discussions among
January 26, 1970

Canadian Constitution
the federal government and provincial governments.
I am sure that some provinces came to these discussions with the belief that all they had to do was to state their terms and more money and authority would be given to them. But for once we have an honest discussion of the problems of our constitution where something is asked for by the provinces and equally something is asked for by the federal government.
There is a great need in this country to expand the federal power in many important areas of our life. I think that what has been surprising in these constitutional discussions is that they have not been what my friend referred to as a sort of public auction of the tax rights or authority of the federal government. Rather, they have turned into an honest discussion of how we can functionally rearrange our constitution to make it a more fitting instrument in this twentieth century. The discussions have been far-ranging, from a proposal to entrench a Bill of Rights, to the recreation of the Supreme Court, to treaties, and the old subject of the distribution of power between the federal government and provincial governments.
The reception that has been accorded the federal proposals is one which we should have expected. There have been a variety of responses. Some provinces like some proposals and dislike others; some political parties like some proposals and dislike others. Some people say, as has been said today, that there should be a really dramatic declaration by the federal government in these discussions, and they follow that by saying, "But we must not have a confrontation". We should not be afraid of a constitutional discussion and we should not be afraid of controversy that might develop at those constitutional discussions because they affect the future of all of us and of our country.
I would like to make one or two specific comments about the work of this committee. The first comment is one which at least the members of my profession in this House will understand. It is that it is completely beyond the range of possibility to develop a perfect constitution. Even if tonight it were possible for us in this chamber to write down in black and white, indeed in letters of gold, a constitution which would solve all the problems of this country, we know that tomorrow something would crop up somewhere which would make that constitution out of date.
The codifiers, from Justinian to Napoleon, have found out to their sorrow that one cannot legislate perfection in the law or in constitutions. Therefore, we must recognize that any constitution worthy of its name must, be one which is capable of sound application by the various levels of government and of sound interpretation by the courts.
I would like to speak for a few minutes about the application of the constitution. If I may adopt a colloquialism I would say, "Don't knock the BNA Act," because it has survived 100 pretty strenuous years. Notwithstanding all the difficulties which may have arisen in applying it, the collective good sense of the Canadian people has always prevailed in difficult situations. We have emerged from the little, rural type of country which we were 100 years ago into a great, burgeoning industrial nation-and we have the same written constitution as we had then. Any constitution, whether it was written in 1867 or is written-today, must be one that can be applied in the same way to developing circumstances and to. new conditions.
One of the great things that has happened in recent years has been the systemization of federal-provincial relations. The criticism which has been levelled at all these federal-provincial meetings, which have been so important in the recent history of our country, is that they were held in secret. That criticism can be met, or at least blunted, by the appointment of this type of committee which will throw this process open to the public view and which, I hope, will encourage all the participating governments to express their opinions openly.
In speaking about the application of our-constitution to the problems of our day, I am bold enough to make one suggestion: what one might call the major, sweeping problems facing this country can never be made the subject of the sole jurisdiction of either the provinces or the federal government. At the present time, as I have said, matters such as housing, welfare, pollution, economic growth and the like are primarily subjects under provincial jurisdiction, but really they are under the joint jurisdiction of the federal government and provincial governments.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
No matter how the constitution might be-rewritten, it is my opinion that major problems of this kind will continue to be jointly under federal and provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, we must be prepared to carry on,.

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
as we have in the last few years, in a joint approach of the federal government and provincial governments toward the application of our constitution to the major problems of Canada.
My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), at the conclusion of his remarks spoke about the interpretation of the constitution and about the new doctrine expounded by the Supreme Court of Canada, that it is not bound by its previous decisions in every instance. In my opinion we have not used our constitution in the same dynamic, testing sense as the Americans. I think that a modern federal constitution requires to be tested in the fire; it requires to be continually used, to be expounded and used as a probe to determine where and by whom jurisdiction in new areas can be exercised. We have not done this, neither the provinces nor the federal government, to anything like the extent of the United States.
I think that in the future, no matter what has been done with the constitution, we will find it necessary to subject it more frequently to judicial interpretation. This will emphasize the role of the Supreme Court of Canada. To me this also signifies that one of the most important areas for consideration in amending the constitution is the proposal which has been made for the reconstitution of the Supreme Court on lines which will make it more acceptable to the provinces of Canada.


Mr. Horner:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question, Mr. Speaker. We are arriving at a decade which suggests that the individual should be more important than all other things which may concern his administration. The hon. member is suggesting that the whole administration of the individual should lie within the realm of the Supreme Court of Canada. I ask for clarification on that point. Is he really suggesting that the jurisdiction of the freedom of the individual should rest solely with the Supreme Court of Canada, rather than under Parliament and the freedoms which Parliament should grant in a democracy?


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. gentleman's statement that that is a question. I was speaking about the interpretation of the constitution in terms of assessing the distribution of power as between the federal government and provincial governments. I was not addressing my remarks to the other, equally important question of the protection of

human rights. I have not time to deal with that matter but I can say, very briefly, that it is important and long overdue that we entrench a Bill of Rights in our constitution. I think, following the example of our neighbours to the south, that we can have every confidence that this would enhance the freedom of Canadians and more particularly is it important in an era wherein there is increasing government intervention in every aspect of the life of the community.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I should like to express some views on specifics which I think are important in dealing with the constitution. Repeating what I said at the beginning, I am concerned that in our country people expect the federal government to play a leading role, most particularly in the development of the Canada economy. I think it is quite apparent at the present time that because of our constitutional arrangements, the federal government cannot play the role it should in the development of Canada and the Canadian economy. It is true that it has wide powers- taxing power, spending power, control over currency, banking and international trade, control over transport and communications- but it is not able to exercise powers in important areas affecting the life of the citizen. It has limited powers in terms of national planning. It has, as we know, limited powers in housing, control of economic growth and to exercise, when need be, firm economic controls on inflation. As I said earlier, if there is any meaning to the questions raised about foreign intrusion into our economy, the federal government has very little power to deal with this problem. It is hampered in its approach to harmful business practices-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member be granted leave to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to add that the federal government is hampered in its control of harmful business practices, as was pointed out in the recent report of the Economic Council.
In conclusion, may I say that the appointment of this committee is an important development in our growing knowledge of our
January 26, 1970

Canadian Constitution
constitution and the problems it creates. I hope the committee will become a positive force in indicating to not only the members of this House but to all people the scope we have to make our country operate successfully under the present constitution by agreement, by novel interpretation, by experimentation and by amendment.


