1973-11-08

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, of which I have given you notice, regarding the Post Office and a letter received by me on October 27 from the Postmaster General with regard to the mailing to my riding of some 5,000 pieces of mail. This mail took approximately four to five weeks to reach my constituents, which has caused me severe embarrassment.
I wrote to the Postmaster General, explained the matter to him and asked for an explanation as all these envelopes left my office franked and were delivered to the Post Office. His answer was that he understood the envelopes were all of brown Manilla, approximately 6 by 9 in size, and would have been processed and dispatched by the House of Commons Post Office as third class mail. I was quite concerned about this because I was under the impression that all mail of Members of Parliament that is franked leaves the House of Commons as first class mail.
As you know, Sir, I wrote to you and asked if this was so. Today I received a letter from you saying that this is so, that franked mail leaves the House as first class mail and only the mail of householders may be set aside as third class mail. This has disturbed me greatly and caused me embarrassment. I know that other hon. members have also been caused embarrassment.
If Your Honour agrees with me that I have a question of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges.
I do so in order that the Postmaster General can be given a set of guidelines as to how mail is to leave the House of Commons and so that mail that leaves this House will be treated at least on the same basis as that of other citizens of Canada. When a letter is posted before eleven o'clock it is supposed to be delivered the next day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair the notice required under the Standing Order, so that I have had an opportunity to consider the difficulty to which the hon. member has alluded. I assure him that I am very sorry and regret very much that he has been put to this considerable and very real embarrassment. On behalf of the staff of the House, myself and all those who may be responsible in some way for the difficulty, I apologize to the hon. member.
At the same time, my understanding from the subsequent inquiries I have made is that it has been the practice to forward by third class mail bulk mail including, more particularly, brown envelopes when they come to the post office in the thousands. It has been the practice of the Postmaster in our Post Office and his staff to consider these as third class mail unless there is a specific request by members. I was not aware of this regulation, and I feel that hon. members are entitled to have the matter looked into. It may well be, because of the large volume of mail that goes out for the purpose of serving members adequately, that the practice followed until now is one which should be followed, and if that be the case, we should certainly make sure that all hon. members are made aware of it.
I regret very much, as I said, the embarrassment caused to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. I will look into the matter further, if the hon. member will allow me to do so, and try to advise all hon. members as to the procedures which are followed at present and which might be improved on the basis of advice and counsel from hon. members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) that a departmental study of student co-operative housing in Ontario has been referred to law enforcement officers, and in view of the minister's refusal to table this report, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Prime Minister be requested to appoint a public inquiry into this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Mr Speaker: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.

November 8, 1973
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ENERGY


RESTORATION OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO CONSERVE USE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing national interest. Having in mind the North American need for energy conservation and the necessity, if this is to be achieved, of federal leadership and, further, the reported consideration now being given by the United States to such a step, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the appropriate department of the government give immediate consideration to encouraging the re-establishment of daylight saving time in order to conserve the use of electrical energy by means of shortening the period of the day when lighting is required.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an extremely important matter for the safeguard of Canadian unity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the estimates of the CBC be referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to enable hon. members who still believe in confederation to ask questions to the directors of the corporation concerning their frankly PQ attitude during the last provincial electoral campaign in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.

[ English]


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This motion arises out of the recent dismissal of Mr. Walter Rudnicki, Executive Director of the Policy Planning Division of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Since it has been suggested that Mr. Rudnicki was dismissed simply for carrying out his duties, specifically by consulting with native peoples concerning native housing, it is essential that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) give a full explanation of the circumstances justifying the dismissal of such a senior person working on such an important matter. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House instruct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to make a statement on motions at the earliest possible occasion which will provide a full explanation for the dismissal of Mr. Rudnicki.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


BROADCASTING
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of very serious and pressing necessity. This situation results from an application by Northland Cable Television to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission for cable rights in Sudbury and the fact that Northland Cable Television is owned by Cambrian Broadcast, which is now owned by Multiple Access of Montreal, which is in turn owned by the CEMP Investments Limited, which is owned by four Bronfman Children, three of whom are non-resident in Canada, that is Edgar Bronfman, Minda Bronfman and Phyllis Bronfman. I therefore move-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was just going to suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he had reached the point where the motion ought to be put.


John R. Rodriguez: That is what I am about to do, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instructs the Minister of Communications to inform the CRTC of a possible breach of CRTC regulations with respect to Canadian residence and citizenship requirements.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
November8, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he give the House the assurance that, before allowing our forces to serve along a Polish contingent, he will make sure that soldiers of the Polish armed forces did not fight side by side with the Egyptians during the recent conflict?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there has been some problem about Poland's participation in the peacekeeping force. This is the first time I have heard that the objection would relate to any such charge. I do know, however, that Israel has expressed some reluctance to accept as members of the force those states which do not have diplomatic representation with both sides in this conflict. However, while I was in New York the United States withdrew its opposition to Poland and it was on that basis that the Secretary General proceeded.
[ Translation]


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Will the hon. minister seek information from the Israel and UAR governments to ascertain whether Polish fighters took part in the last Middle East war and, if so, can he assure the House that Canada will refuse to be part of an impartial peacekeeping force with a group which actively engaged in this war?
[ English]


Mitchell William Sharp: While Canada would, of course, be prepared to accept an invitation to undertake a task of this kind, I think it would be more appropriate for the Secretary General of the United Nations, who has responsibility under the Security Council for the membership of the force, to make the necessary inquiries. I do not think it would be for Canada, unless we have objection to being a member of that force, not to agree to participate.
Oral Questions


MIDDLE EAST PEACEKEEPING FORCE-REPORTED PROPOSAL TO CONFINE CANADIAN ELEMENT TO ISRAELI SIDE OF CEASEFIRE LINE AND POLES TO EGYPTIAN SIDE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House that the government will resist a proposal-I admit I have only seen it as a proposal-that the Canadian component of UNEF be confined to the Israeli side of the so-called ceasefire line and that the Polish component be confined to the Egyptian side, an arrangement which would surely compromise the effectiveness of the peace-keeping role, be it logistical or otherwise?


Mitchell William Sharp: When this idea was first put to me in New York I expressed the gravest misgivings about it. I do not think it is a practical proposition, and I agree with the hon. member that it is most undesirable from the point of view of setting up a sound international force.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I appreciate that he was not the minister in charge of this department in May, 1970, when his present deputy was first appointed, but is the minister aware that for about a year after his appointment Mr. Austin had interests in M.N.S. Investments, later acquired by St. Maurice Capital Corporation whose name was changed to Commerce Capital Corporation, and that these interests included mining and exploration ventures? Has the minister discussed with his deputy this question of his interests in related areas?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with my deputy in this regard. He advises me that his purchase of shares in M.N.S. Investments was simultaneous with the merger of that company with another one, so that he was not in fact a shareholder for a year in M.N.S. Investments. The corporate merger resulting from this was a company called Commerce Capital Corporation Limited, and I am advised that its line of business was and is not in the area of resource development but in the area of financial services. The rest of Mr. Austin's assets, I am advised, were deposited in a frozen trust at the time he took on his job as a public servant. He advises me with respect to his investment in Commerce Capital Corporation that the company has not been operating in any sphere to which his departmental responsibilities relate.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the minister whether in his discussions with Mr. Austin he was made aware that Commerce Capital Corporation is interlocked with Power Corporation which does have interests in the energy field, notably its control of Northern and Central Gas Limited. If this item has not been brought to his attention, would the minister look into it further?

November 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say I did not know that Commerce Capital Corporation was interlocked, if indeed it is, with Power Corporation, but I will undertake to inquire further in that regard and report.


INQUIRY AS TO REFERRAL OF GREEN PAPER RELATING TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO COMMITTEE AND STATEMENT ON PUBLIC SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
Could he also say whether he is counting on inflationary measures to find the required capital or whether he will be satisfied with another deficit?
Mr. Speaker:: This debate may perhaps be continued when the minister tables the budget.


David Lewis: In the absence of the President of the Privy Council I would like to address this question to the Prime Minister. On July 17 the President of the Privy Council made a statement and filed a green paper with respect to conflict of interest as it affects members of this House and senators, and on July 18 the Prime Minister made a further statement with respect to members of his cabinet. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, first, when the green paper relating to Members of Parliament of both Houses will be referred to the appropriate committee of the House as the President of the Privy Council undertook to do and, second, when, if ever, may we expect a statement regarding conflict of interest in regard to senior public servants?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question, I reiterate the undertaking made by the President of the Privy Council, which was quite clear and supported, I believe, by the House, that this paper would be referred to a committee. I believe the appropriate committee would be the committee which is at present looking at the bill on election expenses. We are anxious to have that bill come out of committee, not only to have it before the House but in order to be able to refer the paper of the President of the Privy Council to that committee.
In reply to the second question, I know that work has gone forward and the general guidelines have already been accepted by me. I shall have to verify when the statement will be made public; I am informed it might be before Christmas.
* *
*


POSSIBLE CHARTERING OF TANKERS TO MOVE OIL FROM WEST COAST TO EASTERN CANADA-RESTORATION TO SERVICE OF TORONTO-MONTREAL PRODUCTS PIPELINE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to question the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as to what success he is having with regard to some of the means he indicated last week he was exploring to move additional oil into Quebec and/or the Atlantic provinces. With particular reference to his statement that the Trans Mountain pipeline can carry an additional 50,000 barrels a day, has the minister succeeded, either directly or indirectly, in chartering additional tankers with a view to moving any such oil from the west into areas of possible shortage? If so, how much capacity has been chartered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to my statement on Monday night. I would have to check to see what success there has been, either in my ministry or the Department of Transport, in making that kind of charter arrangement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether he has made arrangements to load any such tankers from the Trans Mountain pipeline at Cherry Point in the state of Washington, which I understand is the only point in the pipeline that can be used for loading ships? I ask this question particularly in view of the fight that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is conducting to keep shipments of oil out of those waters.


FINANCE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will check that question as well.


POSSIBILITY OF BALANCED BUDGET IN LIGHT OF INCREASED EXPENDITURES
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that government expenditures will exceed $1 billion this year, can the minister tell the House whether the revenue of the government will be sufficient to balance the budget without increasing taxes.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I think that would constitute a fascinating prediction, Mr. Speaker.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary. Can the minister tell us where he will find the additional revenue required to balance his budget?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can do better on this one, or perhaps the minister can.


Mr. Baldwin:: He has no energy left.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question is with regard to the hopes the minister expressed about moving some petroleum, products through the petroleum products line running between Toronto and Montreal. What plans has the minister made to put back into operation the approximately 50 miles of that products pipeline that are completely out of service and unusable? Can the minister indicate to the House what plans he has afoot to be able to use that pipeline for the purpose he indicated?
November 8, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the questions that my officials have had under discussion with the pipeline companies.


ALLEGED ARAB UNDERTAKING TO SUPPLY QUEBEC WITH UNLIMITED QUANTITIES OF OIL FOR PROPOSED REFINERY AT RIVIERE-DU-LOUP
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he advise the House if during the course of his discussions with Premier Bourassa the premier mentioned to him the Arab undertaking to supply to Quebec, at Riviere-du-Loup and the proposed refinery there, unlimited quantities of oil on the undertaking that they not be made available to other parts of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I will have to repeat to the House for the third or fourth time that these conversations I have with the premiers of the various provinces are, by agreement between us, to be held in confidence by each participant. The premier, of course, is free to make public his views on any of the subjects we discussed, but I am not in a position to reveal what Premier Bourassa told me in any part of that conversation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to give us the view of the Government of Canada in respect of this proposal, which would have the effect of driving such an obvious wedge in the relationships between Quebec and the rest of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the rumour on which the question is founded ever became anything like a real prospect, probably we would have to decide our policy position on it, but at this stage it is more than a hypothetical question; it is purely a rumour.


CHARTERING OF TANKERS TO TRANSFER WESTERN CRUDE OIL TO EASTERN CANADA-MOVEMENT BY RAILWAYS AND TRUCKS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the transfer of western crude to eastern Canada to meet the situation there this winter. First, may I ask whether the cabinet has authorized the chartering of tankers for this purpose or is that still awaiting cabinet decision? Second, what is the outcome of the meeting which officials of the Department of Transport and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have had with the railroads and the trucking firms regarding what amount of tank cars and trucks would be available to move oil products into eastern Canada this winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Department of Transport does have the authority to enter into charter contracts. I cannot, unfortunately, give the details of any possible charters or, indeed, a full analysis yet of the discussions with the land carriers.
Oral Questions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope the minister will make such a report.


POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASING VENEZUELAN OIL TAKEN BY THAT COUNTRY IN LIEU OF ROYALTIES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I also ask the minister about his statement on Monday night that there is a mission from his department now in Caracas discussing with the Venezuelan government the possibility of purchasing oil which it would take in lieu of royalties from the oil companies operating in that area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in that regard I said it is our diplomatic mission in Venezuela which is making the contact. As I said, to the moment the Venezuelans have not decided whether to take their sixteen and two thirds per cent royalties in kind or not. That is apparently a question for the government there. In answer to the previous question I said I did not have a report on the meeting with the land carriers.


PROPOSALS FOR MOVING OIL FROM WEST TO EASTERN CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that when the minister spoke on Monday night he obviously had not checked out the business of shipping oil by tanker from the west coast, or using this products pipeline, has he checked out in any way any of the other proposals he put before the House that evening with regard to the movement of oil into areas of shortage?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on the basis of the advice I had received from my officials and from the National Energy Board, and I have no reason at the moment to believe that their qualified advice in this regard should not be taken.


POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF COAL PRODUCTION IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a supplementary question. Among the alternate forms of energy development he suggested are coal developments in Nova Scotia, and more particularly the 40 million tons of coal that are in reserve under the ground at Springhill in Cumberland County. Would the minister indicate just exactly what the government has done, is doing or plans to do regarding the possible development of this coal field?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions with the premier of Nova Scotia regarding the possibility of reactivating the Cumberland coal belt. I believe the

Oral Questions
government of that province has this under more active consideration. It being a provincial resource, I think they may be reflecting again on the possibility of developing it.


LOWER CHURCHILL FALLS, NEWFOUNDLAND-POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT AS ALTERNATE POWER SOURCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is in line with the question of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North regarding alternate sources of power. I wonder if the minister has had any discussions with the province of Newfoundland on the development of the lower Churchill Falls which could be an alternate source of power?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. While we were requested at the time to preserve the confidentiality of those discussions, some news reports have been published since which I think indicate the general trend of those discussions. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I are continuing our negotiations with Newfoundland.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is now just about a month since the minister undertook in the House to report on the investigation which is being conducted by his department under the Combines Investigation Act into the 159 retail merchandising irregularities reported to him by the Food Prices Review Board. Is the minister now in a position to tell us if and when charges will be laid?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the officials are completing their work on these files and I should be in a position to report to my hon. friend more substantially very shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to ask the following question by way of a supplementary. In September the minister undertook to cause an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to be made into the food industry in Canada, and again on October 30 the minister undertook to investigate the effect of the increases in energy costs on the cost of food production in Canada, and again in February of this year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe the hon. member is on a point of order, and he should ask his question as quickly as possible.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker. In February the minister undertook to look into gas retailing practices in Canada. May I ask the minister if he is now in a position to tell the House just exactly how these investigations stand at the moment, and is he in a position to report on any of them?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will have to check exactly what was said in this regard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to say with respect to the third point that this investigation is being carried on within the ambit of the inquiry into the petroleum industry. Under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, it is not possible to give detailed comments until the inquiry is terminated either by going to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or to the courts, or else the report has been terminated, and so stated by the director.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has statutory responsibilities to this House under the act. The act states as follows:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada, relating to
(a) consumer affairs;
Section 6 reads as follows:
In exercising his powers and carrying out his duties and functions in relation to consumer affairs under this act, the Minister shall
(a) initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer;
This minister has abdicated his statutory responsibilities by refusing to answer questions in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: The record is full of undertakings by the minister to cause investigations to be undertaken into various aspects of food retailing and merchandising in Canada, and they stand on the record merely as empty undertakings. The minister hides behind a totally useless, totally ineffective Food Prices Review Board. He should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and all hon. members that when I give undertakings I carry them out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Leader of the Opposition has found that out with respect to the handling of the report on monitoring of the budget. I have to carry out these undertakings within the requirements of the laws passed by parliament,
November 8, 1973

such as the Combines Investigation Act. I can certainly show the House pieces of evidence, such as the bill I tabled the other day to implement the first stage of the competition policy that my efforts for the consumers have far exceeded the empty and meaningless volume of words uttered by my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we have again embarked on a series of points of order and questions of privilege which take up so much of the time of the question period. I would hope we could go on to the next questioner. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate now rises-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member is not rising on a point of order but on a supplementary to the first question. He will be recognized for this, and I will see the hon. member for Winnipeg North immediately after.


ALLEGED EXCESSIVE INTEREST CHARGES BY BANKS ON GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOANS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INQUIRY
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary along the lines-


An hon. Member:: Same old story.


John Howard Lundrigan: -of ministerial investigations into consumer price increases. On the 24th of October the minister indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether the hon. member is arguing the same point of order or rising on a supplementary question. Perhaps I should have allowed him to go ahead, but the beginning of his question gave me the impression he was on the same point of order. I was obviously wrong. The hon. member may ask his question.


John Howard Lundrigan: On October 24, when a member of this chamber asked the minister to inquire into a charge that the banks were charging in excess of the legally permissible interest rates on a number of government loan programs, the minister indicated he was making an inquiry. Can he tell us what happened to that inquiry in view of the fact he has indicated he accepts and assumes his responsibilities?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the first step I was in touch with my colleague, the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Did he whisper in your ear?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -who has asked the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe to provide us with information
Oral Questions
on which he based his question. I do not know whether my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, has received it yet, but it certainly has not been provided to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do hope we can go on to the next question. The hon. member rises on a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will not be doing the House any good or helping the situation by shouting as they are doing now. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has the floor. He will be recognized on a supplementary, and eventually I hope to be able to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we could have had two or three questions in that much time. Can the minister tell the House why it is that since he made his undertaking on October 24 the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe who raised the question has not received-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor on a point of order, and I will hear the hon. member's point of order afterwards.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I want you to know that we, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, are beginning to be most impatient because of the waste of time by the Progressive Conservative party during the oral question period-


Some hon. Members:: What is your problem?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, our problem is the following: there are too many Progressive Conservative members and not enough true members on the other side of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask for the co-operation of hon. members. We have had a point of order and the Chair is entitled to hear the views of hon. members on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. [Translation]
The Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I feel that you-


An hon. Member:: In French!
7650

November 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I feel that you have always granted a fair amount of attention to the Creditiste members during the oral question period, and I suggest to my good Creditiste friends that there are more Progressive Conservative than Creditiste members in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might now consider that the point of order has been made, debated and concluded and return to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate who was attempting to ask a supplementary question. He will be recognized for that purpose, after which I will go to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. But time flies.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious question. In an effort to ascertain if the minister is assuming his responsibilities as he is charged to do by the Parliament of Canada and the people, can he explain to the House why it is that since his undertaking on the 24th there have been two reports by the Department of Finance to the member from the province who raised the question and there has been no report at all from his department that he has carried out the inquiry in question and he has not carried out his undertaking and has not made any report to the member?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in a desperate attempt to score a few political points my hon. friend has forgotten that this parliament has given the jurisdiction over several guaranteed loan programs, including the fisheries improvement loan program, to the Minister of Finance. Therefore I think most people would agree that the effective way to carry out an inquiry into this matter would be to work in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, and that is exactly what I am doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we are being somewhat unfair to other hon. members by continuing this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that hon. members might allow the Chair at this point to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order and I must hear him.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we are more concerned about being fair to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of order he should indicate quickly what it is. He has a responsibility, he says, to many people. I have a responsibility to hon. members and to this House and I am prepared to discharge it. I will hear the hon. member and then make a ruling.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that he has no responsibility and that the inquiry is being carried on by the Minister of Finance.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I did not say that.


John Howard Lundrigan: On October 24 the question raised was that consumers were being forced to pay higher interest rates for loans under several government improvement loan programs that are legitimate under the law and therefore this was adding to the cost of living and to the burden of a great number of people across the country. In Hansard at page 7186 for that day, the minister said that he would make an answer. Today he stands up and says that he has no responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. I seek the co-operation of hon. members who obviously are impatient to the point that they want to leave the House. I invite them to remain and I will try to recognize them. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


MANPOWER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Within the next few days will he be tabling a list of the amounts of LIP grants allocated to each constituency? Can he also explain briefly the formula used to arrive at the varying amounts allocated to different constituencies?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of advising each constituency advisory group, and/or the member, of the allocation for the constituency. I will ask the indulgence of the House and try to explain the formula. Interprovincially, it is based on absolute numbers of unemployed in the province versus the total amount of unemployment in the country with provision for registration of Indian people on reserves who do not show up in the labour force survey. Within the province itself it is addressed as equitably as possible to high pockets of unemployment, although every constituency has a basic allocation. I can elaborate if the hon. member wishes or tell him in private conversation, whichever he prefers.


David Orlikow: Can the minister explain the reasoning which led to the fact that the constituency of Winnipeg South, which has the highest per capita income of any constituency in Manitoba, is getting three to four times
November 8, 1973

the amount in LIP grants as the constituency of Selkirk or my own constituency which have much poorer people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

I recognize the hon. member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister-


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the minister is rising on a point of order.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to try to answer the question. The per capita income of a given constituency is not necessarily the basic criteria because, as I explained a minute ago, it is basically addressed to pockets of high unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Knight Andras: -but there are many unemployed-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on his own point of order.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, because of the noise I did not hear the last part of the minister's answer. Is the minister trying to tell the members of this House that there is more unemployment and more need in Winnipeg South than in any other constituency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and the hon. minister that that is debate. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Shefford, but the hon. member for Saint-Boniface is raising a point of order.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask, through you, a question of the minister in charge of the Local Initiatives Program. How come then that-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order-that the program for Manitoba last year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. parliamentary secretary resume his seat? The hon. member sought the floor on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Go see the P.M.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If hon. members will be patient, there are only five minutes left before the end of the question period. That is obviously not a point of order. The hon. member was trying to ask a supplementary question. I have already recognized the hon. member for Shefford so maybe he should be given an opportunity to ask his question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the opposition can get up on points of order and questions of privilege and make speeches, surely I have the right to represent the people who elected me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member sought and was given the floor on a point of order and then proceeded to ask a question. I think it was perhaps too obvious to the Chair that it was a question and not a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: My question is addressed through you, Mr. Speaker, and through nobody else. It refers to the Local Initiatives Program. Out of a total program of $7,859,962 last year for the province of Manitoba with its 13 constituencies, how come the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre got over $2 million and I only got $125,000?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will recall that a while ago I was hoping that the members of the party to my extreme right might be given a chance to ask one question at least. I am still trying to do this. I would hope hon. members would permit me to let them complete one question. We will then return in the last few minutes to all the points of order and questions of privilege that appear to interest hon. members this afternoon.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
From regional offices and other available sources of information, can the Prime Minister say whether a study of the Quebec vote results has been undertaken and whether the role of the CBC in the election campaign has been considered?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
26635-53 J

November 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has the right hon. Prime Minister still in his possession the "key" he once thought of using to close down the CBC, and when will he use it?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the minister's remarks a moment ago about being anxious to help the consumer during these difficult days of rising costs, would he explain to the House why he let the Consumer Advisory Council, which was set up in 1968 with very great representation from the present Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the present Minister of Finance, expire as of June 30, and why he has not taken action either to replace that body or to provide a more important and more useful body?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first, the basic work of the council is going on. This work is put out under contract to academics and researchers across the country. These contracts were issued by the council itself. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement about new appointments to the council before too much more time goes by.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I find it very difficult, as do other hon. members, to understand how a board can continue to exist after it has expired. The board, which was made up of 24 members, expired at the end of June. The minister has not yet indicated for what reason he allowed it to expire and why he believes that it is more useful to have a board that is not operating than to have one that is operating.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the basic research work of the board which is carried out by academics across the country under contracts that were issued by the board before the terms of its members expired. I hope to have an announcement to make about new appointments before too much more time goes by.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley West has a supplementary. I will recognize him in a short while.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to raise a question of privilege on another matter involving the minister, but it seems that the minister acts in disobeyance of legislation passed by this House. Section 7 of the act stipulates or suggests that the Governor in Council may establish a consumer advisory council to advise or assist the minister. The minister now seems to feel that matters related to his department are so unimpor-

tant that he can let this particular group expire without giving a proper explanation to the House or to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously debate between the hon. member and the minister. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and then the hon. member for Crowfoot.


MANPOWER
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a previous question directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning LIP grants and the reply he gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Since Statistics Canada does not provide a riding by riding breakdown of unemployment figures, how does the minister arrive at those various pockets of unemployment of which he spoke? Does he intend to provide the House with the basis for these grants, since they vary between adjacent ridings from almost $12 per capita in Vancouver Centre to $1 per capita in Vancouver South and $2 per capita in Vancouver Kingsway?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think that the varying opinions about the acceptability of the allocations from all sides of the House indicate that I am approaching this with a considerable degree of neutrality.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: And in the process, as one of my colleagues suggests, I am probably being unfair to everyone. The hon. member is quite right with regard to unemployment statistics. The labour force survey does not go into the infinite detail of constituencies or manpower centres. We do use information with regard to the registration and traffic flow through our manpower centres. We adjust this and superimpose it in a particular case over the constituency's geographical area. We are doing this to the best of our ability. I believe that the allocations, basically, are as fair as it is possible to make them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has a further supplementary. He will be recognized, as will the hon. member for Crowfoot and the hon. member for Temiscamingue, and then we will have to call orders of the day.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the minister has revealed that basically what he has used for input in determining these grants is the crystal ball neutrality method. Will he provide members of the House with the precise formula on which these grants are based?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, very sadly, there is no precise formula based on statistical evidence. I have said quite candidly that we use the best evidence we can get, which
November 8, 1973

is the accumulation of unemployed people registered at manpower centres.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the minister feels that he ought to continue his reply. It is very difficult to hear what he is attempting to say, in any event. It might be easier if the Chair were to recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, possibly I should apologize to you, sir. I want to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I assure you and the House that my question will be easy and that he will have no difficulty answering it. Recently the government imposed a three cent surtax on live beef entering Canada, and this caused the price to the farmer to go up by llA cents per pound. However, retailers have been saying that beef will cost the consumer an extra 12 cents a pound. In light of that, would the minister turn loose the peerless Plumptre posse and try to ascertain why that 12 cents a pound increase is necessary?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his very constructive question. Perhaps his colleagues could learn from it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be happy to see that the question is brought to the attention of the body in question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A quick supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has what he calls a quick supplementary question, we will judge after he has asked his question. Then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiseamingue.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear the minister's answer. He flattered me by saying that my question was very constructive, but his answer was less than constructive. I did not hear anything constructive in his answer at all. There is some concern about our food distribution system. Knowing that the part of Canada he represents is close to Detroit, where there are Mafia connections, may I ask the minister whether he has looked into the possibility of the Mafia of the United States being involved in our food distribution industry?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a simple question and I should get a simple answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is hardly in order, and I do not think the minister should be allowed to answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister himself said my question was very constructive. Why can he not answer all my questions?


An hon. Member:: He answered the first one.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was the easiest question I could ask. If you cannot answer a simple question, how can you answer the difficult ones?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiseamingue):: Mr. Speaker-


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


David Réal Caouette: If the frogs could stop croaking and chattering, I could ask my question.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Last evening, on the CBC network, an "intelligent" announcer of the national news service said that federal representatives had voted themselves a monthly $700 tax free allowance, whereas in fact these increases will be used to pay a secretary in each riding, as is already the case in Quebec-a fact that nobody mentioned.
I ask the Prime Minister whether the government will eventually intervene in the unspeakable conduct of some individuals of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly ensure that this remark is brought to the attention of the CBC president and I shall tell him that I agree with the hon. member, namely that many employees of this corporation do their job very badly, when they do not reflect crass ignorance.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the acting government House leader to confirm the business

November 8, 1973
Oral Questions
for tomorrow and indicate what the House leader has in mind for the first of the week.


Mr. Faulkner:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton asked a question; perhaps the minister could answer it. I believe the hon. member for Temis-camingue has a supplementary question. With the consent of the House, he may be able to ask it in a moment, since the oral question period is expired. For the time being, it would be easier to allow the minister to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I can respond as follows. As the hon. member knows, today is an allotted day. Tomorrow we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-132 and carry that through, if it is not completed tomorrow, to next week and then deal with the third reading stage until that is completed. Following that, we will take up the report stage and third reading of the two Canada Pension Plan amendment bills, C-190 and C-224.
The hon. member interjected a remark about the discussion of the Middle East situation. That is a subject for discussion now among the various political parties. I think there will be an announcement on that tomorrow. Following the Canada Pension Plan amendment bills, we will deal with second reading of Bill S-4.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare wherein lies the reason for the delay in having Bill C-211 on family allowances, which passed second reading here, brought before the standing committee for urgent attention?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House at the end of the debate on second reading, I have a number of amendments to move in committee. I expect to have them at hand at the end of the week and I hope it will be possible to call an emergency meeting next week and conclude the consideration of the bill during the week, so that it may be brought back to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business announced for tomorrow, perhaps it might be noted there is an understanding among the House leaders that if any recorded votes are requested tomorrow afternoon on report stage amendments to the foreign investment bill, the taking of those votes will be deferred at least until Tuesday night.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is my understanding, Mr. Speaker.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
Is it possible to ask the CBC to apologize as soon as possible to the Canadian people for having given it inaccurate information on the air last night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the CBC president has seriously endeavoured in the last few years to make sure that his branches and services are qualified and, inasmuch as I can see, he has always agreed to have the corporation correct its mistakes whenever possible and in the way indicated by the hon. member. I shall not fail, therefore, to draw Mr. Picard's attention to the hon. member's proposal.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Boniface is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention and to that of hon. members that today is the eighth anniversary of the first election of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the best spectacle of apple polishing I have ever seen in this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain) moved:: That this House deplores the fact that the government is maintaining the unity of the country through fear, autocracy and oligarchy, and has failed to do anything to encourage the provinces to get together in order to amend or redraft the Canadian constitution, thus protecting the country against national difficulties by meeting the basic aspirations of each province.
He said: It is quite an honour for me today to put forward this serious and realistic motion on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, a motion urging all hon. members to ponder over the constitutional situation in our country, in order to try and find adequate solutions which would favour both the autonomy and development of all regions of Canada.
November 8, 1973

The surprise, or rather the state of shock, which resulted from the last provincial elections in Quebec should not cause us to delude ourselves into believing that there are no problems any more, the greater majority of Quebecers having chosen the status quo, that is, the federalist option. On the contrary, the analysis of the results show that the people of Quebec, because of the fear and panic systematically nourished by Liberal governments both in Ottawa and Quebec City since 1968, have been unable to make a political choice based on the platforms of the various parties, but rather have indicated their unwillingness to decide the future of their province in an election. The Liberal strategy was pushed so far that the point was reached where the Quebec voter might fear independence more than the mob which might explain perhaps the decision to adjourn the sittings of the commission of inquiry into organized crime during the election campaign.
I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that other political parties in that province unconsciously or otherwise played the Liberal game. They involuntarily pushed part of their own supporters in that Liberal wave that nearly destroyed democracy in Quebec. I do not think that they will become again that shield, that screen, that unconscious instrument that suits those who vindicate an outdated status quo and keep the unity of this nation going through fear, autocracy and oligarchy. The Liberal government of Canada, the quiet owner of constitutional truth, seems to do away with the opinion of opposition parties. That results in a oneway dialogue between federalists and independentists. We have a government that establishes through feelings, fear and false security an authoritarian and dictatorial regime in that area.
At the time of the first colonial conferences which resulted in the BNA Act four provinces decided to form a confederation of autonomous states based on the historic circumstances at that time. The intentions of those commonly known of the Fathers of Confederation were certainly not I think those that are attributed to them at times today. Yet, it must be recognized that the federal government is only the creature of the provinces, and if 106 years later the provinces now numbering ten decide to amend or rewrite that constitution they of course have the priority and they alone may determine jointly the changes that are necessary for the benefit of all the provinces in general or each and everyone of them in particular.
The part played by the federal Parliament is therefore becoming more that of a motivator, observer and conciliator. This is obviously a far cry from that assumed by preceding governments-especially that of the present government with its arrogant paternalism-which have always refused to let the provinces have their autonomy or amend the constitution, thus compelling an impressive number of Quebecers to resort to extreme solutions.
They have forgotten that the Fathers of Confederation had wanted to make the country strong, to have a kind of common market in a position to resist the ravenous and insatiable appetite of the American ogre. It was imperative for that that French Canada remain itself, thus staying by its own originality the attacks of American imper-alism and making Canada what it is.
Constitution
We must therefore recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we are now before a fait accompli. Canadian confederation has bit by bit developed into a centralizing and unitary Canadian state.
As a consequence of all kinds of events,-economic crises, wars, and so on-the spirit of the Constitution itself has been distorted. Of course, this Constitution has become outmoded, inadequate, and is at the root of many a dispute. All across Canada, and particularly in Quebec, people are expecting changes. The need for a reform is a priority.
The government could reply that they have made a great effort, while they have found nothing better at the height of the constitutional storm than to offer, or rather to try and impose upon the provinces, in 1971, the famous Victoria Charter that all the political parties represented in the Quebec National Assembly rejected unanimously.
By its action the government has turned a national issue into a matter of political partisanship. In Quebec, if one choses to be a federalist one must indiscriminately be a Liberal. Anyone who feels strongly about the development of Quebec is called a separatist.
I remember that on several occasions, when I was sitting on the other side of the House, the Liberal members never failed to call me a separatist as soon as my observations were in favour of Quebec.
They believe that it is sentimental nationalism to struggle for the emancipation and self achievement of one's fellow citizens. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the most sentimental are not on the side we think they are.
I find my Liberal colleagues are fond of great epic battles against separatism and they are satisfied with that because they believe that Quebecers will never give away this beautiful and great Canada which belongs to them. You believe that as long as you never cross the Ottawa River. I think they count on people's emotions. They rely on that fear of separatism and they stand on their position.
Mr. Speaker, that is the best way to exasperate progressive people in this country.
We should obviously not minimize the importance of this element since the analysis of the recent election in Quebec has shown that more than 35 per cent of the French Canadians in Quebec voted for the Parti Quebecois in spite of the devastating majority gathered by the liberal steamroller.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we should say whatever has to be said. Truth has been hidden too long. Let us open our hearts and minds to sincere and friendly discussion. We should no longer fear to face the problems as they really are. Canada is an adult country which can, in all honesty, let every province decide whichever amendments should be made to the Constitution, or whether it should be entirely revamped.
The federal government should be sufficiently conscientious, if not magnanimous, to admit that its excessive centralization policy has been wrong and that it should give back to the provinces the prerogatives which they demand.