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, if there is a general feeling that our constitution should be examined with a view to changing it, I believe that the proper first step is to have this examination carried out by a committee of Parliament. But I remain convinced, as I was when this matter was before the House last February, that there is no urgency about this matter. Certainly it should not be given precedence in Parliament over much more pressing national problems.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) covered the waterfront in his remarks when he said that the federal government should be strengthened and the provincial governments should be strengthened. I just worry about what the citizens of this country will do.
I agree that the hon. member is correct in his assessment of the constitution, because I am also convinced that the constitution as it stands today, 103 years after its coming into effect, is quite adequate to meet the demands made upon it, no matter how complex and difficult our public affairs become. It has proved to be flexible and adaptable to a very wide range of national crises from world wars to worldwide depression.
As long as Canadian leaders and statesmen have utilized our constitution in good faith, it has proved more than adequate. Unfortunately, in recent years we have had clear evidence that even such a basically sound document as the British North America Act is not proof against the manipulation of an unscrupulous Prime Minister. Its strength lies in its use, its weakness in the fact that it can be bypassed. In my view it lacks the vital provisions that would curb the assumption of unlimited and irresponsible power by the executive.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If we are to amend our constitution, the first and most urgent change we should make is to write into the constitution curbs on the taxing and spending powers of the federal government and the ability of the Prime Minister to ignore Parliament and the constitu-21611-41
tion. The record of the government immediately past, and of the present one, is appalling in respect of trampling on the constitution, slighting the rights of the provinces and concentrating power in the hands of the central government at Ottawa an ever larger share of total spending and total government taxation.
Taxation in this country has risen steeply until today it has reached the dangerous pinnacle of more than one-third of the gross national product. This is beyond the point which economists and historians claim it is safe for any society to go without running the risk of complete economic and social decay. We should provide a constitutional check to ensure that all governments stay within a fair and proportionate share of the national economy.
Whatever political theorists may say, or whatever political opportunists may claim, we are still a federal state, not a unitary state and not a state with a very strong centre and very weak parts. In Canada it should never be a question of a central government that is stronger or weaker than the provincial governments, or vice versa. Our constitutional problem should only be to preserve a fair balance between the two types of government. Our constitutional basis provides, and for very good and proven reasons, for certain matters to be handled by a central government and certain others to be administered by regional or provincial governments.
The essential thing is to ensure that each type of government is guaranteed the freedom and the financial muscle to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. I am one of those who is hopeful that the proposed committee will be able to make the existing constitution work without change or, at least, with the minimum of change.
I have mentioned that recent governments have abused our constitution and that Prime ministers, in particular the present one, have assumed extraordinary powers. To me, one of the most obvious and damaging examples of this abuse of the constitution is in the deliberate exclusion by a variety of means of the monarchy from our processes of government. Let me emphasize strongly that when I speak of the monarchy I speak of it only as an institution, a constitutional device that happens also to be the core of our particular system of parliamentary democracy.
I believe it is wrong and would merely be misleading to argue, as many do, for or against the monarchy on grounds of sentimental attachment or emotion. It is not the

January 26. 1970
Canadian Constitution
person of the monarch we must be concerned about, but the institution of the monarchy. The only question to be asked about the monarchy is this: Is it a sound and useful piece of political and constitutional machinery; is it effective in governing a modern state democratically and in freedom; and is it as good as, or better than, other expedients available?
The fact is that our system of government is laid down in our written constitution. The British North America Act, in section 17, under part IV entitled "Legislative Power," says:
There shall be One Parliament for Canada consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
So, whether we like it or not, the sovereign is constitutionally an integral part of our government. To slight or ignore the sovereign, as successive Liberal governments have done in recent years, affects the sovereign but little; it merely demeans and weakens our system of government and the nation. I am convinced that the oblique attacks on the monarchy in this country have less to do with political and constitutional requirements of a modern state than with anti-British sentiments and emotional resentment of pomp and ceremony. If I am correct in that, I think this is an even weaker and more dangerous argument than is sentimental attachment to the royal family.
If you take the trouble to read the story of the birth and early times of confederation, I am sure you will discover, Mr. Speaker, that there were very few colonists in North America of that day who held any sentimental attachment to Great Britain or any love for things or people English. The colonies of those days, the colonies that banded together to form Canada, were settled by many people who had little cause to love England. There were Scottish immigrants driven from their ancestral homes by English influence. There were communities of people who had fled England for religious freedom. There were those of French descent only recently losers in a war against England.
Even the United Empire Loyalists, who had come to the British North American colonies to get away from the new republicanism to the south, had done so more because they preferred British-style government and British institutions than because they loved England. One has only to read of the Loyalists who went to England, instead of what is now Canada, to realize the bitter feeling between the two groups.