November 8, 1973
Constitution
As concerns our constitutional future, Mr. Speaker, many personalities have already mentioned various alternatives. At one of the federal-provincial conferences, the former premier of British Columbia spoke of a Confederation of five regions instead of ten.
The now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is known to hold the same opinion. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has often alluded to this subject. You will certainly remember his statement of November 29, 1970, in which he said:
"A referendum might be necessary because more and more the federal government is heading towards ultimate confrontation with the separatist movement" ...
This proves again how this government seems to favour and consider separatism as politically valuable.
To support my argument I would like to quote from an editorial by Jean Pellerin published in La Presse of Montreal on Tuesday November 6, 1973. Even though I do not agree with all the points raised in the editorial, I think this quotation should back up today's motion. I quote:
Canada has been considering as desirable the repatriation of its constitution and the adoption of a Canadian formula of amendment for such a long time, could it be that the time for taking this historic decision is drawing near?
In Canada, it is difficult to have everyone in agreement. The Canadian opinion is divided on several points but people do agree at least, and almost to a man, on the necessity of repatriating the constitution some day.
Agreement also exists in Quebec. The election of October 29 indicated that most people in this province do not trust separatism. But, nonetheless, this majority is not satisfied with our current constitution. On the contrary, people want a major reform. Aware of their cultural peculiarities, they want Quebec to enjoy the widest possible sovereignty but in view of the economic advantages inherent in the federal ties, they agree to dispense with an impossible absolute sovereignty and negotiate a sovereignty that would be adjusted to the common welfare of this country.
One could also quote a good deal of statements along the same lines, that would show that although in apparent stability, Canada is near the breaking point. Therefore we must come back as soon as possible to concrete autonomy principles. This party has always contended and still contends that there can be neither progress nor development without complete respect for the individual, for the human being. What is true for the individual is equally true for a community. Respect for provincial autonomy is necessary and even essential.
It is with the greatest ease that we can point that out since this party has never known any dissension in that respect. Wherever one meets Creditistes in Canada, one can observe that mutual respect for the individual character of each province. The Creditistes are a big family where everybody feel's at home, no matter where they come from; they earnestly hope that the government will at last give the example of a policy based on Social Credit economic principles. One can even believe that all Creditistes would be very happy to help and support an inde-pendentist government in any province, if Major Douglas' philosophy were implemented.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the eventual part to be played by the Banque du Quebec in an independent Quebec could be substantially the same as the one the Social Credit Party of Canada would like to be played by

the Bank of Canada. This is neither an ultimatum nor a threat; it is a bare fact. To shut oneself in an outmoded and backward status quo is to show a blatant lack of maturity.
Let me also add to my argument the conclusion which the Chamber of Commerce of the province of Quebec came to as regards the reform of the constitution-and which is recorded in the January 1969 issue of its publication, and I quote:
"The form of federalism that we have known will have to be changed: (a) the constitution of Canada will have to be amended or redrafted in order to define clearly the responsibilities of each government level, to enable each to levy taxes to meet these responsibilities and to include a mechanism designed to efficiently prevent abuses of jurisdiction; (b) the tax policy of the federal government and that of the provinces will be developed only after consultation which will have to be of an official and permanent nature; (c) monetary and tariff policies of the federal government will have to be set up through consultation with the provinces and these consultations will also be of an official and permanent nature; (d) the Bank of Canada should facilitate the financing of provinces and through the latter, that of municipalities and school boards. 4.-French Canadians must be convinced that their development depends essentially on their dynamism in every field of the economic and social life. 5.-English Canadians will have to show by concrete measures that they totally accept French Canadians as partners and will not prevent them in any way from acceeding to management positions, in both the public and the private sectors of the economy as well as the administration of this country. It is rather a matter of attitude being shown in everyday's measures that are taken at both government and business levels and related to purchasing, professional services, promotion, advertising and other policies."
Finally the last recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce reads as follows:
"6.-The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations should carry on their studies, in order to enlighten further and constantly the people of Canada on the economic impact of the constitutional structure of our country."
Mr. Speaker, I will dwell particularly on subsections "c" and "d" of the above-mentioned paragraph 1 where it is stated:
The monetary and tariff policies of the federal government should be established in co-operation with the provinces and those consultations should also be of an official and permanent nature: the Bank of Canada should facilitate the financing of provinces and through the latter, the financing of municipalities and school boards."
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can accuse the Chambers of Commerce of being in favour of social credit, although this attitude is awfully in agreement with what we have been trying for years to make Canadians understand. The basis of the true liberty that Canadians want is this essential material security that can only arise from a logical, scientific and adequate economic system, that is social credit. I think that is the direction that all new attempts to remodel the constitution should take.
It is obvious that we all want unity in this country but it must be the outcome of respect for the independence of the component parts of Canada. Our role in this House is not to show the provinces that we are the masters, but to urge them to be themselves by helping them to better fulfil their commitments.
November 8, 1973

We can state that there would not be any national problems in Canada if no one had stirred, through all sorts of means, French-speaking Canadians against Englishspeaking Canadians, or brought about such circumstances that there seemed to be racist animosity. Yet, if there is a man in the world who cannot be accused of racism, it is the French Canadian. For centuries, he has learned to live with other ethnic groups and never or almost never showed racist feelings. Of course, he feels that noble pride arising from a sound nationalism. Our English-speaking friends can certainly not blame him for it since it is because of him that Canada is what it is, that is a distinct entity from the United States.
The more the French Canadian will remain himself, the more his fellow countrymen throughout the country will benefit from it.
Quebecers or French Canadians do appreciate their English-speaking fellow countrymen and all new Canadians; only the Liberal government political action tends, purposely or not, to maintain a pernicious animosity in opposing federalists against separatists.
We have too many serious and urgent problems to settle to keep diluting them in a constitutional dead-end. Let our ethnic differences rather be useful for our mutual enrichment. We cannot however consider that it is only a matter of bread and butter; feelings have their place in every society as an individual cannot live and be happy if he never feels anything.
This minor problem set by the constitutional limits can become-and maybe is already-a major problem, because of the injustices which the French Canadians have suffered for too many years. Acts of contrition and to admission of these facts are not sufficient. In addition to filling these gaps, we must further the real emancipation and the complete development of Canada. Thus, we will objectively and positively consider all the solutions which could make us achieve the end we are seeking. These constitutional matters should therefore be debated and solved without partisanship.
These words may sound tinged with bitterness, Mr. Speaker, following the results of the October 29 election in the province of Quebec. I would answer that it is my duty to mention these circumstances to let the Canadian people know all the consequences of this new situation of democracy in my province.
Let me quote once again from a leading article by Jean-Claude Leclerc published in the November 2, 1973 issue of Le Devoir.
But worse than the distorsion which has victimized both the PQ and the CP is the absence of any sound opposition since 1970 and the continuation of a democratic deficiency; that is what should retain our attention today. After four years of complete freedom, Robert Bourassa's Liberals were due for a sound opposition to challenge them. Nothing of the sort happened. Instead, there will be less parliamentary opposition than ever to do it.
The Premier's modesty, the firm resolve indicated by some ministers not to take advantage of the situation may comfort those who are satisfied with words and promises in place of action and evidence. During their first mandate, no Liberal member, no minister could stop being hounded by scavengers and friends of the regime for contracts and jobs. After October 29, the pack will simply be bigger and will have grown bolder by the strength of the victory. That is the first conclusion to be drawn from the Liberal landslide. Unchallenged by any strong opposition, this
Constitution
government will sink faster and deeper into the "sea of power". Independence being more frightening than the underworld, there is good reason to think that neither the next election nor the one after will give us the means to control this government.
This situation could very well be disastrous if a good many of those who advocate independence lose faith in the value of democracy. But I will not labour the point.
Before I conclude, I would like the House to realize that the goal of our motion is constructive and realistic. It is clear that we cannot solve our problems if we are to count exclusively on the fear of separatism like the liberal governments of Quebec and Ottawa do. It was high time that this should be said, particularly in this House, so that all of us will be objective and realistic enough to discuss these questions.
May the discussion on this motion be of some benefit to all my fellow citizens of Quebec and Canada.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I read the motion of the hon. member for Champlain very carefully (Mr. Matte), and also listened with great attention to his speech in which he urged the parties to co-operate and foster good feeling.
Upon reading what he said about the reopening of the constitutional debate, I think that he should have chosen words better suited to feelings of understanding instead of terms such as "fear", "autocracy", "oligarchy", in respect of present federal-provincial relations. The government of the province of Quebec did not try to squash the opposition and to reduce it to silence, it is the people of the province of Quebec who decided. They have understood that Liberals have always been in Quebec as well as elsewhere in Canada the spokesmen of one policy: a strong Quebec in an united Canada. We always stood behind that philosophy in Quebec as well as in any part of Canada.
When they speak about national unity, the Liberals never try to create discord among Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: What about Alberta?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I went myself quite often to Alberta where I talked about the Canadian unity. I spoke in French in Edmonton and Calgary and I must say that I talk about Alberta with a particular interest because I am half Albertan on my mother's side. Nobody in the cabinet has more interest in Alberta than I have because I have 25 cousins there.
All across Canada we always spoke only about one thing: the importance of having a clear and unique policy throughout the country. I hear the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) say in this House that a party is accused of being separatist if it recommends a Creditist policy inside a province. This is why the people did not vote for the Creditists at the last election in the province of Quebec. It was because of a consistent ambiguity in the creditist views. We Liberals have had the same stand from the day of Mackenzie to those of St-Laurent, Pearson, King, Laurier and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); we always preached the respect of every Canadian's right and particularly the linguistic rights of the French Canadians. The hon. member said that the constitutional discussion should resume. We agree with that.
7658

November 8, 1973
Constitution
But he should let the provinces take action in this field. He should remember that in 1967 Ontario premier John Robarts and Quebec premier Daniel Johnson decided to hold a provincial conference as the one proposed by the hon. member. At the end of the first conference held in Toronto, the provincial premiers asked the federal government to go back with them to the table and try to give a thrust to the constitutional debate.
After numerous discussions, we almost reached an agreement but in Victoria, at the last minute, Quebec decided not to go along. However, if the Quebec premier has any new suggestion to make, the Prime Minister said it, we will not insist on holding a new constitutional conference but we will be pleased to answer the call because we believe that some basic things must be changed in Canada such as, for instance, the inclusion in the constitution of the Bill of Rights, in order to guarantee linguistic equality and the other rights of citizens.
We Liberals believe that it is abnormal to have to go to London in order to get the constitution amended and that it would be desirable to have an entirely Canadian constitution which could be amended by the provinces or the Canadian government.
Those are known policies and if the Quebec government and the other provincial governments want to resume the constitutional debate, we are prepared to participate.


An hon. Member:: Then, resume it now!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, because if we do so, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and his colleague the hon. member for Champlain, would blame us for imposing our will on the provinces but we are prepared to meet their initiatives.
It was my pleasure to note during the election campaign that when premier Bourassa, who had no policy between two stools as the creditists and the Union nationale, was speaking about viable federalism and a strong Quebec within confederation his platform included resuming the constitutional debate.
If the Quebec premier wants to resume talks on this matter the prime minister of Canada will gladly meet his initiative but we have no intention of imposing our views on any provincial government whatsoever.
However, we should be aware of the fact that the protection of the rights of French Canadians and even of the province of Quebec does not consist in always meeting the provincial representations. The federal government has a role to play as we can see today. In fact, in the debate on energy in Canada, for instance, the federal government has a role to play. In my opinion, it is essential for the Canadian government to take the necessary steps to protect all Canadians against crisis such as the energy crisis.
I am convinced that all Canadians agree on the fact that electricity, oil and other natural resources must be shared by all Canadians first and foremost. If we find we have enough, we can allow exports to other countries.
This does not only apply to Alberta oil, but also to the hydroelectrical resources that Quebec can produce, as well as to the development possibilities of Northern Canada, which first of all should benefit all Canadians.

And now that we are in the hands of the Arab States and other countries as regards energy, I would find it scandalous if the Canadian government who is responsible did not take the necessary means to ensure that in case of a more serious crisis in Canada, Alberta oil is used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces, because we are all of us Canadians. This is why there is a Confederation. As the federal government, we must discharge our responsibilities in such matters.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Quebec has refused the pipeline.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, it is wrong to say that Quebec has refused it. As a matter of fact, after the federal government announced in August that it intended to build a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal, the provincial government issued a press release a few days ago in which it recognized that it could be essential that such a pipeline be built so that Quebec may have security of supply. And it is in the national interest that we are thinking of carrying out this project, because we would be accused of gross negligence if during the winter, in two or three years from now, for reasons of international politics, none of the countries like Venezuela or the Middle East countries wanted to move oil to Quebec or the Maritime provinces.
And if in the event of such a crisis, we had not built a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal, we would be accused of not having fulfilled our natural obligations. However, discussions are presently going on with the Quebec government and I know for a fact that the Quebec government understands that it is the role of the federal government to make sure that Canadian energy serves all Canadians first. And I am convinced that if in the constitutional discussions or disagreements there may be between the provincial and the federal governments, being a good Canadian means always saying yes to all provincial governments, a time will come when this country will no longer exist.
What makes me a little impatient is that some people say they want a strong and united Canada and use all their energy to destroy this country. When I hear in the House of Commons of Canada a member state that if a province proposes a Creditiste program and that Credi-tiste program is related to a separatist program, he will side with them, I say he is a separatist and I will say so in all of the provinces in Canada. The Creditiste theory might be good, but I think that associating separatism with creditism is the sort of mixture that led to the rejection of creditism by Quebec voters in the last election.
We want the province to be strong within Confederation in areas that come under its jurisdiction. We have on several occasions taken clearcut action that displeased many people in Canada. For example, for years now, we have been under pressure exerted by some provinces to have more direct federal government intervention in the field of education. We always said that we must respect the provinces' jurisdiction in such matters, because we believe that education is something essential in Quebec, in order to enable the French-speaking Canadians of that province to free themselves. We have undertaken discus-
November 8, 1973

sions in a number of areas where we clearly determined certain fields of jurisdiction. For instance, family allowances. This is a problem that has been negotiated to the satisfaction of Quebec as well as that of the federal government and the other provinces. Today, we have set up an improved system of family allowances, without infringing on any provincial prerogatives.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member wants to contribute to improving federal-provincial relations, he should be a little more objective and stop trying to solve the problem by answering yes whenever a province asks for something. We do not intend to force the provinces to do anything in any particular area and we never will. We remain open to dialogue, and whenever the government of Quebec or any other province wants to try, together with all Canadians, to give us a new constitution or improve some clauses of the present Canadian Constitution, we will be pleased to consider it. I suggest that it is not for the federal government to take the initiative at this time. We must do what we always did, namely respond to initiatives taken by the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the statement of the hon. member for Champlain-that shocked me a little: he says that in Quebec, independence is feared more than the underworld. During the last election, this matter was not raised and I suggest that it is very unfair to the provincial government to say that they put on the shelf the inquiry on organized crime during the election campaign.
Everybody knows that it was an inquiry carried out by the courts that decided themselves that it was irrelevant to hold this public debate during an electoral campaign.
And the premier of the province of Quebec stated clearly that he had never interfered and that it is quite indecent to suggest that he might have interfered in this matter.
If the people of the province of Quebec have massively voted for the Liberal party and Premier Bourassa, it is because the latter has done what we are doing throughout Canada; he said that the Liberal party favours a united Canada that respects provinces, that federalism had to bring about advantages, that it might help poor provinces thanks to the revenues coming from wealthy provinces, for the richest provinces have often become wealthy because they have had other provinces as captive markets.
As for me, I would rather be in the position of Ontario which must pay without receiving any equalization payment, than in the position of Quebec, which receives equalization payments.
I believe each province considering the geographical features or exceptional economic developments due to the federation, have the responsibility of helping the provinces that have less. And such has been our policy for a long time, as far as family allowances are concerned, for instance. We did not want to give the whole jurisdiction to provincial governments, because with a system under which family allowances, payments of all kinds made to individuals would be the strict responsibility of the provinces, it might happen that in time the poorest provinces would be the ones to pay.
It could be that with a direct tax transfer today, the provinces could provide the same kind of service, but we
Constitution
know, for instance, that one point in corporate taxes brings twice as much in dollars to Ontario than to Quebec. Everytime a corporate tax point is given back to the provinces, Quebec loses. In the long range, Quebec is the loser because twice as much money goes into the coffers of the Ontario government as in those of the Quebec government. And with a system like that, should payments to individuals be administered by the provinces only, the situation would be such that in 10 or 15 years from now, for instance, family allowances in Newfoundland, instead of being $20, would perhaps be $10 and in Ontario, instead of being $20, they would be $40.
Now that is not the distributive justice that should exist in a confederation such as ours. That is why, Mr. Speaker,
I believe the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, last week, understood all these things.
If we really insist on raising the problem of independence, let's do it. The Liberals did not ask for this problem. It was rather a political party of the province of Quebec that keeps on preaching this thesis, while we, the Liberals, in opposition to some Creditiste members, we are not sitting on the fence with regard to independence: we are against independence.
We shall keep on fighting independence because we have the firm conviction that French Canadians can play a part at the national level, in Canada. We are not inhibited to the point where we must keep to ourselves. On the contrary, we believe that people from Quebec can be useful to all Canadians.
I am privileged to be in charge of a department which has very few contacts with the province of Quebec, but it is my profound conviction that I play a useful part not only for Quebecers but for all Canadians and this is what the federal government and Canada mean for all Quebecers.
I do not think that being a Quebecer should necessarily mean staying alone in one's back yard with one's own little things. One must have enough self-confidence to take up challenges greater than the province of Quebec. At a time when all European countries are setting up a large common market, at a time when countries throughout the world are trying to regroup in a new union-countries of the third world held an extremely important conference in Algeria a couple of weeks ago to try and regroup too-we in Quebec would be going completely against history in trying to have our little country of our own, with our own national anthem and our own flag. There is more than that to the life of a nation. I think that the important thing for us is to make sure that French Canadians can fulfill themselves not only in Quebec but everywhere in Canada.
I heard on television a few days ago that our fellow countrymen in New Brunswick were celebrating the 10th anniversay of the University of Moncton. I will point out to the hon. member for Champlain that those people are yet better French Canadians than anyone of us from the province of Quebec because they found it much more difficult to keep their French language. I refuse to go along with anybody ready to let down the million and a half French Canadians living outside Quebec. I have a lot more respect for those who lived and fought for their
26635-54)

November 8, 1973
Constitution
language like the French Canadians in Cornwall, the Ottawa area, or the Maritime provinces, than for us from Shawinigan, Grand-Mere, or anywhere else in the province of Quebec, where it was relatively easy to do. And I am not prepared to let them down tomorrow.
I believe that as an ethnic group we have made considerable progress in Canada and we must go on being excellent Canadians. It is not impossible to be a French Canadian or a Quebecer and a good Canadian at the same time. Mr. Speaker, when I hear the honourable member for Champlain talking about independence and politics-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. minister but the hon. member for Shefford rises on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. minister concludes his remarks, even though his time has almost expired, I wish to ask him a question.