Also, we should never forget that one of the chief movers and front-line fighters against the British government in the Lower Canadian rebellion of 1837 was not a French Canadian but a direct descendant of United Empire Loyalists, Dr. Wolfred Nelson.
The facts of the matter are that it was not ties with England and sentimental attachment to that country that prompted our ancestors to opt for the monarchical system of parliamentary democracy. It was shrewd and unemotional assessment that British methods and institutions of democratic government were preferable to the available alternatives.
Recent history has borne out this contention, I believe. In Britain's former colonies, some of which have detached themselves completely from the mother country while others have maintained varying kinds of loose association, British forms of government and British institutions have been retained and cherished. It is significant that India, a country that apparently had little cause to indulge in any sentimental tie with Britain, retained a British form of parliamentary democracy and a judicial and other governmental systems identical to those introduced in the days of British rule.
It is true that India abolished the office of Governor-General and recognizes the sovereign only as the head of the Commonwealth, but she retained the substance of British parliamentary, democratic government. The only real change was to substitute a president as head of state rather than the British reigning monarch. In my view this is no advantage. A president must be chosen. This means the office immediately becomes a political one, no matter how restricted the powers of the president may be. This, to my mind, destroys one of the chief advantages of hereditary monarchy, namely, that it provides a truly non-political figure at the head of government.
I happen to believe we should retain the system of government that incorporates a hereditary and non-political monarch. I do so, however, on grounds of constitutional effectiveness, not because I am misty-eyed about royalty. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is essential today that the question of retaining or abandoning the monarchy be brought out in the open and debated dispassionately on grounds of its worth as an institution and its entrenched position as an essential part of our system of government. I think it is damaging to our social and political stability
January 26, 1970

Canadian Constitution
to stand by and watch a few determined antimonarchists destroy the effectiveness of the institution by ridicule, innuendo and unconstitutional trickery. I think it particularly damaging because I believe this is being done strictly on grounds of anti-British sentiment and for political expediency.
It is my hope that this point will be one of the principal ones discussed by the committee that is proposed. As for curbing the first minister's appetite for dictatorial powers, I believe this, too, must be given priority before Parliament is relegated to the role of a constitutional museum and this country sinks into authoritarian socialism. It would be amusing, if it were not so tragic, to hear people crying for a greater degree of centralized governmental power when this trend runs so directly opposite to the political slogan of this government, "Participatory democracy". The more power is centralized in Ottawa, the further government is removed from the people. This is not peculiar to the federal scene. It occurs at all levels, including provincial and municipal. But it is a fact of modern life that our young people have recognized and against which they are protesting.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We believe that if democracy is to mean anything, everyone must have the opportunity to be heard and to sway government policy to the best of his or her ability. Canada is a union of regions and cannot be remolded at this stage of development into a unitary state. If the pressure for centralized power persists, it will shatter confederation and fragment its parts beyond reuniting. The Fathers of Confederation knew this well. They recognized this basic fact and wrote the constitution accordingly. All that is needed today is some of their practical common sense and a genuine desire to make our constitution work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Decentralization, not
more centralization, is the only apparent way of adequately protecting regions and minorities in this country and of giving these regions a fair and reasonable voice in their own and national affairs. It is the only manner in which Canadians can be given the chance of close participation in their own affairs.
We have heard a great deal about the concept of the "global village" and that Canada is shrinking in on itself because of great 21611-411
advances in the technology of transportation and communication. The truth is that it is not a homogeneous whole and probably never will be. As for technological advances, if they are so dramatic, how is it that it takes a simple letter ten days to be delivered to Alberta from Ottawa?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) has advised me that it took 16 days for a first-class parcel post package with $5 postage to be delivered from Toronto to Moncton.
My idea of Canada is a national government politically, constitutionally and financially, strong enough to discharge its constitutional responsibilities and, when necessary, to assist in keeping the various regions in economic balance-and no more. With this concept I see regional governments equally strongly situated to discharge their regional responsibilities. I say regional rather than provincial because it may well be that amalgamation of one or more provinces will eventually make better economic sense in this country.
If total government spending were limited to a percentage of the gross national product, all governments would then have to work for policies which would increase the size of the pie for all if they were desirous of increasing their spending, instead of the present situation where all they do is increase their slice of the pie at the expense of the citizen. To achieve this balance of power and strength between governments, I believe it has now become necessary to bolster it with constitutional provisions that would effectively prevent encroachment of the federal government on the regional governments.
One of the great areas of federal excess has been not only its own profligate spending but the pressure exerted on provinces to spend. This has been apparent in many so-called "national" programs, such as medicare where a combination of federal manipulation and political blackmail forced many provinces to commit themselves over their financial head.
I believe that one of our great troubles today is that those who enjoy power do not understand our constitutional heritage. They in fact appear to despise it and would change it, without any reference to the Canadian people, by subtle and unconstitutional means. Having no regard for the constitution, it has been easy for them to find ways around it.

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
This fact alone has caused me to change my mind to a certain extent and to now believe that some constitutional safeguards for the constitution itself should be incorporated. We must aim at making it impossible for anyone to bypass the constitution and Parliament. If we do not, Canadians will find themselves in the classic position that bred the United States revolution and the twin "taxation without representation". Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may yet enter the history books as the twentieth century's George III, a slimmer Gallic version of Lord North.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the establishment of a parliamentary committee as a means of adding another dimension to the discussion surrounding our constitution, because in the discussions so far it is apparent to me that some of the provinces for one reason or another are not standing up for their rights as they should be.
I hope the committee will be useful in persuading the government that what is needed in this country is decentralization, that the provinces should be allowed to discharge their responsibilities in respect of education, health services including the ever-expanding problem of mental health and urban transit, and that it is no longer acceptable for the federal government to treat them like beggars.
What I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, really amounts to ways and means of ensuring adherence to our present constitution and to the necessary minimum required to keep Canada together by giving our people a continued feeling of confidence in our nation, a feeling which I think we all believe is beginning to be questioned in many areas of the land.


Mr. Alaslair Gillespie (Etobicoke):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to contribute to this debate tonight, I do so as a non-expert. I make no apologies for not being a lawyer. I speak as a former businessman and I think I speak for concerned citizens through the land.
I feel the big debate in the next ten years will be on how we at the centre of power will use power or find the power to deal with such questions as pollution, foreign ownership and regulating our economy. Today's citizen is very much aware of the fact that the world as he knows it may not exist in 50 years time because of man's capacity to destroy it through his industrialization. He is aware of the fact that the automobile, through the discharge of exhaust fumes, may in the next 20

years raise the carbon dioxide content of the air to such a level that the temperature of the earth will rise by ten degrees and in so doing the ocean levels will rise six feet or more. Once this happens, it becomes an irreversible process. I suggest to hon. members this is something of considerable and enduring concern to the citizens of Canada.
The Canadian citizen is concerned about foreign ownership and the fact that if we do not find some way to deal with this question we may have no country and no identity by the end of the century. He is concerned about what he thinks are King Canute methods of dealing with the question of inflation. He does not understand that the call for voluntary restraint is no more than a call to those who are most sensitive, to those who are most responsible and an opportunity for those who are less responsible.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
He is not convinced that by asking people to show restraint the tide of inflation will somehow abate. He is concerned that the federal government does not have the power, or so it seems to him. Why else would we be speaking purely in terms of voluntary restraints? Why, for example, does not the federal government have the power to deal with consumer credit? Why does it not have the power to deal with wage, price and dividend restraint? Why does the approach have to be by way of voluntary restraint?
As a member of this House I am impressed, as I know others are impressed, by the initiatives shown by the federal government with respect to the need for constitutional change. Since this government took office there has been a substantial dialogue. As the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand) mentioned this evening, seven papers have been published dealing with constitutional matters. The last conference, held not very long ago, was attended by certain municipal representatives. This is the first time for a long time that a municipal representative has been included as a member of a delegation; on other occasions municipal representatives have been included as observers. I, for one, hope that future constitutional conferences will see municipal representatives included as members of provincial delegations. In this way, it seems to me, the cities can be included in the dialogue between the provincial governments and the federal government concerning this important area of constitutional change.
January 26. 1970

Canadian Constitution
Citizens, as we all know, will come to us and say, "I really do not understand the problem. .Governments are to serve the interests of the people, and you people argue that you do not have the power; the provincial governments have the power. I go to my provincial member, and he says, 'This is not a question for me; it is a question for your federal member.' " We have all run into this kind of difficulty. We have all been told we are overgoverned and overtaxed. I think the citizen today has begun to wonder increasingly about the nature of the distribution of powers. He is asking the question more and more, "Does the federal government lack the power?" If it lacks the power, let it say so as representative of all Canadians; and let us remind ourselves that we are the only institution in Canada which is representative of all Canadians.
As I say, I do not bring to this debate the knowledge of a constitutional lawyer or of an expert, but there are certain areas to which I should like to draw attention. It seems to me that one of the first principles when solving any problem is to find out whose responsibility it is and then to ensure that there is commensurable authority to go with it. At least, this is the way business deals with problems.
It seems to me that what we lack today is power at the centre. A few moments ago, the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) said what we needed in our constitutional arrangements was greater decentralization. I believe the application of power should be decentralized, but I do not think this is inconsistent with there being greater power at the centre, particularly when dealing with economic matters. As the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) said a short while ago, this is an area wherein we lack substantial power.
Looking at the motion which has been presented to us, I am happy to see that the committee is to be given the power to call witnesses. I am concerned, however, that it does not appear to have the power to hire staff. I hope this is nothing more than an oversight and that the committee will be given power to hire staff. In this connection, I hope, too, that more assistance will be forthcoming to the caucuses. I speak as a member of the Liberal caucus who would much appreciate the kind of assistance which is available to many hon. members opposite in terms of research staff. If the committee system is to work effectively, we must supply committees with the necessary staff.
I hope this special committee will call for a projection of the spending intentions of the provincial governments and the federal government collectively over the next five years and then ask, of qualified witnesses, just what revenue would be forthcoming to the provinces and to the federal government if there were no changes in existing levels of taxation at either the federal or provincial levels.
Let us get this information and place it before the public and members of the House of Commons. Unless we possess information of this kind, the whole question of spending and taxation powers becomes, in part, an academic exercise. If we are to consider the distribution of powers, we must have this information.
The committee should ask the question: Does the federal government possess the authority it needs today to deal with the various threats to our survival? For example, does it have authority to deal with pollution?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Alastair William Gillespie: It has made a start in the Canada water bill. But what about air pollution? Has it all the authority it needs to deal with pollution from automobiles?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Alastair William Gillespie: Has it the necessary authority to deal with industrial pollution? Let us make absolutely clear to all citizens of Canada where the responsibility lies.
Let us consider the field of foreign ownership. The British North America Act, if it was designed to protect the land mass against United States annexation, has been eminently successful. But if it was intended to protect the ownership of our natural resources, it has been a failure. The provincial governments, and particularly the provincial premiers, could not care less, it seems to me, about who owns our natural resources. I suggest that the federal government does not appear to possess the authority to regulate this essential aspect of our national affairs.
Third, with respect to regulating the economy, surely it is time we transferred power to the federal government to regulate consumer credit. Surely it is time we transferred standby powers with respect to the regulation of capital spending. Surely it is time we transferred the necessary power to deal with wages, prices and dividends in times of inflation. If we duck the opportunity presented by the conference coming up in two weeks time,