Mr. Speaker:: This is obviously not a point of order, but if the hon. minister wishes to answer a question, he may do it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on very long. I think I have clearly stated that the Quebec population made its choice. It decided by itself and it was not the federal government, because we, the federal Liberals, have showed more respect for Quebecers than did the federal Creditist members. Since we were accused in 1970 of having influenced the result of the vote, we did not interfere in the last provincial elections. Yet, the Liberal party won 102 seats out of 110. Obviously within two weeks, some intellectuals particularly in the province of Quebec will demonstrate that Rene Levesque did effectively win the election and that Mr. Bourassa lost his deposit. Mr. Speaker, the people made their choice. Every party got the same opportunity in every district. But as one of the parties offered a clear choice that met the very aspirations of French Canadians-that is to say the policy of a party which had faith in a strong Quebec in a united Canada-the people voted for that; they did not vote for the Creditist party because of the Creditist or separatist ambiguities advocated by the hon. member for Champlain. That was so obvious that the hon. member with his usual ambiguities went to his constituency to try and explain theories which are neither fish nor flesh. The Creditist candidates have lost their deposit in the ridings of Port-neuf and Laviolette and even the party president lost his in Champlain.
The Quebec voters have shown good judgment during the last election. A majority of French Canadians have voted for the Liberal party much more than for the Parti Quebecois even though, in my opinion, all those who voted for the Parti Quebecois are not necessarily separatists. I think the vote was quite clear even though some problems still exist. I am convinced that the Bourassa government will try to make some progress in many areas and that they are considering resuming the constitutional debate; we shall be open to their views because we sincerely believe that the Canadian constitution should be repa-

triated as soon as possible. In my opinion, we should find a formula of amendment meeting the aspirations of all the provinces and, at the same time, include the Canadian Bill of Rights in the Canadian constitution.
We can congratulate ourselves for the outcome of the Quebec election and we can now undertake a serious debate which will settle many problems in Canada. In the near future, if the provinces so desire, we will be able to repatriate the constitution back to Canada and draft another one which will guarantee equality to all Canadians and, as we have been wishing for generations, to the French Canadians safety and promotion of the French language not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the minister willing to answer a question from the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: My question is this: Does the minister feel that, whenever a French-speaking Canadian from the province of Quebec criticizes this Liberal government, this necessarily means that he is a separatist?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: To this, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer that any member of this House has the right to criticize the policy of the federal government. He has every right to do so, but he should deal with real problems and stop telling fairy tales. He should talk about the problems of concern to the Canadian people, such as the energy crisis and social security, but Creditiste independentism is nothing but hogwash.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly tempted to follow the example of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and to take advantage of this important debate to delight in a useless attack on individuals and to forget the real issue, that is national solidarity and the way to achieve it. I do not intend to yield to temptation.
We owe it to ourselves today as always, in response to the motion moved by my Creditiste colleague,-and precisely on account of the very nature of this motion,-to show maturity, true responsibility, faced with the challenge of national solidarity, and to do so in a tone as airily and as serene as that of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).
Mr. Speaker, this Canada of ours, this Canada built by our forefathers whose merits have not always been recognized at the time of their retirement, basically, Canada is wanted by all Canadians from Quebec as well as elsewhere.

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome this debate. I consider myself privileged to speak on behalf of my leader and my colleagues of the Official Opposition. My travels throughout this great country of ours, undertaken at the request of my colleagues, have enabled me to grasp the true meaning and overwhelming impact of our Canadian indentity. Whether in Vancouver, Montreal, Cranbrook, Madoc, Saint-Hyacinthe, Edmonton, Dunnville, or Hinton, I have sensed the desire and unanimous will of all citizens
November 8, 1973

of this country to join forces in an endeavour to build, rather than to destroy. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I shall prefer a positive approach in the course of this debate.
[ Transla tion]
Certainly I am talking here of our own country and not of the present style given to the federal-provincial relations and not of the way the national unity objective is coloured at the present time.
It is true that this debate must allow us to document as much as possible our critics against this government, but it should also give rise in this House and among the population to proper considerations on the national solidarity theme.
It is advisable to reopen the federal-provincial relations record more especially as we are right after an election in Quebec the results and stakes of which are known. All this is particularly advisable more especially as we are facing today the whole energy issue, in Quebec as well in Alberta, and the wranglings if prolonged unduly could undermine the very foundations of Canadian unity.
First, Mr. Speaker, I deplore, because I fear their consequences, the very style and direction which inspire the present federal government, and sometimes even the Quebec government, in federal-provincial relations and consequently with their legal creations, the municipalities.
The Liberal governments now in office in Ottawa as well as in Quebec City, being deeply divided concerning the objective of a new constitution and therefore without any common direction, tend to fall into piecemeal consultation without any general plan.
This lack of direction leads us into feverish activism. In April 1973, seven separate federal-provincial conferences have been held and, tell me, what results did we get?
The present rate of these conferences is more impressive than the results that they are willing to communicate to us are or are likely to be fruitful.
We must-and this constitutes another important aspect of the problem-denounce the secrecy which, before, during and after, too often surrounds bilateral meetings or even federal-provincial conferences. With the help of the media, let the government therefore function in the open, let it not be afraid of enlightening the population, let it not fear especially to have the media play their part.
I regretted this afternoon, as many other hon. members, that the Prime Minister of Canada, in a change of mood, used certain scornful words about employees, civil servants, and said of them-and I am quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, a man who has championed personal liberties-"do their job very badly when they do not reflect crass ignorance".
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that such a general attack, without any differentiation, any subtle distinction, looks quite like an unfair discrimination towards employees in general. If he had had the guts of giving names, of pointing out at some people in particular, instead of casting all the blame on a whole group of citizens, he would have been much more honest.
Constitution
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these employees do not deserve to be tried on their motives, or to be convicted without trial. Whenever one is concerned with other people's rights, one does not speak this way.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may have some problems. It is not the fault of the Canada Broadcasting Corporation or the employees who are here, in the gallery or elsewhere, if the Prime Minister is in trouble. It is not the fault of employees if the Prime Minister's prestige is falling. It is not the fault of the CBC if polls prove to be unfavourable to the Prime Minister. It is not the fault of the CBC if his ministers are unable to solve the great problems of this country. It is not the fault of the CBC if the Prime Minister's allies, his left wing, are now reviewing their support. In my opinion, before condemning in an unfair way men and women, we should act with a lucid mind and not give away to panic.
Mr. Speaker, the public is aware of today's problems thanks to the information media. That is why more and more Canadians, in Quebec as elsewhere, are wondering about the nature and form of short term solutions brought to the problems facing our country.
Whether we refer to the hard problem of the rising cost of living, to the humiliating plague of unemployment or event to the record of communications or of energy, too often the elements of the problems are coldly, brutally related to matters of federal and provincial jurisdiction. This is a legitimate and understandable withdrawal or reaction, but out of context because there is no sufficient and objective reference to the national importance of a problem. No consideration is being given to the needs and total priorities of a particular region. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, some ministers over-estimate their strength in Quebec and taking an indecent advantage, as regards Canadian unity, of prejudice in their favour and of an overrated reputation, they allow themselves to become arrogant. It is time to put a stop to this.
In my opinion, by their silence and their slips of the tongue, they unconsciously betray the spirit, if not the letter, of our Constitution, work against Canadian solidarity, and distort the identity of each of the five regions of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I agree with the spirit, if not with the letter, of the motion before us today. In this House, on September 10, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) commented on the so-called antiinflationary plan announced on September 4, in the following words:
"-the Minister of Energy himself and the Prime Minister-have given Quebec a half hour's notice of the reversal and change of the federal energy policy, and as far as we know, have not advised at all either Alberta or the other provinces concerned." There was no previous consultation, despite what they may suggest, which indicates not only this government's indifference and disdain for the interest of the provinces, as I have said, but it also indicates that this decision was made, as has become the custom of those gentlemen opposite, off-the-cuff and in an atmosphere of political expediency . . .
But the country ought not to be distracted by this spectacular example of federalism by fiat. We ought to observe the massive, total arrogance but above all we must continue to focus upon the substantive issue.

November 8, 1973
Constitution
How do we, in the official opposition, react once the problem has been defined in order to better meet the challenge of Canadian solidarity? Surely if people may be tempted to say that this federal government takes advantage of crises in this country to usurp provincial jurisdictions, we-and it should be the same for all-want merely a realignment of views of the opposing forces in Canada. The two founding races in this country must become again partners in the pursuit of the same objective. Provincial governments must feel involved in the designing of solutions to national problems.
I am persuaded there is enough room in our system for two levels of government, that could both be active and strong and cooperating loyally and effectively. That concept has been lacking for too long and I believe it is the real basis of federalism.
Let us consider for instance the health field. A few years ago, the Liberal government succeeded in thrusting upon the provinces its views and priorities concerning medical services. And as the costs of these programs have reached prohibitive proportions, the government seems to be seeking an easy way out.
These are programs, the principles and methods of which the government designed itself, programs to which it compelled the provinces to comply with after having spoken highly of their merits, and now, it declares that their value is not proportional to their cost. Moreover, not only does the government acknowledge today to be dissatisfied with those programs, but it has the nerve to try to limit its financial responsibilities while compelling the provinces to meet theirs. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine that a provincial government which is aware of its responsibilities towards its electors can accept that. This is the reason why we must seriously consider the possible alternatives. One of those, as the leader of my party said in Montreal on April 15, 1973, would be the following:
The federal government must withdraw from shared cost health programs and it must do it by remitting to provinces a larger part of the tax revenues and obviously ensuring an appropriate equalization in this sharing.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that this is not a perfect solution, but it would be more advisable than what this government intends to do. Moreover, it would be an obvious acknowledgement of the right of the provinces to set up their own priorities in an essential area without any federal interference.
If we should adopt this solution of decentralization, we should, of course, ensure that the advantages of the program are transferable from one province to another.
We should also do what is necessary in a context of equalization in order to stimulate consistency in the quality of present services.
One thing is certain anyway: if the government stays in power, the provinces will lose. They will have to maintain the present standards whereas the federal government will limit its financial contribution. I feel this is absolutely unacceptable.

If we are to offer medical care throughout the country according to specific standards, the co-operation of both levels of government is absolutely necessary.
A Progressive Conservative government would not withdraw from the programs leaving the provinces to their fate and it would insist on having its own version of the national standards complied with.
A Progressive Conservative government would proceed to a real consultation to determine the extent to which the federal government should stay involved. This decision would be taken in a collegial fashion. The time when the decisions were taken unilaterally by Ottawa, the time when this arrogant attitude was displayed-the "take it or leave it" attitude-would be long gone. And inasmuch as the federal government would stay involved, it would pay a full and fair share of those programs.
It is in this collegial spirit that we have advocated during the last electoral campaign, the immediate convening, after our taking office, of a federal-provincial conference on the priorities for tomorrow with a view to determine the most urgent problems, to discuss the short-term and long-term solutions and to determine the guidelines of a national economic strategy.
In brief, we want to take another approach to the whole question of joint programs and federal subsidies. And this new approach would apply to regional development as well as social security. As all my colleagues, I would like to see more flexibility, consultation and co-operation in the relations between both levels of government. We will try as much as possible to let the municipalities, provinces and areas determine their own priorities and assume their own decisions. We will show that the central government can act as a catalyst.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Unless he obtains the unanimous consent, he cannot carry on.
Is the House ready to let the hon. member complete his remarks? He needs only a few seconds.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There is apparently not unanimous consent. I will ask the question again. Is there unanimous consent to let the hon. member complete his comments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude Wagner: I thank you, Mr. Speaker and I also thank all my colleagues. I will try not to impose upon your kindness.
We will therefore see, Mr. Speaker, that the central government becomes a catalyst of understanding and a factor of unity within confederation.
For the moment, we prefer to stress the urgency of holding a national conference of priorities instead of an early reopening of the Victoria file. It seems to me necessary to move along those lines. The present or future constitution, repatriated or not, is only, with all due
November 8, 1973

respect to the constitutionalists, a kind of instrument to enlighten the government of our country.
First of all, faced with modern problems such as the supply of resources and the quality of the individual and collective life, and facing the future, we must identify the priorities of each partner in our political system, and then, secondly, proceed with the required juridictional and fiscal sharing. Such a process will prepare the minds to a new Victoria, more assured this time of a real success. If other and faster methods to amend the constitution were found, I, for one, would be most interested.
Mr. Speaker, whatever may be the new approach to federal-provincial relations we must, of course, concern ourselves with the question of the official languages in this country, with the easier access for French-speaking people to the federal public service and with federal services provided in both official languages. All that is part and parcel of the national community of interests. However, such a community of interests would be really and fully achieved only to the extent that we find solutions to the economical and social problems in each of the five major areas in this country. The real Canadian challenge consists in being able to reconcile social and economic interests at the regional level and as this motion points out, "to meet the basic aspirations of each province".
And here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the following warning: one must not see more than there really is in the last result of the elections in Quebec. If, on the one hand, we must again rejoice at the victory of the federalist philosophy over separatism, on the other hand, one must not forget that the Parti Quebecois increased the number of its supporters to 30 per cent in the vote. And most of all, one must understand that the victory of the federalist option in Quebec does not mean in any way that there are no more problems between Ottawa and Quebec. Let us not bury our head in the sand.
I suggest that as early as the day after October 29, a new chapter of Canadian history opened in Quebec and throughout this country.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that I am the first person to intervene in this debate who is not from the Province of Quebec. I quite understand the reason. This is a subject of very special interest in the Province of Quebec. I hope my intervention is symbolic of the fact that it is also of considerable interest, or, if it is not, it should be, to Canadians from other provinces.
We do not adopt the language of the resolution which has been presented to us, but we do say that the presentation of this resolution performs, in our view, a useful service. It is proper that, from time to time, this House should turn its attention not only to the broad problems of Canadian unity but to the questions arising under our constitution which are unsettled and which require solution in the interest of unity in Canada.
Others in this debate have spoken of the recent election in Quebec. I do not propose to make any political or partisan comments, but 1 think I speak for people who believe in the federal system throughout Canada when I
Constitution
say that we welcomed its result, not from a partisan point of view but because it demonstrated that, at the present time at least, the option for separatism was not being chosen by the people of Quebec. But I should like to underline that this election is no basis for complacency. The constitutional issue is one that cannot be allowed to drift or be allowed to be ignored by the people of Canada; I believe the constitution of Canada needs changes made to it, and needs careful consideration at the present time.
One of the most disappointing parts of my experience in this House was being a member of a committee of which one of the co-chairman was the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and comprised of representatives of all parties in this House and the Senate. This committee travelled throughout Canada, listened to innumerable briefs from learned people, and prepared a report which represented a general consensus of people in all regions of Canada. The committee made 104 proposals in its report, yet the government of the day has seen fit, as far as I can make out, completely to ignore that report. It has done nothing about any of the recommendations that were made. Although the report was a weighty one it has disappeared, just as a very weighty rock might disappear into the ocean, without trace. The report caused scarcely a ripple. I consider this disappointing and I hope the situation will be remedied. The report I refer to represented a useful consensus. We did not all agree about everything, but at least we demonstrated that when people of good will from across Canada sit down to tackle problems, they can reach a high level of agreement and arrive at a basis for the renewal of our constitution.
The report contained one proposal that I think we ignore at our peril. The report states that Canada needs a new and modern constitution which would eliminate much of what is obsolete and inadequate in the present British North America Act. I acknowledge that it is well known that constitutional matters sometimes appear technical and difficult, partly because they are often discussed by constitutional lawyers, such as myself, who are somewhat versed in the legal phraseology of the constitution and its ramifications. Nevertheless, it remains true that the basic and fundamental rights of the people of this country rest upon the constitution. The unity of this country rests upon the constitution. The constitution impinges upon the lives of our people at every level, and if we do not have an intelligent, modern, flexible constitution which is capable of dealing with the problems of the country, we will fail to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
One aspect of the constitution in which we in this party are interested, and have been for very many years, is the question of fundamental and basic rights. We think that these should be entrenched in our constitution. We have long argued that this is fundamental to a free society such as Canada's should be. We have been reminded of the importance of this by a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lavell case in which the majority of that court gave a decision which seemed to indicate that our present Bill of Rights passed by this parliament is totally inadequate to protect large sections of this community against discrimination, such as discrimination against sex. There are many women in this country who are demanding, and I say justly demanding, that we entrench a clear-cut protection against discrimination on

November 8, 1973
Constitution
the ground of sex in our constitution. The same applies equally to discrimination on the ground of religion, race or other areas where discrimination is frequent. We want to see these basic freedoms entrenched in the constitution.
There is no better time to set about this. I, and all members of the House, know that for a good many years there has been a series of federal-provincial constitutional conferences which have failed to produce an effective result. One of the reasons for this was that at least four of the provinces in western Canada were represented by governments that can politely be called small "c" conservative. They were opposed to any change in this field and presented an obstacle to proposals such as the entrenchment of the Bill of Rights in the constitution.
As a result of the fortunes of elections, those four governments-I refer to the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-have been replaced by governments ready to take a more flexible, may I say more basically Canadian, attitude toward this question. The election in Quebec is now out of the way and Quebec seems to have opted for federalism. I do not think it has opted for a status quo federalism; I think it has opted for federalism that is ready to change, to advance and to accommodate itself in light of present circumstances.
Furthermore, we think that the consitution should recognize the special position of the native people of this country. We agree also that actual constitutional changes in this field should await full consultation with organizations of native people when they have completed their present research. This is one aspect with regard to which there are recommendations in the report of the joint committee to which I have referred.
I should like to say a little more about that committee report because I think it deserves much more attention than it has had. The most essential constitutional question in any confederation is the division of powers as between the federal and provincial legislatures. We accept the basic proposal in the report that the powers of the provincial legislature should be enlarged in all areas touching upon social and cultural policy. The powers of the federal parliament should be clarified and enlarged in regard to important economic policies that affect Canada as a whole.
Perhaps this is not the right place to go into them in detail, but the report refers to income support measures. We think this is an ingenious solution to this particular problem. We recognize the fact that at the present time, so far as we understand it, in the field of welfare the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has been pursuing a course of very close and fruitful collaboration with the various provincial governments. We think that is an excellent thing. It underlines the advisability of solving jurisdictional difficulties at the present time.
There is a subject mentioned in the report in which I am particularly interested, and about which I am concerned. That is the problem of air and water pollution. Once again we run into a field where the constitutional confusion is tremendous. When the British North America Act was written people did not live in the sort of society where air and water pollution were of serious dimension. But we do,