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
we shall have done a great disservice to ourselves and to this nation. I trust the committee will direct itself to these questions.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind the Canadian Parliament is debating an extremely important matter. The official opposition has repeatedly requested, since 1965, the appointment of a parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution. We did not do so to embarrass the government in power but because we were convinced that this was both urgent and necessary.
Four stands have been adopted to date in the face of the Canadian constitutional crisis.
The first, that of the status quo, does not meet the objectives of the provinces; this was quite obvious at the last constitutional conference at which time the provinces demanded immediate amendments. As we know, the powers are not well divided. There is duplication in the activities, and the present constitution does not meet the needs of our modern times.
The second, which is as extreme as the first and, obviously, just as unacceptable, advocates total decentralization of powers in favour of the provinces. This attitude was advocated especially by certain Quebec groups and would require the creation of associate states. Let us face the facts: this tenent is unacceptable because it would mean the end of Canada. In fact there would be two states, or more if other provinces took advantage of the right to decentralization.
The third, we also reject: it is that of the present government. It consists in the centralization of powers, and denies the provinces the possibility of playing a dynamic role within the Canadian confederation.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Finally there is the fourth, which I shall describe in a moment. It seems logical to us, members from Quebec, because it does not treat the provinces as agencies of the central government, but as useful, active and responsible members within the Canadian confederation. That principle has been advocated repeatedly, as well in Quebec as elsewhere. It strikes us as much more acceptable.
That is the way Quebecers now see the constitutional crisis, and how the majority of them feel it can be overcome.
It must be admitted from the start that Quebec is not just another province. This has

been proclaimed for the past hundred years. Five-sixths of Canada's French-speaking population live in Quebec and that is what makes it different from the other provinces.
Other differences could also be mentioned, resulting from Quebec's geographic position, commanding the main route of communication toward the interior of the continent. It could also be said that Quebec is different because of its immense untapped reserves of natural resources. Merely taking into account that it is different because its population is primarily and predominantly French-speaking, it must be recognized that Quebec can enrich Canada, if it is to be different from its southern neighbour.
On many occasions, French-Canadiens have expressed dissatisfaction about their status within the Canadian confederation. In fact, one only has to read the report of the Tremblay Commission, the report of the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and the statements from all the Quebec premiers, Liberal or Union Nationale, at the constitutional conferences, and more especially since 1960, to become aware of the continuity in Quebec's demands.
This government has always claimed to be sympathetic to Quebec's requests, but so far, it has done nothing about them. It may say that it has passed an official languages bill, with our consent. Yet, everyone knows very well that both languages have been recognized and protected in Quebec for a long time, and that the government passed that bill, after several years of delay and hesitation, much more to favour French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec.
The government has therefore done nothing to allow Quebec to follow its cultural vocation. Quebecers are more and more conscious of the role they can play in Canadian life, or of the lack of it. Unless they are allowed to take an active part, it is to be feared that they might decide to leave Confederation.
Separatism is a dreadful threat. And that is something Quebec members have to live with every day. Even though we know that separatism could have harmful effects on both Canada and Quebec, it still remains a possibility.
To realize it, it is enough to consider how Quebecers are getting more and more indifferent to federal politics. At the last election, the percentage of the Quebec vote was the lowest in the country; 72 per cent, compared to 78 per cent in 1963.
January 26, 1970

The government should not either bow to Quebecers' claims just to cajole them, to keep them of its side; that would be hypocritical.
The requests of Quebec must therefore be given the importance they deserve, because we are convinced that Quebec has its place within the Canadian confederation and that its particular charasteristics can play a precious role. It is by acknowledging these characteristics of Quebec that Canadian unity will be achieved, on the basis of equality of the two founding nations, whatever word may be used to designate the two ethnic entities which exist in Canada. The main thing is to realize that Canada has two majority groups which are sociologically different. Contrary to what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign, it does not mean that there are two countries within a single state, because that is not what the people of Quebec want. Since they want to live in a single country, the majority of Canadians must also recognize the differences which may benefit confederation.
It is not enough to recognize that the province of Quebec is different; it must be recognized also that it is in a position to discharge a very large part of the responsibilities issuing from that difference. In the area of culture, we see that these last few years, the province of Quebec has increased its connections and its relations with the French-speaking world. Because its main group is of French culture, the province of Quebec must allow that group to live more intensely in French, and to add to its culture.
How can we expect five million Frenchspeaking people, on a continent inhabited by 220 million English-speaking people, to be self-sufficient insofar as culture is concerned? To the extent that the human body needs fresh air, the French-speaking civilization needs sources on which to feed.
But whenever Quebec tried to improve its relations and enter into agreements with French-speaking countries, the federal government showed its displeasure and opposed any such move. Don't we French Canadians from Quebec have every reason to wonder why in the course of the last 60 or 70 years the federal government did not choose to strengthen its contacts with French-speaking countries in order to meet the cultural requirements of the Quebec people as well as those of other French-speaking Canadians?
There is no doubt that Quebec has greatly benefited and still benefits by these agreements with French-speaking nations. Let us
Canadian Constitution
mention for instance the numerous exchanges of teachers, students, technicians and experts as well as the increase of French investments in Quebec.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If Quebec benefits from such exchanges and agreements, the rest of Canada is in no way deprived. By increasing such exchanges with the French-speaking world, Quebec does not deprive anyone of anything. We should, rather, rejoice that Quebec benefits so greatly from them.
Besides, no objections were ever raised against Ontario having offices in different countries, in England for instance, because this could promote its culture and its interests. The federal government did not raise any objections either when Ontario instituted in its Department of Education a Cultural Exchanges Division and signed agreements, with France amongst others, for exchanges of students and professors.
However, Mr. Speaker, if Quebec dares take some steps in this direction, the central government first objects, to agree later on, as was the case for the conferences of the Education Ministers of French-speaking countries; on the other hand, if it does not agree to it, it intimidates the countries which would like to have relations with Quebec as was the case when diplomatic relations with Gabon were broken up.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, these are unpleasant facts to hear but the truth has to be spoken before our English-speaking Canadian friends, here in this sanctuary which is the House of Commons.
It is not just in the field of culture that Quebec needs to take steps in order to fulfill this characteristic. There is the field of social welfare, the field of immigration, the field of education which belongs to Quebec and to the provinces, but where the federal government continues to withhold the amounts Quebec would need for its administration, under the pretense that in its opinion, these amounts must be used for university education.
However, university education does not come under federal jurisdiction, at least in our opinion. The Quebec government is quite able to look after its education system properly and to decide what amounts of money must be allocated without any conditions being set by the central government especially in matters such as education or health which, under the constitution, come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