and yet we are hampered in our efforts to clear up our environment and provide a better quality of life by the confusion that exists as to jurisdiction. The report to which I refer recommends that if national standards are to be set there should be an over-all, paramount federal power. It says that the importance of the contribution of the provinces with respect to air and water pollution cannot be denied, but stresses that the overriding and paramount power to clear up pollution, which so often extends beyond provincial boundaries, should be clearly vested in the federal authority.
I do not think it would be helpful at this stage if I were to go into details about other things in this report. Many of them are important to the people of Canada, and the people of Canada will suffer if we neglect to deal with these things when we have the opportunity to do so. I do, however, want to refer to the battle against inflation. In this particular regard we found the report very inadequate. It said:
In cases of national emergency, as defined by the Parliament of Canada, the Provinces should delegate to the Federal Parliament all additional powers necessary to control prices, wages and other forms of income, including rent, dividends and profits, to implement its prime responsibility for full employment and balanced economic growth.
Everybody in this House knows that the question of control of wages, prices and other forms of income, profits and so on, is of vital importance in the battle against inflation. Yet anybody who has taken the trouble to look at the facts will know there is immense confusion as to who it is has jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
I know that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) spent much time lecturing and talking to people about some of the confusion that exists. The case books are full of cases dealing with this problem and what emerges is still confusion, so that no one knows who is responsible for dealing with many of these matters. While we do not seek greater centralization of powers, if we are to have an effective battle against inflation we must recognize that where it is necessary to deal with important matters which effect the economy at the national level, then this power should be clarified in the constitution. Who can deny that the inflationary spiral has important economic effects at the national level?
There are other challenges facing Canada at the present time. One of the challenges with which we are all familiar, because we hear so much about it every day and will continue to hear about it for some time into the future, is the energy crisis. We in this party want to make it clear that while we recognize the provinces have interests and concerns in natural resources,-they have the proprietary rights in natural resources-yet when a crisis hits the whole national economy there is a federal responsibility to take action in that field. We support what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) said the other day, that it is the parliament and government of Canada that must act responsibly in dealing with a situation that affects the well-being of all Canadians, and which of course has implications beyond the boundaries of Canada.
I conclude, therefore, by reiterating that the introduction of this subject by this motion in our opinion is a healthy and worthwhile thing, and I urge the federal
November 8, 1973

government not to waste the opportunity that exists at the present time to deal with and solve some of these problems. The sort of lackadaisical, laissez faire attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), although he is an expert in constitutional affairs, is not good enough. These problems ought to be dealt with. They may be difficult. They may not arouse great popular enthusiasm in some parts of the country, but if they are ignored they may rise to plague us in the future and make government in Canada less helpful to the people than it should be.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), 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 Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-National Defence- Inquiry as to decision on replacement for Argus aircraft; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Air Transport-Bilateral agreement on routes with United States- Possible renegotiation on one route for Saskatchewan; the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) - Airports-Pickering-Competence of board of inquiry to study need and location.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Matte.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, at first sight, I thought the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), was perhaps not presented at an appropriate time.
But having heard the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) as well as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), I believe this motion comes in the nick of time and shows an objective approach. My colleague did not try to rouse members one against another, he was very constructive when he said that it was about time Canada should give provinces, through a constitution adjusted to needs, a greater autonomy, more facilities for self-determination
Constitution
and to determine by themselves their cultural, economic and political destiny.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Champlain did not insult anybody. He stated facts, real situations, things we live through and I was surprized to hear the hon. minister make a clear election speech, in a style that has been outmoded for at least 25 years, a pure and simple political speech. First, he said exactly the opposite of what his leader said on the day following the famous October 29 election in Quebec. He said people had voted Liberal, that the Liberal party was the greatest party.
His leader said, on the evening of election day, that Quebecers had voted for Canada and against separation. Here, Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to make a comparison between separatism and provincial independence. There is one difference. Seceding from a country is not like being part of that country and being oneself, free of all kinds of control. Seceding from a country is completely different from remaining part of it and being oneself.
I think the motion of the hon. member for Champlain is clear and specific enough but, as usual, some people will say that maybe Creditistes are separatists. I believe we have shown in this House that we are Canadians, but we want to be first class Canadians and to be respected throughout Canada.
My colleague suggests in his motion that the provinces should be given more freedom. What are the provinces asking for? We hear in this House spokesmen for the various provinces of Canada. I hear the member for Gan-der-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) speaking day in and day out about Newfoundland. I am sure that people in Peace River do not know much about Newfoundland, but the people of that province are aware of the situation there. They tell us of their problems, and say: Give us this, or give us that. All the provinces are in the same position. It is the same in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. What do the members of parliament from the west talk about? Of the wheat in Saskatchewan and the oil in Alberta. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, people talk about agriculture. In Ontario, they talk about industry.


An hon. Member:: In Quebec, about unemployment!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, in Quebec, about unemployment.


An hon. Member:: It is our first and best industry.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, from 1946 to 1973, I have sat in this House and heard about the repatriation of the constitution. In 1973, people are still talking about it. It seems that some have gone to London, like the former Solicitor General, now Minister of Supplies and Services (Mr. Goyer), to go and find the constitution; but he has not found it.


An hon. Member:: Maybe he is still looking for it.


David Réal Caouette: When he came back, he told us: We cannot amend it, we do not have it. But everyone talks about this famous constitution. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said a while ago: The federal government is ready to have discus-

November 8, 1973
Constitution
sions with the provinces, it was because of Quebec that there was no agreement on the constitution in Victoria, it was because the Liberal government in Quebec did not agree with the Liberal government in Ottawa. But why did it refuse Ottawa's suggestions? The provinces are not asking Ottawa to suggest or order anything, they are saying: Leave us to discuss our problems and for your part, simply act as referees and respect our identity. It is as simple as that. And how can we do this? Surely not by penalizing rich provinces to help the poorer provinces. That, Mr. Speaker, is socialism at the national level. It is taking away from the haves to give to the have-nots, when natural resources, national production, are sufficient to meet the needs of all provinces without penalizing some citizens.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development says that the Creditiste solution may perhaps be a good one. During election campaigns, he says all kinds of things against our solutions. He speaks of the problems of provinces, of national unity, and of the October 29 vote. It was a vote of fear, a jittery vote, because during four weeks the whole population was being frightened.
It resulted in the disappearance of the Union Nationale, they had cold feet. We came close ourselves to being swept away, because some people were afraid. The Parti Quebe-cois lost a seat, even though it increased its percentage of the popular vote. On election night, I heard the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) on TV-he likes to go on TV the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-saying that the one who has lost his election is Caouette in the Province of Quebec. What kind of invention is that! It was surely not the Union Nationale and the Progressive Conservatives who won any ground in the province of Quebec in the last election. Out of 17 members, not one is left.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner)
says-


An hon. Member:: When you are not there, you cannot lose!


David Réal Caouette: No. When they are not there, they cannot loose, that is clear. This is precisely what they did, they have lost 17 members, they have no more left. Therefore they can lose no more. And what is worse they say: Caouette has lost the election. The election in Quebec has been lost by the separatists. However, as the hon. member for Champlain stated when introducing his motion, it is at the same time a warning to the federal government that it should give more freedom to the provinces because Mr. Bourassa cannot have more than 102 members. There is only one way to go after such a victory-down.


An hon. Member:: When they fall we pick them up!


David Réal Caouette: When they start to fall we shall pick them up.


An hon. Member:: We shall not prevent them from falling.


David Réal Caouette: Let us seriously consider the number of Quebec members in the federal Parliament: there are 74 while in Quebec there are 110 provincial members. This amounts to 184 members from the province of Quebec. Out of this amount, Creditists account for 17: 15 in Ottawa and 2 in Quebec; the Progressive Conservatives have 2 members here and not one in Quebec. I would like the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe to hear me clearly.


Some hon. Members:: How many Creditists did you have elected in Ontario?


David Réal Caouette: None. The Tory strength in Ontario adds up to zero.
Six PQ members were elected. We have an independent here.


An hon. Member:: Who is that?


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
So we are 26 Quebecers in the opposition of which 17 are Creditists. And I heard the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe say on television: We are the official opposition. The official opposition from the province of Quebec in Ottawa is the Social Credit Party of Canada.


An hon. Member:: He thinks he is the opposition!


David Réal Caouette: On top of that, we are consistent with ourselves, we do not try and lie to the people, we tell them exactly what we think.
Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that the warning issued to the Liberal party, the central government, is a serious one. In 1970 there was trouble caused by the FLQ, by all sorts of organizations which wanted and still want Quebec to withdraw from confederation. They are even prepared to resort to violence and that violence is not totally extinct. The threats of violence are not totally extinct.
Time will tell, there is still time to save the Canadian ship; nobody more than I wishes to remain a Canadian in the full sense of the word, but in my province I would like the government to have more latitude, just as much as I want the same latitude for any other province in Canada, to allow them to make decisions. That is why we ask, even at the risk of becoming the laughing-stock of everybody, that the Bank of Canada be used in the provinces' interests and set branches in all Canadian provinces, for the purpose of serving them and making financially possible what is already physically possible in each of them. Only then would disappear the risk of destruction which looms over the Canadian confederation, because the provinces would be autonomous and free without being separated.
For that matter, Mr. Speaker, all human beings, hon. members included, want to be independent. Everyone dreams about his independence. We do not want anybody to tell us what we have to do. Provinces and even municipal boards want more freedom, as well as school boards. Mr. Speaker, when are we free, when are we a little independent? When we have a purchasing power. Then we have the permission to choose, to refuse, to decide. It is said that money does not create happiness. No, but it helps a little.
November 8, 1973

All provinces complain about a lack of financial resources; even Ontario complainseabout it although it is the richest province in Canada. The province of Quebec lacks financial means. It meets with federal authorities. The latter make us sing all day long the song of the lack of money. Mr. Speaker, independence exists for each and every province and each of them would be much more interested in building up Canada as we want it, namely a united, strong and free Canada. Beside, Canadian independence does exist. We can hear hon. members of the New Democratic Party especially continuously speak against American imperialism, say that we are ruled by the Americans who control our natural resources. That is true! Ottawa does not do anything about it. In the province of Quebec, the Bay James development project is now under way, and who is financing it? The Americans. With what? With American dollars. In wheelbarrows? No. With some figures written down on a promisory note. Why do they not use the Bank of Canada to arrive at figures based on the same wealth that give the value to the monetary system?
Mr. Speaker, during the election, we heard about the famous P.Q. budget, for an amount of $11 billion dollars. When we referred to the guaranteed annual income, it was a real scandal. A television debate was held on Year 1 of separatism and on a budget prepared by Mr. Parizeau, a guy who I think advised two or three premiers of the province of Quebec, and he led the whole gang to defeat because he had no good advice to give. Mr. Speaker, we heard of this project and I already hear the Liberal answer; Your dollar will only be worth 50c. Mr. Loubier says: I think that it will only be worth 30c. They frightened people with that.
What gives money its value? The will of the Prime Minister or the capacity of people to produce in their country or in their province? And what is preventing this? I do not believe in the separatist argument that a Bank of Quebec should be set up, separate from the rest of Canada. Not at all. We produce in Quebec about 30 per cent of what we consume, everybody knows it. However, what is preventing us from using the Bank of Canada to help all provinces, including Quebec? You would then see, during all future federal-provincial or provincial conferences, that no one would complain about the lack of money. They would rather speak of the mutual development of natural resources, which would be much more logical than the stupidities that we are now witnessing during federal-provincial conferences.
Mr. Speaker, American imperialism is not enough. Soviet imperialism is coming. The New Democratic Party does not talk as much about it. That is not known, but it is another kind of imperialism.
When the Soviets impose their administration, their decisions on other countries, including Cuba-at a certain moment it was on Chile, today it is on other countries-we do not hear the NDP protest against it. No, it is normal. It is called the revolution set to save human beings. As for those who oppose it, we are told that they take to repression. Then, the NDP oppose repression and are in favour of revolution. In China, it is the same thing: the Chinese who were all considered as bandits by Canadians ten years ago
Constitution
are now considered as saints in frock coat. What can we do? It works now.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want American imperialism. We want co-operation between countries. We want an independent Canada. We do not want to lose our Canadian identity. In Quebec, we do not want to lose identity as Quebecers either. We don't want the British Columbia people to lose their identity and it is rather amusing to find they don't want to be dictated to by Ontario. The same applies to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritimes. Mr. Speaker, those are the provinces that should incite not political speeches like the one delivered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but positive action. If we want to save Canada, the time is now, tomorrow will be too late. And it is not in blood that we should do so but through reasoning, the good will to remain free people in a country respected by the whole world.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, like many members, I had the opportunity to read the motion of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). It makes us think a great deal. I find it somewhat surprising that a few days after the Quebec election that took place on October 29, people would criticize that election. They want to challenge the result. They want to say that people were afraid.
I say to this House, as I lived through what went on in Quebec, as I was involved in the election campaign, that Quebecers are not timid people. If the Creditistes want us to believe in this House that Quebecers are fearful people, I say it is the opposite. Quebecers have common sense. They were offered certain very clear political options, some others that were indistinct and others thouroughly nebulous. The Liberal party said: What did Mr. Bourassa's team offer during all that election campaign? Profitable federalism. He showed throughout Quebec what profitable federalism meant. Figures were given in support of that. They did not present a Year 1 budget in which a good deal of things were forgotten. A billion dollars was forgotten and they did not know how to get it back. One can recall the television debate, where Mr. Parizeau tried to defend his budget.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what was offered to the Quebec people? Physical security. As the hon. member for Champlain said a while ago: What do people look for in a system? They look for physical security. I should like to add that they also look for social security. They also seek political security. But they seek above all-and that is what the Quebec Liberal party and their leader Mr. Bou-rassa offered the Quebec people-order and justice.
Referring to the October events, we saw a minister of justice who asserted himself, who assumed his responsibilities and who restored order in Quebec.
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the first-year budget of the Parti Quebecois. The federal government was blamed during the entire electoral campaign for having imposed the war measures.
In the "National expenses" item, mention is made that in an independent Quebec, 8,000 soldiers would be maintained. Why 8,000 soldiers? Merely to protect our territory. To my knowledge, Canada has been existing for 100 years,

November 8, 1973
Constitution
and there has never been any militia to protect Canada from the United States. But we were strong and respected. Why do Messrs. Levesque and Parizeau not tell Canadians that once they are separated, invasion will come?
Second, why a militia of 8,000 men? Simply, they answer, in order to meet a few cases of national emergency. Well, in October 1970, we had a case of national emergency. They themselves even provide for votes to that effect in their own budget.
So, Mr. Speaker, we see what the Parti Quebecois has to offer. But what can Social Credit offer us? At a certain time, it favours independence or supports an independen-tist government, but subject to the condition that they change the monetary system. They also suggest a plebiscite, but I think that the best one that we could have has been given by the people of Quebec last October 29, by saying "no" to the PQ, separation, independence and yes to a profitable federalism.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, even though Mr. Bourassa was reelected premier of Quebec with 102 seats, there are still going to be problems in the province of Quebec. During the last provincial campaign, the Parti Quebecois tried to persuade us of the contrary, suggesting that once independence is achieved, there would be no problems any more in the province of Quebec.
No intellectually honest man would dare make such a statement. As I have stated on many occasions during the provincial elections, I feel that even with a very strong Liberal government, there will still be squabbles with the federal government. What is federalism? It is a dialogue. But before a dialogue can take place, there must be problems. The Trudeau, Pearson and St-Laurent administrations have caused problems over the years because they even refused to dialogue with the provinces to help them solve the problems confronting Quebec and the rest of Canada. But if they still want to speculate on the voting result of October 29 last, I think this is not honest. That vote was not one for the past but for youth, for the future and to enable us to keep on growing freely within all the scope of the word "free". I would certainly put into question the coming into power of a Pequiste government in Quebec because we would then cease to be free.
But we are really living this freedom and, in my opinion, as a Canadian, as a Quebecer I am going on living it. If we compare the economic point of view of federalism with that of separatism what was done during that election campaign, what have the Pequistes done?
They went across the province of Quebec with their Year One budget. They forgot so many facts that they were forced to plan little regional programs. They have established one for my own area. But they forgot merchant marine, the assistance to shipbuilding, and they forgot also the question of a direct link which will cost between $200 and $300 million, and the merchant marine, about $1 billion.
They forgot that in our region. Those people were in such deep trouble by the end of the election campaign that they had even thought of the Progressive Conservative party for Quebec, during the last campaign. Mr. Wagner himself, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe, came in our area
[Mr. Guay (Levis)J
and told us: If I forgot to promise you anything, to tell you something, I promise you anyway.
That is not the way to act in politics, Mr. Speaker, but we must be honest, and the Liberal party in Quebec made really honest and sensible proposals to the Quebec people, and they gave it an answer.
In conclusion, I would like to quote an article on the economy. This quotation is from Le Soleil, April 7, 1964: What do economists think of separatism?
Even in the most favorable circumstances, they generally agree that it would bring about a decrease in our standing of living. Thus, an economist like Andre Raynauld, director of the Economic Science Department at the University of Montreal thinks that the standard of living in Quebec, which is presently 28 per cent lower than that of Ontario, would fall to 50 per cent for an indefinite period.
On the other hand, Gerard Filion who is not properly speaking an economist but who is actively involved in the present economic life of Quebec as director of the General Investment Corporation, said two weeks ago in Rimouski that the major obstacle to the separation of Quebec is the decrease in the standard of living. According to him, separation would cause secondary industry to slow down considerably. Referring to two cases of immediate concern to him, the director of this public organization pointed out that the Forano and the Volcano industries, taken over by the G.I.C., would see their turnover reduced by half if Quebec separated. He also gave the example of the Quebec furniture market, 30 per cent of which is aimed at the Canadian market, which would be severely affected. At the same time, the director of the G.I.C. said that with its steel industry, the province of Quebec would exceed the economic prosperity of Ontario. This is probably nothing more than an unproved statement. Yet it was made by someone who is intimately involved in the every day realities of the Quebec economy.
I should like also to mention the editorial of Claude Ryan in Le Devoir of Friday, October 26, 1973. This editorial which is entitled "The Choice of October 29, Today's Option" reads as follows:
The tendency today is towards the establishment of larger social, economic, and even political entities. To abandon the kind of experience that is Canada, it would require imperious and urgent reasons. These reasons cannot be found as yet in Quebec, at least they have not reached a level or a degree capable of gaining approval.
Canadian federalism has been often criticized. There was reason to deplore its difficult adaptation to the Quebec situation, but one should not hasten to infer from that that it is no longer possible for the Quebec community to develop within the federal system.
He concludes his editorial by referring to the silent majority, and I quote:
-they prefer for the time being that Quebec keeps on seeking its way in Canadian federalism. This preference is the result of some sound realism. We shall see tomorrow how it will express itself through Monday's voting.
Well, this vote was definitely confirmed before the population of all the provinces of Canada-because they were concerned-and before all the premiers. They were all wondering about the result of the vote and, as I said earlier, the people in Quebec answered: We vote not for an adventure, not for some vague promise, but for a realistic system. This is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I will keep on defending it in this House.
November 8, 1973


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak about the Quebec election, except in one sense. However, we have had an interesting afternoon hearing about it. I will just refer in two sentences to the speech of the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette). I wondered if within the ranks of the Social Credit Party there were those who were classified by any of the rest of my colleagues as being separatists.
I do not want to be pretentious when I say this, but my colleagues and I have had reason to doubt the thrust of the Social Credit Party. However, we have had no reason to doubt their loyalty to this country. I would have thought that separatism would have been the last adjective they would use, including the hon. member for Temiscamingue. He mentioned the futile search some years ago in the halls of Westminster for the constitution of Canada. That was a light-hearted reference. The document, of course, is there in the statutes.
It is not a bad idea to remind ourselves it is an acute embarrassment to our colleagues in the British parliament, and successive British governments, that we in Canada have not yet been able to make the constitutional arrangements so that we can patriate the constitution and find an amending formula that is acceptable. I might say in passing that surely there are many things we want to charge the British government with from time to time, but we could never mount a successful argument that it is they who are resisting the wish to patriate the constitution. When some of our colleagues from European parliaments were here last week, a British member of parliament, Mr. Kirk, said to me, for Heaven's sake when are you people going to find a way to get the document or statute back to Canada? I did not have time to wander through 105 years history, but after a little time we perhaps understood each other better on this issue.
A wise and distinguished Canadian, Robertson Davies, said recently that Canadians are suffering from linguistic inflation. I want it to be clearly understood that has nothing to do with the official languages. Although I wish my facility in French were better, I suspect that Robertson Davies charge would also apply to the French language. If so, I grieve for them. However, he was referring to the English language and the fact that nowadays a good many people lard or load their language with slogans, adjectives and adverbs and in a way have expectations of people about governments almost impossible to fulfil.
I hope the cabinet will not think I have gone soft on them or anything, but I am struck by the fact that almost any government of almost any political stripe is having a difficult time today in fulfilling the expectations of people. I suspect one of the reasons is that many of us, and I suppose we should all say, "mea culpa" or take the blame, are guilty of linguistic inflation. Robertson Davies went on to say:
Language in Canada today is being broken down and rubbed away by people who care nothing for words . .. They have debased the coinage of language to the point where we have a dangerous condition of linguistic inflation in which thought is clouded and feeling degraded.
Constitution
I just make the plea, without discussing the arrangement of constitution-making, that we should try not to be trapped by Robertson Davies' phrase "linguistic inflation". It is a difficult subject that is almost trite to us.
The notice of motion, I say with great respect to the mover, is in a way an example of linguistic inflation. Despite what one's views may be about constitutional evolution in Canada, I do not think reform is helped by the extravagant wording of the motion. My party believes the stars are now in the right position to begin again the consulting process in preparation for the day we all look forward to, the day that we patriate the constitution with an amending formula flexible enough to meet the demands of the future of all the country and yet sufficiently sensitive so as to give no cause for alarm to any of the groups of peoples who make up this country.
When talking about this motion, as far as I am concerned, it would be quite wrong for me to attempt an analysis of the results of the Quebec election and the mandate given to the Liberal government there. All I want to say is that surely it is not an overstatement to state that the premier and government can now speak with the authority that 102 seats gives them in the National Assembly. I am not discussing whether 102 seats is a good or a bad thing. That is for others to discuss or we might discuss it on another occasion. All I am saying is that nobody can say the premier or government of Quebec approaches constitutional amendment with lack of confidence from the people. I think this is a significant change.
I am going to try a paradox because I believe it is not such a bad thing in 1973 that the government of Canada faces constitutional evolution in a minority position. I suspect this situation should be a bit chastening to a government, one which will demand less of what I might call confrontation politics and more consultation politics. It is another paradox about our country that we seem to enjoy an international reputation as peacemakers. Although there is some difficulty about the arrangements, they really are not the fault of Canada. However, we seem to have a terrible time trying to arrange our affairs domestically in a suitable manner.
I am troubled by those who see the future of this country decided by simple slogans like "One Canada". "One Canada" is a copout by people who really do not want to think of the constitutional arrangements. Then, there are those, and I regret to say it, who glory in our divisions. They surely are the traitors in our times. There are also those who pander to bigots. All I can say is that the cup from which they drink contains poison.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) mention the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution. I do not have very much time, but I want to reflect on one or two of the recommendations. I very much hope that some of the recommendations the members of the committee were able to make will not only be useful, and that is not a strong enough word, but will be incorporated in the new constitution of Canada. I have taken the time to underline a couple of them. For instance, recommendation No. 2 reads:
A new Canadian constitution should be based on functional con-
November8, 1973

Constitution
siderations which would lead to greater decentralization of governmental powers in all areas touching culture and social policy and to greater centralization of powers which have important economic effects at the national level. Functional considerations also require greater decentralization in many areas of governmental administration.
Unfortunately for the country, I have never tried to bore the House with fiscal or monetary theories. I am not informed on this subject. But perhaps the fact that I am not makes it possible for me to say this: I have never understood how a federal government, the national government of the country, could possibly execute useful fiscal and monetary policies when ten provincial governments and many of their agencies, and large agencies at that-I think of Quebec Hydro, Ontario Hydro and others-are able to go to the financial marketplaces of the world without even a bow in the direction of the federal government and make arrangements which obviously could have adverse effects on national policy. This is the kind of thing which recommendation No. 2 would, I hope, seek to prevent.
Then we come to the recommendation about our native peoples. Here we find another of the paradoxes of Canada because we, that is, all of us in our representative capacity, are on a collision course. What we are dealing with is question involving two basic rights, rights which as far as I can see cannot be reconciled at this stage in history. I am thinking now of the Bedard and Lavell case before the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not wish to bore the House by attempting an analysis of the judgment in that case. The problem is that the legitimate aspirations of the women of Canada to have their status at least delineated and dealt with in an entrenched declaration of human rights, or an entrenched bill of rights, is in collision with a recommendation we have made that no constitutional changes affecting native people should be made until such time as their own organizations have completed their research into questions of treaty and aboriginal rights in Canada.
We are all getting a good deal of mail on this subject- letters containing legitimate complaints that we are not moving quickly enough as a government or as a parliament in this field of human rights. Yet the dilemma arises directly when we consider the entrenchment of those rights before our native people have had time to advise the government and the parliament as to the nature of their aspirations. I am raising this matter because, as one interested in this conflict, I do not see how the two ministers concerned can resolve it. Both sides are right. Madame Bedard and Madame Lavell are right. Of course they are right. But the native people of Canada are right as well. While looking to the two ministers to reconcile these points of view, it will do us no harm to raise the issue and talk about it dispassionately.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) mentioned the recommendation of the special committee on regional disparities. We were not able to put into a fundamental form the rights of people in certain parts of Canada to enjoy equality of opportunity, and so on, but this should not confuse or discourage people. The difficulty we faced was this: we did not feel it was responsible to give citizens a right of action against the government because they might not enjoy each and every right, in the

economic sense, that their neighbours enjoyed. But I am certain it is equally important in our thinking about constitution-making that men and women taking home pay cheques 40 per cent below those which people in provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia are receiving-60 cents as compared with a dollar-have rights in the economic field just as strong as those of our citizens who properly and wisely treasure their linguistic and cultural inheritance.
There are many other points made in the report of the special committee. There were, in fact, more than 100 recommendations. I, too, welcome this debate because it gives us a chance to take out the report which was tabled in 1972, dust it off if need be, and remind parliament that within its covers are a good many recommendations which if adopted would have a positive effect upon federal arrangements.
Lastly, I would refer hon. members to an interesting statement in an editorial in the August issue of the Journal of Canadian Studies. The article was discussing a review which Mr. Claude Ryan made of some of the writings of Andre Laurendeau. I shall not bore the House with the whole thing, but if I read the editorial describing the review correctly, the point is that it is no longer right or legitimate or fair-here I am chiding English Canadians, so I am on safe ground, I hope-for English Canadians to carry on defining their culture, as the editorial says, in terms of biculturalism, as has been fashionable in certain circles of English Canada, as an excuse for English Canada failing to develop a culture of its own.
Anyone who has listened to the ongoing Canadian debate during the last decade has heard this sort of talk- "We need this special relationship with our French-speaking brothers and sisters because it is the way in which we can be different from the Americans." I think this demeans both sides of this partnership. It is no longer fair and sensible for English Canadians to "cop out" on their side from a federal arrangement which all of us should consider as a very special and treasured possession.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the only solution put forward by the federal government to the constitutional problem resides in the Victoria charter, this lure for the province of Quebec, which is besides rejected by all the people of Quebec.
The last provincial election in Quebec, which took place on October 29, places us in front of a clear and precise fact, an unequivocal situation and it places the rest of Canada in front of a hard fact: one person out of three in Quebec wants the independence of the province and the proportion goes up to 35 per cent when we consider only the vote of French Canadians.
In the face of such a situation, Canada does not have the leisure to look arrogantly at what happens in the province of Quebec. Canada must have a firm attitude and show all possible objectivity during the coming months. It must not poke up the fire nor provoke violence by reiterating its excessively arrogant and provocative positions. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must not forget that
November 8, 1973

Her Majesty Elizabeth II is still the Queen of Canada and that he is not on the throne.
If it claims to have reached maturity, Canada cannot shut its eyes on the problems which are raised and understood by a very large portion of Quebec. The issue in Quebec is much more a constitutional problem than one of independence.
I say very coolly that there are a lot more independen-tists and separatists without the province of Quebec than there are within. I consider that the attitude of Englishspeaking Canadians towards French-speaking Canadians is much more separatist than that of Quebecers militating within the Parti Quebecois. When one sees that French Canadians with equal qualifications earn less then English Canadians, that bilingual French Canadians with equal-and sometimes higher qualifications because they are bilingual-earn less than English Canadians, then I ask, who are the separatists in Canada?
All political parties in the province of Quebec strongly advocated a constitutional reform, and even the Quebec Liberal party-probably to build up political capital- because how can you want the provincial Liberal Party, which is continuously towed by the federal Liberal Party, to have any concern for the French-Canadian nation when its line of thoughts and action are dictated by Mother Superior in Ottawa?
That has always been its main concern no matter what the situation people faced and are still facing. All political parties in Quebec as the federal Liberal Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party demanded on several occasions in the last several years a constitutional revision to allow the province of Quebec to fulfill itself in an environment of peace and prosperity. The federal government would always find a clever and hypocritical way of holding back and extending that situation from one federal-provincial conference to another. The federal government has always managed to create hopes and illusions.
The time has come to take our responsibilities and allow the provinces to take theirs. And since confederation was created by the provinces it is up to them to review it.
When in 1864, and finally in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation agreed to create a confederate system so as to meet more adequately the needs of each province they did not need a centralist federal government such as the current one to reach an agreement.
Since the advent of confederation 106 years have gone by; the needs have changed, the country has become bigger, additional provinces have joined to enrich it with their participation. But today's needs are not those of 1867. Each Canadian province has different needs which are often difficult to understand from one province to the other. We note regretfully that British Columbia finds it hard to understand the Newfoundland attitude as does Prince Edward Island with Manitoba or Alberta.
It is well-known that the French-Canadian nation does not understand confederation and federal government as the other provinces do. They do not have the same feelings because the other provinces have progressively been led to believe that the only important, powerful and reliable government is the federal government.
Constitution
This is understandable since the federal government has always been composed of a majority of English-speaking people and mainly administered by English-speaking people. Outside Quebec the French-speaking reality does not exist.
If you visit western Canada and linguistic problems and bilingualism are brought up, the Ukrainian will say that for him the first language is English and the second, Ukrainian) the German will say that English is the first language and German the second, and the Polish will also tell you that English is the first language and Polish the second. If you try to make them believe the second official language of Canada is French, they will be stunned and will take you for some lunatic or day dreamer.
Mr. Speaker, in 1867 the provinces united to create out of nothing a confederal state. And their discussions resulted in a federal government. The federal government was created by the provinces.
Unfortunately, today we are often witnessing an inversion of values within a family, and now children are dictating the behaviour to their parents. Children determine premises in all discussions with their parents; the federal government thrusts its views on the provinces, the federal government dictates work methods to the provinces as if it had created them and they belonged to it.
It is not unusual for the federal government to interfere with the provinces through constitutional conferences. If the provinces got together in 1867 to create the federal government, they do not need it to amend it according their needs. The provinces must dictate to the federal government what they want to get from it. Unfortunately, because of current practices, we are witnessing a conflict between the federal government and the provinces. We find that the baby is now a teenager, but it has not come yet to maturity, and that perhaps it will never achieve it.
The right hon. Prime Minister himself (Mr. Trudeau) said this at the Victoria Conference, and I quote:
Our presence here also shows that the work so boldly started in the Atlantic city of Charlottetown in 1864 is still unfinished.
And it is the right hon. Prime Minister who says that the discussions on Confederation started in 1864 are still unfinished. I think the Prime Minister should wait until those discussions are over before poking his nose where he should not. At this Victoria Conference, the Prime Minister also said, and I quote:
The other English colonies who proclaimed their independence much later learned from our experience; they took their place in the world as full-fledged nations able to implement and amend, if they wished, their own constitution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when a country is unable to amend its own constitution, it is because it is not a sovereign country but a colony. Mr. Speaker, if we want to be independent on the international level, no longer depend on the British Empire to draw up our own policies, we do not need to review our constitution but rather to draw up a constitution after agreeing with the provinces. What we need is not to amend a constitution that nobody wants, but to bring together the premiers of all provinces, in order to create a federal state that will give satisfaction to all the constituent elements.

November 8, 1973
Constitution
What we need is a constitution where there will be no mention of the word province, but rather of the word state, where our political independence will be proclaimed. It must be noted that if people talk about independence in the province of Quebec, on the political level, Canada still does not have her independence. One only has to see, at the opening of each session, the representative of the Queen of England authorizing us to speak to know that Canada's independence does not exist. And if one of the ten constituent provinces of Confederation talks about political independence, that province is certainly not to be blamed for its initiative and it is certainly not us, in the federal Parliament, who have to teach it a lesson.
Mr. Speaker, the provinces, except Quebec, do not care much about the constitution. At the Victoria Conference, for instance, the Premier of British Columbia was heard to state, and I quote:

the provision of jobs is the most urgent need confronting this Conference and the nation today. The preservation of our natural environment and pollution control are also matters of high priority, and particularly important is the provision of a healthy moral environment in which our young people can grow to maturity.
He also stated that the constitution was not the priority problem that our country had to face and that if such was the situation in February 1968 when the constitutional review was undertaken, this was no more so than in June 1971, in view of the economic recession and rise in unemployment over that relatively short period.
As for the Premier of Nova Scotia, he deals with constitutional review in so far as offshore mining rights are concerned. Obviously, he is not interested in the linguistic problem since, outside Quebec, there is no language problem because everything is done in English.
Mr. Speaker, at the Victoria conference, the Prime Minister of Canada assumed the chairmanship of the conference. The proposal of the federal government was, in my opinion, a fantastic deceit and trickery on Quebec.
Fortunately, the people read his hand and the province of Quebec did not pass under the yolk. Indeed, at the present time, without any amendment to the constitution, Quebec can withdraw any time from confederation, while according to the shrewd proposals of the Prime Minister, Quebec could not dissociate itself from the Confederation Act.
When we read the Victoria agreement, we realize that to amend the constitution, the majority must include in the first place each province whose population before the passage of that proclamation, according to any general census at least 25 per cent of the Canadian people, which means Quebec and Ontario.
The majority must also include at least two of the Atlantic provinces, at least two western provinces, provided the consenting provinces represent jointly, following the last general census preceeding the adoption of this proclamation, at least 50 per cent of the population of all western provinces.
This means that Ontario is in a position to veto any modification requested by Quebec and that British Columbia can also do the same; this is the stumbling block.

If you refer to article 20 of that same Victoria charter, you will find precisely what Canada is made of. You can read that Canada consists of ten provinces, one of which being Quebec, in addition to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, which means that if Quebec ever decides to leave confederation, it would need-which is not necessary today-to amend article 20, the agreement of a minimum of six provinces including Ontario or of a minimum of seven provinces if British Columbia disagreed. Therefore, this means that Quebec can now leave confederation and, with the Victoria charter, it would be caught in it.
How is it possible for previously independent States to give up their independence for a mess of pottage. What do the other provinces put in the balance? Mr. Speaker, since there are only two minutes left, I would like to inform you that it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I might tell the hon. member that he has about three minutes left. Perhaps he might use the last two minutes of his time.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The nine other provinces should take their role seriously before it is too late. The provinces will have to get together, without the federal government, to labour over a constitution which we do not have at the present time, trumpet forth the independence of Canada, and grant once and for all to all Canadians the right to speak their own languages, share in the country's prosperity and be treated as equals.