January 26, 1970
Canadian Constitution
Therefore, why deny Quebec the right to have specific needs, when the premiers of Ontario and Manitoba have stated, following the last constitutional conference, that they had no objection to Quebec having special arrangements within the Canadian Confederation, in order to meet all the needs of that majority of French Canadians who live now in this beautiful country that we call Canada?
Mr. Speaker, that is the question that we must put to the government. Why this obstinate refusal of the fact that Quebec is not a province like the others? It is only a question of thinking of a new constitution in which jurisdictions will be negotiated and Quebec could be a part of a federation by playing in it a dynamic role and by meeting its own particular requirements. The federal government must not only allow Quebec to play a role in meeting its particular needs, but they should also, if they want to keep Quebec within Confederation, do all they can to enable Quebec to achieve its aims.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a concession that must be granted to Quebec and Quebecers are not asking the central government for gifts when they speak in this way. I say that Quebec has a right to demand these realities which enable Canada to be a great country because it is a bicultural and bilingual one.
Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point where a clear and precise decision must be made. We must no longer expect that time will settle things well because it will not do that from now on, in Quebec. Indeed, Quebec has been patient. It put forth its point of view on many occasions. It will keep on doing it for some time but there are limits to its patience-I repeat, there are limits to its patience.
It should be made quite clear that when Quebec is asking for special arrangements, it does not mean to deprive anybody in any way. We hope the federal government will show good will and understanding. In order to help it arrive at a fair decision, the members of the Progressive Conservative party again suggest to establish a parliamentary committee on the constitution which, in my view, should enjoy very extensive terms of reference, enabling it to consider the reform of both the Senate and of the Supreme Court.
It should also be entrusted with the task of considering the establishment of a constitutional court where the differences between the provinces and the central government could be better settled than by the Supreme

Court of Canada whose decisions, in the past, have often been challenged by the provinces.
Moreover, a parliamentary committee on the constitution should study the whole question of the monarchy and that of the establishment of a presidential system. Those are questions asked by the young people nowadays. I am not saying this in order to promote one system more than the other, but to bring forward the ideals of the young Canadians who call for a constitution, not only for the present but for the future of those who wish to keep on militating in the Canadian Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are getting ready to tell me that my time has expired but I will take only a few more minutes.
Since 1965 we have called for the establishment of this committee but in vain. We are happy today that the government put that question before the House. We are ready to do our share so that a sound dialogue may begin between all parts of the Canadian federation, so that a new constitution may soon be drafted, which will meet all the needs and ideals of all the Canadian people.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in 1964 Members of Parliament from the New Democratic Party proposed the establishment of a House of Commons committee to discuss and study the problems involved in amending or changing the constitution. At that time the proposal was rejected by the government and has consistently until today been rejected.
We endorse the idea of a committee to study the constitution and needed changes to it, because we recognize the tremendous difficulties which have occurred in this country since the constitution was written and adopted more than 100 years ago. One hundred years ago when the British North America Act was enacted, this country was essentially rural. Today, a substantial majority of the people of Canada live in the cities.
When the constitution was adopted, the federal government allocated to itself those powers and responsibilities which it considered important and left to the provinces those responsibilities which at that time it considered to be much less essential and important to the people. The judgement of the federal government at that time probably was correct, but the urbanization of this country has
January 26, 1970

made a tremendous difference. Therefore, we now find that some of the most important functions in respect of the day-to-day life of the people of this country have been left, under the provisions of the constitution, to the provinces.
The provinces, in turn, over the years have given a great deal of that responsibility to the cities which are entirely creatures of the provincial governments. This government and its Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have until now taken the position that our constitution is essentially a good constitution; that if we are in trouble it is because the federal government has not stuck to its jurisdiction and the responsibilities given it under the constitution and that the provinces, similarly, have not stuck to their responsibilities under the constitution.
The major field in which the Prime Minister feels the federal government must have responsibility, and the one thing which he has wanted to discuss with the provinces in respect of changes in the constitution, concerns the French-speaking people of Canada. The Prime Minister feels that regardless of where they live, they must be given equal rights with English-speaking Canadians in the use of their language in all parts of Canada.
We in our party have agreed with that part of the proposition put forward by the Prime Minister. We have done so even though many of our constituents have not understood what the Prime Minister was talking about and what we were trying to do. We have agreed with this because we feel it essential that if this country is to survive as one country, the French-speaking people must be given the feeling they are equal citizens. However, the people in English-speaking Canada and in French-speaking Canada need more than the right to use the English or French language in any part of Canada; they must start dealing with the many problems of modern-day life with which they have not had an opportunity to deal.
If there is criticism of the approach of this government and the Prime Minister in many parts of Canada-and there is-it is not based on partisan, political reasons. I should like to point out to members of this House what I am sure they already know. There is no harsher critic of the government and the Prime Minister in respect of the approach taken to the constitution than the Liberal Premier of the province of Saskatchewan. If I were to use some of the language he has used, I am cer-
DEBATES	2853
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tain the Chair would call me to order for using language which is unparliamentary.
We all know that the former minister of transport and deputy prime minister resigned from the cabinet because of his feeling that if we accepted the views of the Prime Minister about the constitution in respect of problems such as housing, it would be impossible to deal with the problems of the cities and find a solution to them.
I could spend more than the time I have in putting on the record the point of view of the Liberal member for York West (Mr. Givens), a former mayor of Toronto, who outside this chamber has spoken repeatedly about the failure of this government and its Prime Minister to face up to the responsibilities which a federal government must assume if it is to meet the problems of the cities. It is because of my feeling that this government is taking too narrow and too legalistic a position in respect of amending and changing the constitution that I rise today to speak in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, prior to the Christmas recess I asked a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans), the Minister of Communications or whatever the father of our new jet-age postal system now styles himself. It went without answer, and that it is the reason I am discussing it at this time, because it touches on the sad state to which a fundamental public service has degenerated. The question had to do with the announcement that the minister had appointed a senior productivity executive to his staff. As I understood the minister's announcement of this appointment, the prime duty of this extra official would be to combat inflation in the workings of the Post Office Department.
This struck me as a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. The minister had set the process of unrestrained inflation in motion long before hiring someone to con-
January 26, 1970
2854	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion trol it. I am talking about the minister's great reform, the imposition of primitive and crippling new postal rates on the Canadian public. His stated reason was to enable the Post Office Department to operate like a healthy private business concern at a profit. He has not yet explained from whence he received his mandate to turn a vital public service into a private money-making proposition.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Nesbitt:: They ought to put him in the CBC.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: What we need in his department is an official to bring back our fast and reliable postal service and to reduce excessively high postal rates, not a man to draw a very large salary for tilting at windmills.
Ever since 1840 when Sir Rowland Hill introduced the first cheap and effective public postal service in Great Britain, the Post Office and its work has been recognized as a basic public service for which the taxpayer was willing to pay something in support out of the public funds. It had two aims-to carry the mail as cheaply as possible and to be as reliable as possible. These have since been the aims of almost every civilized country in the operation of their postal services.
But this was P.K. I do not mean pre-Cambrian, but pre-Kierans. Now we have a new apostle and a new creed: To the devil with what people want and in support of which they are willing to pay taxes. We know better. We will make this service pay even if it means fewer mail deliveries, long delays, and much higher rates.
The minister worshipped too long at the shrine of private industry as president of the Montreal Stock Exchange, without learning anything. He is infatuated by profit for the sake of profit.
The questions I pose this evening are simply these: When will the Postmaster General stop destroying the identity of countless small localities by closing down post offices? When will he and his army of efficiency experts restore the reliability of our mail delivery system? When will he come to his senses and lower postal rates to make the postal service once more a public service and not a luxury? When will he stop trying to "snow" the public with science-fiction press releases, and get his department back on the track?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) I must express his regret that for personal reasons he cannot be here this evening.
The purpose of re-examining the productivity of the Post Office is for the very reasons that the hon. member has stipulated, namely, to improve the productivity of the service is to bring the cost down-a simple economic fact. Any action which the Post Office takes to reduce over-all costs in any area of activity will naturally have an effect in rate-setting. The proposition seems to me to be as simple as that, and it seems to be the most direct answer to the hon. gentleman.



MANPOWER-ADULT RETRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS-ALLEGED WASTING OF MONEY

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on December 5 I brought to the attention of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) the charges made in a report prepared for the Association of Colleges of Arts and Technology of Ontario that the manpower training program operated by the federal government was inefficient, wasteful, and was not doing the job of training people who are out of work, which it was set up to do. Manpower training began in 1961 under the former Conservative government as a joint program financed and administered both by the federal government and the provincial governments. In 1967 the manpower training program was taken out of the hands of the provincial governments. Schools coming under the jurisdiction of the provinces are used for the training of manpower, but the entire responsibility for the program now rests with the federal government.
Because the federal government has the sole responsibility, and because there has been a lamentable lack of co-operation with the provincial governments and the local schools in which the manpower training programs are conducted, the colleges to which I have referred made a report which deserves to be discussed and will be discussed in detail when the estimates of the department come before the appropriate parliamentary committee.
The report says that the manpower training programs have become not really training programs but primarily programs designed to put people to work as quickly as possible whether they have the training required for