Mr. Speaker, the other nine provinces will have to take their roles seriously before it is too late. Those nine provinces will have to withdraw themselves alone, without the federal government, and they will have to arrange a constitution that we do not have presently, one that will proclaim the independence of Canada and will allow all Canadians to express themselves freely in their language, to participate in the prosperity of the country, so they will all be treated on the same level now and forever. In other words, and in practice, so that Ste. Scholastique and Pickering will be treated on the same level.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I will recognize the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) at eight o'clock. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this debate we heard an impassioned plea for a non-partisan approach to constitutional reform from the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) who, I regret to say, is not in the House at the moment. However, the words both of the motion he moved and of his speech belied his stated intention. I am willing to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt with respect to his inten-
November 8, 1973

tions. His intentions may have been in the clouds of objectivity, but his feet remained mired in the mud of partisanship.
I think it is no exaggeration to say that the hon. member has cheapened the whole constitutional debate by accusing the Canadian government of maintaining unity through fear, autocracy and oligarchy. It is not the Government of Canada which has created the problem of separatism and the fear of separatism; it is the activity of a political party in the province of Quebec which has dedicated itself to the destruction of this country. I would like to hear the hon. member denounce them with the same fervour with which he has attacked the Government of Canada this afternoon.
I am ashamed to have to say that this hon. member not only did not denounce separatism, but said he would support it if along with it there would be a Social Credit government. I was ashamed, as a member of this House, to hear this statement. Not only was it offensive to members of this House; it was also highly irrelevant to the political debate.
We all know, including the hon. member, that the inhabitants of a province are free to vote as they wish. The Social Credit party has even succeeded in gaining office in one of the provinces of Canada. The Social Credit party does not need independence to come to power and, as the hon. member well knows, the independence which the separatist party in Quebec promises would not bring the Social Credit party to power. I was especially embarrassed at that moment for the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the leader of the party, who has gone across this whole country and taken a stand highly in favour of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: That hon. member proclaimed his devotion to Canada again in his speech this afternoon. He need not have done so, because no one in the House is unaware of the fact that he is an ardent federalist. But obviously he was embarrassed by the words of his colleague because he spent his whole speech trying to reinterpret what the hon. member for Champlain had said. Skilful debater that he is, he changed the whole context of the notion of independence to try to show that individual freedom and independence of action by provinces are possible and even necessary within a federal structure. He spoke of independence within a truly united Canada. We would all agree with that, of course, Mr. Speaker. He made his point well.
Obviously, there are independent fields of action provided to the provinces even now by section 92 of the British North America Act. It was not this relative kind of independence that the hon. member for Champlain had in mind, but this was undoubtedly the best recovery possible which his leader could make, in the circumstances, after the hon. member's fumble.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue would also have been disturbed if he had been here to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert). Admittedly, that hon. member did a good job of refuting one of the points of his colleague, the hon. member for Champlain, who had said in his motion that the federal government
Constitution
had failed to do anything to encourage the provinces to get together in order to amend or redraft the Canadian Constitution. The hon. member for Drummond argued that the federal government had no role at all in constitutional reform and therefore, of course, had no business in trying to provide leadership. The provinces, he said, are states which can leave the country at will, at any time and, as befits such entities, it is their prerogative to set the pace of such negotiations and tell the federal government what they want.
The hon. member for Drummond went on to attack the formula for constitutional amendment agreed on at Victoria, on the ground that it would limit Quebec in a way that it is not presently limited; that whereas now it has the unilateral right to secede from this country if it should so wish, it would lose this right if the Victoria accord came into effect. There are many of us who have criticisms of the amending formula which was agreed to at Victoria. I, personally, would hope that with a more sober government in British Columbia, even that province would not wish to press the excessive claims which it had embodied in the earlier version of the formula, and that it would now be possible to reach a formula in which the role and the position of the western provinces was the same as that of the Atlantic provinces and in which the requirement for agreement was merely for any two provinces, without putting in the protective clause for British Columbia.
But the attack of the hon. member for Drummond on the formula was based on what I might call a "funny" constitutional theory which really has no basis in reality at all. In fact, the law is that the reform of our constitution or any changes have to be made by the British Parliament on an address by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. That is very well known, Mr. Speaker, and it hardly needs repetition in this place. There is really no role legally for any province in constitutional amendments.
The practice which has tended to evolve is that the provinces be consulted, one might say, by indulgence of the federal government. It may be that at some time the federal government will want to depart from that practice; for example, if it is not possible to get agreement from the provinces in any other way, or if one province should be especially obstinate about agreeing on a new constitutional practice. For the moment, however, the practice is that all provinces are consulted and there is nothing which would allow a single province, Quebec or any other, to have a unilateral right to do what it wishes. However, I hope our solidarity with the people of Quebec does not rest on constitutional formulas but, rather, on a shared past and a shared future.
In the circumstances, perhaps we should be tolerant of the hon. members to our right. I suspect that what we are encountering from that party in this debate is really sour grapes as a result of the Quebec election. I believe it is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on that election and the results of it from the viewpoint of our theory of representation. Even some ardent federalists have been calling the results excessive and not representative of the views of the Quebec people. We hear talk of proportional representation being a better system.

November 8, 1973
Constitution
Of course, the form of voting which the people of Quebec wish to use is for them to decide, but since the theory is also common to this House I hope I may be permitted to say that the theory of representation on which this House proceeds is that our people live in communities and that these communities deserve representation. They deserve the constant type of representation which they get from having a single member of parliament who will speak for their interests and will represent them in their ordinary problems as well as in the great matters of state. This, of course, is not possible under proportional representation.
The Quebec election showed us that in every part of Quebec and indeed in almost every community in that province the people stood for Canada, and not separation from Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important point for them to have established and it is indeed a true reflection of what the people of Quebec feel and want.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) made the point in his remarks that the government has seen fit to ignore the recommendations of the Special Committee on the Constitution of Canada, of which that hon. gentleman was a member and I had the honour to be chairman from this House. In general, I find myself in considerable sympathy with his position and even with many of his remarks today, but I do not believe I can allow to pass his view that the government has seen fit to ignore the recommendations of that committee. That is not what has happened at all. Let us look at some examples.
The bilingualism policy is possibly not the best example because it has other sources as well, but the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has been proceeding with a bilingualism policy which is in accord with the recommendations of the special committee. In the area of mul-ticulturalism, the policy put forward by the government and which is being administered by the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz) is entirely the policy which was recommended by that committee. It is true that in this case the government's policy was announced first, but only after the committee had held extensive hearings across the country at which these views had been presented and at which members of the committee had made their views known, and only after our recommendations had been prepared and imparted to the party caucuses. At that stage, our recommendations were common currency and I think we can feel that the government policy which was adopted before the final recommendation was a reflection of those recommendations.
Perhaps in no area has there been so much implementation of recommendations as in the area of housing. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has instituted trilevel conferences, and has generally encouraged greater consultation at the municipal level. As far as the larger cities in the country are concerned, the federal government has been endeavouring to set up permanent trilevel bodies for consultation. The neighbourhood rehabilitation program is full of consultation procedures with the provinces and the local neighbourhoods.
In his budget last spring, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) presented a broader equalization formula which

for the first time would include what happened at the municipal level: a tax base including the municipal level in the equalization formula is something which the committee was urging.
The broadcasting policy which the government put forward, while not one which is entirely acceptable to the provinces at the present time, is one which reflects greater sharing by the provinces, and it was advocated by the special joint committee. Perhaps, above all, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), whom I am pleased to see in the House, has been following one of the most important recommendations of the committee, that of allowing the provinces to share in the mechanism by which family allowances are granted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the committee recommended that this should be the pattern established by the constitution for demographic grants in general. The minister has been blazing this new trail in his negotiations with the provinces in regard to family allowances. The legislation which is in the process of receiving final approval from the House will allow the provinces to vary the amount paid, so that while a certain minimum payment must be made across the country, a province will be able to vary, according to certain criteria, the amount of money which it pays to its citizens. A province can therefore have a population policy which is based on the feelings of the people in that particular province.
Far from being ignored, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the special joint committee are the everyday stuff of federal policy. At the federal level, we might say that this has been one of the most implemented reports in Canadian history. Naturally, the federal government cannot change the constitution on its own; so if this is where one is looking for implementation, it obviously has not yet been possible to do it at this level.
I do not need to detail for members of this House the reasons for the delay, but obviously the federal government has not been responsible for the breakdown of the Victoria negotiations or the constitutional impasse which followed. The federal government has remained constantly open to further negotiations with the provinces. Several times the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has urged the province of Quebec to present new proposals since it was the province primarily responsible for the failure to gain unanimous acceptance of the earlier proposals.
I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) on the necessity of proceeding with these constitutional negotiations as quickly as possible, but obviously this is not something which is subject to the control of this House or even subject to the control of the federal government. It depends upon the broader political winds in the country. We can here express our hope and desire that these negotiations should take place as soon as possible, that they should be as full as possible and that the federal government should provide the kind of leadership which the report of the special joint committee suggested.
I think it is important to note, lest we get a false emphasis, that constitutional reform is not a one-way street. The special joint committee, it is true, put greater
November 8, 1973

stress on decentralization and especially on what we call the cultural imperative for Quebec. I would read to hon. members a few sentences from the committee report as follows:
We acknowledge a cultural imperative for Quebec; it must have sufficient control over its collective life to ensure the preservation and development of French Canadian culture. Put another way, the constitution must guarantee the preservation of the collective personality of French Quebec. In the expansion of provincial powers which we propose, Quebec would gain new powers to achieve these ends.
That was one of the most important objectives of the committee's work, Mr. Speaker. I believe the primary thrust of the committee's recommendation was one of decentralization. We also point out in our report that there must be changes the other way, that the provinces must also allow the federal government greater latitude. This is important in economic areas. The hon. member for Greenwood spoke about these things this afternoon. I agree with the points he made and there is no need to emphasize them further.
In order to present a balanced point of view, I wish to read some further words of the committee's report as follows:
We have spoken of the need for an increase in both centralization and decentralization, depending on functional considerations. In our view greater decentralization in areas of culture and social policy would benefit all the provinces ...
On the other hand, greater centralization is necessary in the regulation of the economy.
I hope the time for constitutional reform is at hand. I know the federal government is prepared to lead the way. If I may express my personal hope, it is that the federal government will attempt to consummate these changes in one single package deal. I have always felt, personally, that we are more likely to arrive at a satisfactory result if, instead of bartering on a power-by-power basis and trying to do a few things, we sit down, on the basis of the Victoria charter, to do all the work at once so that there can be complete bargaining and a complete exchange of views and concessions from one side to the other. In other words, this exchange should not be a one-way exchange but should be a two-way exchange, as the committee suggested. It seems to me that this would be the most fruitful way for us to work on constitutional reform at present.
However it is done, I know that members of this House will want to express to the government their feelings, and I think they will say that it is time for our constitution to be reformed or to be revised. It should be changed in such a way that the people of Canada will be able to feel that the constitution responds to their needs of the moment and that they can feel more truly Canadian than has been the case under existing mechanisms.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to applaud the initiative of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) in introducing the motion we are debating. Many members who have spoken before me in this debate have made specific reference to constitutional discussions which have been before us and which have been of concern for some time. I do not intend to repeat what
Constitution
they said or to speak particularly about the direct method of repatriation in a discussing the constitution. I want, instead, to turn my attention tonight and the attention of the House to that atmosphere of co-operation which is necessary before there can be an amendment of the constitution and which is necessary, indeed, before the constitution can be made to work.
I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) indicate this afternoon that a debate on this topic is usually a debate which is of special interest to members of this House from the province of Quebec, because in that province there is a special interest in constitutional matters. Sir, it used to be that members of this House from Alberta were able to more or less take a spectator's seat in those discussions on federal-provincial relations. That is not the case tonight.
It is natural that I should view and enter this debate against the context of the current deep dispute about energy matters between Alberta and Ottawa. No Albertan could escape that context because, sir, there is an anger in Alberta now that exceeds in intensity anything in my memory or in the memory of older men than I. It is not anger that other people would want to use our oil, our resources. We want them to. Moreover, we want Canadian consumers to have a better price and better access to our resources than nationals of other countries. The Premier of Alberta has made that clear. Instead, sir, the anger in Alberta is about the methods this government has used to implement a policy which, while it is important to every region of Canada, is most important to Alberta because it affects not only our price of fuel and our prospects of warmth but our capacity to grow and to industrialize.
This is not the place to debate the merits of particular federal proposals regarding energy. Those have been debated on other occasions in this House, and will be again. The debate inspired by this motion concerns, not the merits of a particular case but the methods by which our federal system works. In many ways, this is the most appropriate forum for a review of the Alberta situation, because whatever disagreement might exist about the merits of the actions proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), what inflames Alberta opinion most is the method by which these decisions, of vital importance to Alberta, were imposed-clearly without consultation and, one must assume, without consideration of the impact the measures will have upon Alberta's capacity to grow.
Whatever disagreement there might be about the things the minister of energy has done, the anger in Alberta today is about the way he has done these things. And the concern for Canada is that the method he has applied here-the method of a bull in a china shop-is a warning of the way in which other provinces might be treated on other issues by other ministers at other times. That warning, sir, is more profound because, while the minister of energy has a special talent for provocation, the style of confrontation which he has adopted toward Alberta is a style which before the last election was becoming a trademark of this government and which apparently now is being renewed.
Sir, no Canadian should need reminding of the diversity of our country. That diversity is the reason we have a

November 8, 1973
Constitution
federal system where provinces and the national government distribute most powers and share others. This federal system was not imposed upon Canada. It grew out of our nature and is the only system which can hope to unite a diverse country and yet allow its individual parts to find their own identity and strength. By the very nature of our country, we are bound to have interests which conflict. That means that a particular obligation lies upon our politicians to try to unite differences, not excite differences. And if that is an obligation upon those of us who sit on the backbenches of parliament, it is an obligation with a particular weight for those who occupy ministerial offices. Yet in this dispute with Alberta that is precisely the obligation which the minister of energy has affronted and ignored.
I want to review for this House the sad record of what has happened, in the name of consultation, on this export tax. But first let me try to make this House understand the particular importance of this question to Alberta. What we are worried about here is not simply revenue, although of course that is important. What we are worried about, as well, is the sense-and we have the sense-that control of resources means control of the future of the province of Alberta. It is very much less a matter of price than it is a matter of future.
We have primarily relied, in the province of Alberta, on primary production, on agriculture. We have the opportunity to industrialize and we have begun to industrialize. But we are working with certain regional disadvantages. Freight rates are one, population distribution is another, market distribution is yet another, the habit of investors to invest in central Canada is another. We have one strong card-petroleum. It provides us with the opportunity to develop petrochemical industries and jobs. Sir, this opportunity would help us to turn the corner and become a strong, industrialized province which would contribute to the industrial strength of the whole of Canada. However, we have no reason for confidence that this goal will be accomplished by Ottawa directing policy, and we have no reason for confidence after looking back at the history of tariffs, at the present discrimination in transportation and at a variety of other matters.
What I should like to do tonight is try to convey a state of mind which it would be folly for other parts of Canada to ignore, just as it would have been folly for other parts of Canada to ignore the state of mind that began manifesting itself in Quebec in the early 1960s. This House should remember that the export tax was one of two barrels which hit Alberta in early September. The other was the prospect that Syncrude might be denied the kind of tax treatment which other oil producers in Alberta would receive and that Syncrude consequently might well be held up. Moreover, sir, the export tax seemed to be a device aimed particularly at Alberta and at Alberta's major resources and not applied, as it might have been, to the resources of other provinces. It was a particular attack on a particular province.
In September, energy ministers of the Alberta and Canadian governments were in Ottawa at a meeting which had been arranged some time previously. The apparent attitude on both sides was conciliatory. The first

item on the agenda was the need for close and continuing consultation. The ministers discussed that first item and agreed to maintain close contact and consult one another thoroughly. The federal minister of energy made the point that in this field events develop quickly and that consultation could not be considered as constituting a right to veto. Naturally, that position was accepted by the representatives of Alberta.
The discussion progressed to other items on the agenda. Then some time between 11 a.m. and noon the federal minister of energy announced that the National Energy Board would be imposing an export tax of about 40 cents and that the announcement would be made publicly later that day. Alberta ministers had no warning that was coming and no opportunity to make comments or suggestions which would materially affect the decision.
Scant minutes after affirming the need for consultation, the federal minister presented Alberta with a fait accompli. That was not consultation. That was mere advice. Any province, treated that way on a matter of such vital interest to its future, would have responded in anger. Indeed, any federal government which enshrined the habit of treating provinces that way would face a breakdown in all of its relations with all of the provinces of Canada. That was the first export tax, the 40-cent tax.
The second act in this charade of consultation began on Monday, October 29-again in Ottawa. Four senior ministers of the government of Alberta came to Ottawa to meet with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). They were briefed by officials of the Department of External Affairs on developments in the Middle East. They had general discussions concerning plans Ottawa might have for a pipeline to Montreal. They discussed the possibility of staging-in price increases.
On the export tax, the Alberta ministers took the position that since they disagreed with the idea of the tax, they saw no immediate point in discussing how its proceeds might be distributed. It is clear there was no discussion at all of any prospect of an immediate rise in that export tax, and certainly not any discussion of a proposal to more than quadruple the amount. Indeed, the federal minister of energy said that events might develop that would mean an export tax might not have to be imposed. The federal minister indicated to his provincial colleagues that, in his view, the export tax proposal "was not written in stone". The ministers then repaired to a joint press conference at which the provincial minister of intergovernmental affairs went out of his way to make clear Alberta's interest in adopting a "Canada first" position.
Four senior Alberta ministers left those meetings agreed on three clear impressions. Their first impression was that serious consideration was being given to the staging-in of increases. The second impression was that there was now a genuine commitment to consultation on the part of the federal ministers. The third impression was that if there was to be any change at all in the export tax, the change would be in the direction of removing the tax. It is conceivable that one of these ministers might have been wrong, but it is surely stretching credulity to suggest that all four ministers were wrong on all three impressions.
November 8, 1973

Four days later, on Thursday, November 1-a week ago today-the federal minister of energy rose in his place to announce that the export tax had been more than quadrupled. Alberta officials were advised a matter of hours before the public announcement. Again it was advice, not consultation. However, this second case was worse than the first. In the first case, the export tax had come out of the blue. In the second case, it came four days after a meeting in which Alberta ministers believed they received a message that the export tax might go down, or it might go out, but at which no indication at all was given that the tax might go up so exorbitantly.
There might be some members of this House who do not like Albertans. I do not say that there are, but that there might be. That really does not matter because these tactics could be applied to any province, not just Alberta; and on any matter, not just petroleum. I hope that members of this House and of the public generally, no matter how preoccupied they might be about the price of fuel or the extent of foreign ownership of any other extraneous question, will remember that we are dealing here with a method of the application of federal power that could be imposed as arbitrarily upon any province or any interest as it has been upon Alberta.
It is interesting, for example, to conjecture what the response would have been had federal involvement in the financing of higher education been approached in the early 1960s in the spirit which marked the federal imposition this fall of an export tax upon petroleum produced primarily in one province.
I said at the beginning that the purpose of a federal system, and particularly the federal government, must be to unite differences, not inflame them. The reason that is important is that it is easy, in Canada, to inflame differences among regions. Particularly when emotional questions are involved, as emotional questions are involved here, it would be relatively easy to unite most of Canada against one part of Canada. However, that would be a destructive unity which would lead inexorably to the disintegration of the nation.
I utter that caution not simply to my colleagues in this House but also to the press gallery. One problem inherent in our system is the natural tendency of the national press to take Ottawa's view in a dispute with the provinces. That is not due to prejudgment so much as to the fact that journalists are locked in here in day to day contact with one side in a national dispute. I believe it has been harmful to Alberta that this disagreement broke out at roughly the same time that a general election was in progress in Quebec, which meant that several journalists from that province, who have reason to know that Ottawa is not always even-handed in its dealings with the province, were preoccupied at home and thus did not have the opportunity to visit the province and the people of Alberta to learn Alberta's side of this story.
The real tragedy flowing from the methods of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is that it has created an atmosphere of confrontation on a question where federal-provincial co-operation could have prevailed. Alberta wants to co-operate with other provinces and other Canadians to ensure supply and arrange a better price for Canadian consumers. The premier and his ministers have
Constitution
made that clear. They have been calling for some time for a national federal-provincial conference to work out the priorities and the policies that Canada and the provinces might follow to meet the challenges raised by energy questions. However, co-operation is a two-way street. Ottawa must demonstrate a willingness to work with Alberta. That would have been much easier two months ago, before the actions of the minister of energy gave Alberta ample cause to distrust that minister and anyone acting in his name. But it is not impossible to achieve now.
The language of this motion deplores the tactics of confrontation and fear which have marked the approach of this government to federal-provincial relations. Of course we deplore that approach, but we must do more than deplore. We have to turn the practices of this government around and insist, as a parliament, upon an atmosphere of co-operation with the provinces instead of the present atmosphere of confrontation.
It might be more amusing to have the luxury of a full-scale feud between a province and the central government, but that is very literally and clearly a luxury we cannot afford. Not only is there the danger that this atmosphere of confrontation might prolong disagreement about national energy policy; there is also the very real danger that this tactic, if practised continually by the federal government, will lead to a reaction in some regions that will make national unity very difficult to maintain.
However important laws might be in Canada, the thing that finally unites this country is the will to work together. If the federal government indicates by its actions that it would sooner fight than agree, that attitude will become contagious. I hope that the government as a whole, and the minister of energy in particular, will recognize that the leadership they are supposed to offer is leadership in the direction of co-operation, not confrontation.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the debate brought up today by my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain, (Mr. Matte) in introducing this motion, has surely roused the attention of several hon. members who spoke on behalf of their parties, but we noticed there was more emotion than anything else. The Constitution of a country, Mr. Speaker, is a guideline which will be respected if the citizens are happy to live under such a Constitution. Otherwise, it will not be respected. This is about what has been happening, for at least a couple of decades, and we see more and more among the population as the years go by that this Constitution is less and less respected bacause there is a struggle between a centralizing party, the federal party, and the provinces which want to keep their autonomy.
There is competition between those two levels of government, that are seeking to reach the electors by all possible means to flatter the electors with social legislation, legislation on public works, legislation of all kinds in order to reach directly the elector.
That is why, especially during the two World Wars and on the occasion of certain troubles, we saw the federal Liberal party, because after all that was the party in power during those circumstances, use such crises to cen-