January 26, 1970

permanent work and whether the available jobs are suitable or not. The main responsibility undertaken by the department seems to be to put a person into a job, a slot, if that can be accomplished. It is only after the person repeatedly fails on a job that the department considers an adequate program of manpower training. The report charges that the bureaucracy and red-tape have multiplied to such an extent that the people who need the training, simply become discouraged and give up.
What are some of the problems? One is the decision that no manpower training program may last more than a year, 52 weeks. But a large percentage of our population, the Metis people in particular but also people from many of the rural areas of Eastern and Western Canada, have only grade six or grade seven education. They cannot fit into existing training programs and apprenticeship programs. The one year for which they are paid a training allowance sometimes brings them only to the grade eight, nine or 10 level of education. What they need is the equivalent of grade 12. But for those unfortunate enough to live in areas that do not provide facilities-and this is all too true of many areas in this country, and probably in no province is it as prevalent as the minister's province of Nova Scotia-all the 52 weeks' training does is bring them to grade eight level. It simply does not give them the background necessary to take the technical training that they require.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Manpower Department has built up its own organization and there is little co-operation between the department and the school facilities. There are counsellors working for the Manpower Department and counsellors working for the education authorities, but according to the report to which I have referred, the co-operation between them leaves a great deal to be desired. Those who suffer are the people taking the training.
One other aspect to which I have referred again and again in debates about manpower training is this: The counsellors employed by the Manpower Department have virtually life and death power in respect of the program. They decide whether a person shall take a job or shall take further education; they decide whether a person shall take the training in his own city or in another, and they decide how long he shall be entitled to the training. According to the report, the co-operation between the manpower counsellors and 21611-42*
DEBATES	2855
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the school counsellors is minimal, to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons I would urge the minister to study the report made by educational people who have had long experience in working with those needing education and who are in day-to-day contact with this problem. I ask that the difficulties referred to in this report, which are dealt with in much more detail than I could hope to do, be studied objectively and without partisanship.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to a report that was issued some time ago and he bases his statements on the contents of that report. At the time the report was issued, and before a copy had been delivered to me, there was extensive reporting in the newspapers. At that time I made a public comment indicating that in my view the report did not represent a very fair or balanced picture of the operation of the Canada Manpower training program. The report itself is under review in my department, and the findings up to the present time give us no reason for changing the original analysis or reaction to it.
My hon. friend has mentioned a relatively large number of issues which I cannot deal with in a couple of minutes. We co-operate with the provinces. The successful operation of our program depends on close co-operation and collaboration with all provincial governments. Last week my deputy had meetings with all the deputy ministers of the provinces to consider how the program could be improved and how the process of consultation could be enhanced. Also, the hon. member should know that recently we had a meeting with ministers from the province of Manitoba, and part of the agenda dealt with ways and means of increasing co-operation in order to make the program more effective.
I had a meeting with the Minister of Education of Manitoba and we reached a good understanding as to how the program might be applied in that province to meet the particular needs of various communities. So, to suggest that there is minimal co-operation is inaccurate. We could not contemplate spending so much money in training the large numbers of people involved without having the close co-operation of the provinces.
We have conducted extensive cost-benefit analyses of the results of this program. We
2856	COMMONS DEBATES	January 26, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion have followed up the employment histories of individuals who have taken the course. We know that while there are ways in which we can improve the program, the returns to the economy are about threefold when compared with expenditures made under the program. We know that the chances of employment of individuals are increased considerably and that their earning power is increased as a result of the training program. I shall welcome further questions based on the report at a later date when our review is complete, and we shall co-operate with the hon. member in finding ways and means of improving what I think is an effective program that can be improved and increased in respect of its services.



POLLUTION-DUMPING OF OIL AND OTHER WASTE IN GREAT LAKES

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on December 5, almost two months ago, I directed the following question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene):
Having regard to the fact that the United States government recommended two days ago to the Canada-United States International Joint Commission that a moratorium with respect to oil drilling in Lake Erie be imposed because of the dangerous pollution possibilities, would the minister indicate whether the Canadian government intends to make a similar representation to the International Joint Commission?
I welcome this opportunity to give a little more background to my question and trust that we will hear from the minister tonight whether the Canadian government has also recommended to the Canada-United States International Joint Commission that a similar moratorium with respect to oil-drilling in Lake Erie be imposed.
It seems to me that in the mad search for resources the various levels of government often failed to take into account any adverse effects which the development and use of the resource might have on our total environment. In many instances permits for exploration and development are granted without proper safeguards being insisted upon by the governments involved. Frequently we find that governments have completely overlooked the possibility of major ecological damage being done and certainly have not weighed these chances, however remote they may be, against the over-all return from any given resource. A good example of this lack of foresight is found in the oil-drilling permits which have been allowed in Lake Erie.

In a news story in the Toronto Telegram of December 4,	1969, the following report
appeared:
The United States government recommended to the United States-Canada International Joint Commission yesterday a moratorium on oil well drilling in heavily polluted Lake Erie.
Kenneth Bigland, Director of the United States Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's Division of Technological Support, said both planning and methods of dealing with oil spills on the lake remained limited. He said the moratorium should extend to natural gas drilling where such wells are likely to produce crude oil above specified levels, but he said the moratorium would not necessarily affect gas production which is already under way on the Canadian side of the lake.
Other interesting points have been raised in connection with oil-drilling in Lake Erie. It has been pointed out that one of the greatest dangers posed by drilling would be an accidental leak of the salt brine used. Apparently experts have warned that a spill of salt brine from an oil well would be one of the greatest natural catastrophes that could strike the Great Lakes. However, this is one aspect of pollution about which we have heard very little.
The main point I would like to make this evening, is that the recent IJC hearings clearly demonstrated that we do not have the facilities in the Great Lakes area to deal with a possible major oil well leak, or a major spill of oil from a sinking tanker. It would be utter catastrophe if a major spill of oil took place in any one of the Great Lakes. The hearing has pinpointed the fact that there is conflict between the federal and provincial jurisdictions as far as responsibility is concerned.
It appears that we have no contingency plans to deal with possible major oil well leaks such as the one off the coast of California last January. It appears that the lack of proper co-ordination between the federal and the provincial authorities is very much in evidence. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this problem should be tackled without delay. I feel the federal government should also recommend that drilling for gas and oil in Lake Erie be suspended until we can practically guarantee that these recreational areas will not be permanently destroyed by a major oil spill.
We have huge reserves of oil all over this nation, and there is no need to jeopardize Lake Erie or any of the Great Lakes which go to make up the greatest body of fresh water to be found anywhere in the world. This is a precious heritage to be protected. We cannot afford to take a chance on it with the appar-
January 26, 1970	COMMONS
ent inadequate facilities and safeguards now available to us. I urge the minister and the government to re-examine this problem and, in this instance to go along with the United States government in recommending the discontinuance of drilling until adequate safeguards are available.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I had notice of the earlier question, but while my hon. friend
DEBATES	2857
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion was speaking I was writing. I was not aware I was expected to answer his question. I apologize and assure the hon. member that I will answer him at a later date.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
thought the minister was preparing notes for a speech.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, January 27, 1970