November 8, 1973
Constitution
tralize in Ottawa, in collusion with certain provincial governments, powers that had before been reserved to provinces. We saw for instance at the beginning of the 1939 war, the federal government of the time resort to all possible means at its disposal to defeat in Quebec a government that was not a centralizing government, a government that was jealous of its autonomy and they had it replaced by a Liberal party government with a leader who was not too popular, who was not too strong a defender of Quebec's autonomy. So the government took advantage of that opportunity as well as of the war effort to bring to Ottawa a great number of laws that up to that time had been reserved to provinces according to the constitution and it is being said that the provinces agreed to accept such centralization.
Mr. Speaker, an agreement of that kind is precisely the one that prompts citizens to ask themselves questions and to tend more and more to ignore a constitution that bullies them instead of protecting them. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) said at the beginning of his remarks, this afternoon, that since the early days of Confederation, the Liberal party has always acted in the same way in matters of federalism and that is obvious. He does not need to tell us.
As a matter of fact, the Liberal party has been the most centralizing party in Canada and in reply to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, since he referred to the provincial election, I may say that the Quebeckers' vote during the last general election was not a vote of approval of the Canadian constitution, but rather a vote against adventure with a party with a strong socialist tendency, the Parti quebecois. Just a few minutes ago, the Parliamentary Secretary and member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), who was chairman of the Special Joint Committee on Constitution, also made some remarks on the motion moved by the hon. member for Champlain. He said that it is not the Liberal party which has caused division in this country. Members on the government side recognize therefore that there is some division. But it is mostly in Quebec and because of a certain political party that this exists.
I will reply to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville that what, among other things, gives strength to the separatist party in Quebec is indeed the centralization of the federal government since Confederation, especially on the occasion of both World Wars and other troubled periods. So, Mr. Speaker, in order to find a fair solution to contitutional problems, whether or not it is admitted certain procedures aiming at the reform of the Constitution are being delayed to amend it, repatriate it, make it more acceptable to Canadians.
The solution which may be given to this problem can only be found by groups of men not dominated by a political doctrine. Ever since the question of the reform of the constitution has been raised, the federal Liberal party has used every conceivable means to dominate the debates and have their own views accepted. Therefore, no wonder each constitutional meeting held both in Ottawa or in Victoria or in any place always fizzled out or has been postponed. An agreement was never reached because a group wanted to dominate all the others.

The provinces also have a right to be heard. The federal government exists thanks to the provinces. The provinces were not born from federalism but the federal government was born from the provinces and more and more we feel the need for readjusting the constitution to our current needs because they are different from those which existed one hundred years back. For instance, at the beginning of confederation the problem of municipalities were minor ones but over the last few years with people concentrating in the urban centres those problems have considerably aggravated. I have also been a member of the committee oh the constitution which held many meetings in Ottawa, which travelled throughout the country to hear people, listen to individuals criticizing the present constitution, offering solutions, and telling us what they hoped to see in the new constitution or in an amended constitution. Everywhere we have met municipal officials who told us how difficult it was for them to administer their municipality because they have a heavier load to carry and because they are increasingly deprived of the means to support this load.
In a recent commercial letter of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, giving recent statistics for 1972, with a retrospective of the last ten years, it is said that in 1963, municipal revenues in Canada totalled $2,286 million. These revenues increased yearly to reach $5,022 million in 1972. However, municipal government expenses were, in 1963, $2,373 million and have increased yearly to reach $7,165 million in 1972, which is a deficit of $2,143 million in 1972. It means therefore that municipalities, provinces and the federal government must compete on the debenture markets, with stronger governments, to obtain the funds required to balance their budgets. Municipalities, like the provinces and the federal government, are over-indebted, which compels them also to assign too great a part of their budget to debt interest so that the problems, or at least a large part of the problems, that the municipalities face are mainly at the level of the interests they must pay each year to their creditors.
Well, Mr. Speaker, during the sittings of the constitutional committee municipalities asked for increased taxation powers mainly to be able to meet their obligations and that is becoming a struggle, no longer between two parties-the provinces and the federal government-but between three parties-the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government-to have increased access to the incomes of individuals in order to be able to tax them so as to balance their budgets and meet their obligations.
So, Mr. Speaker, in any constitutional reform or amendment those demands on the part of municipalities should be taken into consideration, and not only simply to give them increased taxation powers. They need it, it is true, but in the present system there is no other way out besides the one offered by the Social Credit. And the Liberal Party which has been in power since 1963 lent a deaf ear to the demands and suggestions made by the Creditists in that area. And we are told that the Creditist doctrine or policy on economic matters is no good. But is the present economic policy of the Liberal Party any good?


Mr. Prud'homme:: Not all.
November 8, 1973


Gérard Laprise: Not all, of course, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion just said, and if the economic policy of the Liberal party were sound, the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities as well as the individuals would not be so deep in debt as they are now.
Therefore, this shows that if the Social Credit is not effective, the Liberal party is far from being so itself.
At the committee meetings, a professor of political science and a candidate for the Toronto mayoralty, Mr. Stephen Clarkson, said the following, and I quote:
The municipal government only has a limited power of taxation on real property which constitutes a regressive tax base. We have great problems which are not of our making: immigration, for example, that from the Maritimes. We cannot cope with them and the power is so much centralized in Queen's Park and bureaucracy is so extensive that we cannot accomplish what we feel ought to be done. Therefore, another level of government, should not be created.
For him, such is not the problem, because he feels that everything is centralized in the municipal field, in provincial capitals, and precisely many other municipal representatives have asked that municipalities be recognized as a level of government and as having their say in all essential budgetary measures taken by higher levels of government to balance their budget.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, all we are asking in the motion of my colleague from Champlain is that the federal government urge the provinces to get together in order to amend or redraft the Canadian constitution, and the constitution must exist for the provinces. Therefore, they must have the right to draft this constitution.
Thus, the provinces that have no control over others will be able to draft the necessary sections in order to protect the country against national disturbances by fulfilling the basic aspirations of each province. It is something that the federal government cannot do, because by dictating the sections that must be included in a new constitution, it will seek to have accepted sections which protect the central government of the country, and in protecting itself in this way, it would be difficult to fulfil the basic aspirations of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we do not wish, through this motion, to destroy something worthwhile, but we ask the federal government to urge the provinces to meet in order to obtain results, find out what they want and, under the constitution, obtain satisfactory results so that there may exist in every one of the ten provinces a climate of peace in which Canadians from coast to coast will be able and willing to abide by the constitution.
It is in this spirit that this motion was introduced and should be examined while seeking the solutions that all Canadians want.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to take a few minutes in order to participate in this debate on the motion moved today by a member of the Social Credit Party of Canada.
Constitution
I must admit that I was surprised when I read the motion now before us. I heard recently the comments of this sagacious and shrewd politician, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who had predicted the election of a minority government in Quebec following the recent campaign, adding that the party that would suffer the most from this result would be the Creditiste party. I shall not make any comments on the second judgement of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe as compared to his first, because I am in no position to conclude that his judgement on the second point is as valid or as poor as on the first. But I must regretfully note that this Creditiste motion is not one that could improve the situation of the Social Credit Party of Canada.
I am really surprised at this motion, which reads as follows:
That this House deplores the fact that the government is maintaining the unity of the country through fear, autocracy and oligarchy, and has failed to do anything to encourage the provinces to get together in order to amend or redraft the Canadian constitution, thus protecting the country against national difficulties by meeting the basic aspirations of each province.
And all that in a single sentence. I must confess that after reading this motion over again, I wondered what country it was all about, and what situation it was referring to. It talks about fear, autocracy and oligarchy. I really wonder, looking at my provincial colleagues with whom I had to work during those last years, and looking at the premiers of the various provinces, who are those timid and fearing premiers, those provincial premiers who would be living in daily fear of this federal government, ready to crush them, and which would prevent them from expressing their views on any subject and taking position on matters which come under their own jurisdiction.
There is an old saying that you can die from laughter. I am glad that saying is not entirely accurate, because I fear that there would not be many Creditist members left in this House today.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, also complains that the federal government has failed to do anything to encourage the provinces to get together. Since when do the provinces need the federal government to get together? Frankly, the motion seems incredibly naive, and I would even fear that the provinces would take offence if the federal government were to interfere and try to persuade them, as is suggested here, or to force them to get together in order to amend or redraft the Canadian Constitution.
Surely neither the Constitution nor Canadian politics prevent the provinces from meeting, and indeed they have done so. Let us remember the conference organized under the sponsorship of Mr. Robarts in Toronto, which was called Conference on the Confederation of Tomorrow, and to which the federal government had sent observers. That conference was attended by provincial representations and was convened by the provincial governments. Nothing had prevented them from using this same procedure if they had so wished. The provinces have shown sufficient wisdom and knowledge to realize that if a serious review of the Canadian Constitution was wanted, this could only be done effectively if the provinces would cooperate and act in consultation with the federal government. The result of this conference in Toronto simply was a recommendation that, in cooperation with the federal govern-

November 8, 1973
Constitution
ment, a review of the constitution be undertaken and this is what was done in the following years.
The fact that such a motion is put and the way it is drafted surely indicate a lack of knowledge of federal-provincial relations and a lack of respect for provincial autonomy and for the true power of the provinces in running their own business.
But I would not want to spend my time in a detailed analysis of this motion and demonstrating its inherent weaknesses. I would rather like to say a few words on what really happens in the area of federal-provincial relations.
I often hear people talk about the lack of consultation, in or outside this House, because the federal government reportedly would take unilateral decisions and so on. I think it is important to underline once again, and to repeat it constantly, that consultations do not give any right of veto and that the federal government is the government responsible for the national interest in the areas under its jurisdiction. Even if the federal government has everything to gain by regular and frequent consultations with provincial governments when there is a decision of national interest to take which is under its jurisdiction, the federal government must finally take the decision, even if this decision is not welcomed by all the provinces of Canada.
In a similar way, this is also true in the case of the provinces. I think it is their interest to consult with the federal government in many areas for which they are responsible and they should do it more often. I have no hesitation in saying that the federal government consults with the provinces a hundred times more in the areas under its jurisdiction than do the provinces in the areas under their own jurisdiction.
However this having been said, we often consult the provinces and I will give some details on that particular subject in a few minutes. However, once again, when a discussion takes place, it rests with the federal government to take decisions in matters under its jurisdiction and if any province is not satisfied with such decisions, it is unfortunate but just the same some government must be responsible for the national interest.
When the media, the opposition, the members of the government or provincial politicians then intervene and deplore the fact that the federal government acts unilaterally and without consultation, as they often suggest, I maintain once again that they are mistaken. There has been some consultation, but the government has assumed its responsibility for which it must answer to the House and to the Canadian people, but not to the provincial governments.
When I heard the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) this afternoon say that a conservative federal government would proceed through consultation and on a collegial basis, I believe he was introducing a concept of federal-provincial collegial government in matters of federal-provincial relations. Well, in this country, a federal government that would suggest a form of collegial government with the provinces would be deluding the people and moreover ruin the constitution.

There have been consultations. I shall refer to the first year of the progressive conservative government during the last 20 or 30 years. In 1957, at the ministerial level, five meetings took place with the provinces. At the official level, for a whole year there were 59, thus making a total of 64.
This means that in 1967, that is 10 years later, we had 14 meetings at the ministerial level and 105 at the official level for a total of 119. Three years later, in 1970, there were 18 meetings at the ministerial level, one and a half per month on the average, and 200 at the official level, for a total of 220, between the federal and provincial governments.
There has been a steady increase which keeps on. Not one day goes by that a meeting between the federal government and the provinces is not held in this country. Whether it be at the senior official or minister level, whether they be bilateral or multilateral meetings, or whether visits in the provinces or by provincial representatives to Ottawa.
Even more important, over recent years and even quite recently, this consultation process has been extended through the initiative of the federal government in the area of tripartite meetings to which municipalities were invited to participate.
We know also that recently a very successful conference, a three-level meeting took place in Edmonton in which the minister responsible for urban affairs took part.
That is what really happened and what is always going on without any startling statements, without getting in the headlines. But what we will find in the headlines will be the story of the conference or meeting resulting in deep disagreement. We rarely hear about the current meetings where the federal and provincial governments make progress and come to an agreement.
It is unfortunate that there is a tendency to feature exclusively stumbling blocks, difficulties and points of disagreement. This is what is happening in the field of federal-provincial relations. However I could talk more in detail about my own departments. For instance, we undertook this year with the provinces a review of social security and this has already brought about three meetings of welfare ministers and several meetings of senior officials.
Before these meetings, the federal government submitted a working paper that received the unanimous endorsement of the provinces. We had regular meetings once more with the provinces and ministers and to date we have obtained unanimous assent on all points which have been discussed. This will not necessarily go on because there will certainly be some disagreements either among the provinces themselves, between the federal government and the provinces or some of them. This is only natural and we would be wrong to be shocked. To imagine that the motion presented by the Creditist party to convene a meeting of the provinces where they would reach an agreement which would be impossible if the federal government were present is nothing but a dream and a complete lack of understanding of the way in which this country operates.
In the area of energy which has been mentioned before, I only need to mention the example of the relationship
November 8, 1973

between Alberta and Ontario, two governments of the same party, which were prepared to go before the courts to settle their dispute concerning energy. We know what happened in the field of feed grains and about the so-called "Chicken war", in Canada. The federal government was not directly involved; there was direct confrontation between the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes and once more, the federal government had nothing to do with it.
The provinces, therefore should meet together and reach an agreement that the federal government would only endorse. Once more, this means living in a world that does not exist and that is not Canada as it exists at the present time.
I referred to social security. I will deal with another matter on which no agreement was reached to date, that of health. For three years, discussions have been held at senior officials level with provinces, to come to a new financing formula in the area of health, a formula designed to secure larger flexibility in the administration of health services, for provinces in particular. That formula was changed several times during the discussions, and was finally presented to health and finance ministers during a conference that was held last year in Ottawa.
Finally, no agreement was reached on the formula that was proposed and during the premiers' conference, a new formula was proposed, considered by the provinces, but was finally rejected. There is nothing to be ashamed of.
' Many provinces had expressed an interest for such or such aspect, and the fact that they finally preferred the present system to another does not authorize them to conclude that there is autocracy or oligarchy-whatever the name they choose to call it-on the part of the federal government; but it is not fear, as stated in the motion, which encouraged the provinces to reject the federal proposal. In fact, they decided that it was not in their interest to accept the proposed formula. A while ago, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe indicated that his party .would propose a transfer of resources, together with a transfer of tax power, while taking equalization payments into account. I urge him to take cognizance of the proposal which the federal government, through its Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), made in the spring at the last meeting of provincial premiers. He will then realize that he did not invent the moon, for this very proposal has already been made to and refused by the premiers. They deemed it unsatisfactory on the financial level, which is nothing new.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use more of the House's time. I merely wish to emphasize again that the area of federal provincial relations is extremely complex-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) would like to ask a question but he can only do so with the minister's consent.


Marc Lalonde: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has the floor.


Mr. Stevens:: What are you afraid of?
Constitution


Marc Lalonde: I am not afraid. I have the floor. You can have all the time you want afterwards, if you want to ask questions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Chicken!


Marc Lalonde: We are used to seeing you take enough time of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to what I was saying before I was interrupted.
Above all, we must realize that the federal system is a difficult one, which always involves a certain amount of tension. The day when federalism in Canada is without tension, we will have to question seriously the existence of this country and the federal system as it now exists, as this will mean either that the federal government has disappeared or that the provinces have been completely taken over by the federal government.
The federal system is a political mechanism which operates through creative tension. As in human life, there is no progress without some tension, and whenever there are federal and provincial politicians who defend vigorously the interests of their constituents and deal seriously with the areas for which they are responsible, there will inevitably be some frictions. The important thing is that these frictions are reduced to the minimum, that break-ups and split-ups are avoided and particularly that there are consultations and discussions.
Once again, under the Canadian Constitution the powers of each level of government are defined and in the areas under their respective jurisdictions, the governments concerned must take their responsibilities and decide, in the last analysis, after consultations, what they consider to be in the interest of their citizens; this is what our government did not hesitate to do-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. minister but his time is over.
Let me remind the House at this time that there are about 40 minutes left before the House adjourns. The hon. members for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and perhaps also another hon. member want to take the floor. I would have liked, with the consent of hon. members concerned, that all be given the opportunity to be recognized for ten or twelve minutes before 10 o'clock. The Chair has a special responsibility towards the minority represented by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), and I hope that the hon. members for Selkirk and Grenville-Carleton will take this into consideration. For the time being, I recognize the hon. member for Selkirk.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in order to comply with your wish and in a spirit of co-operation, in view of the fact that we have initiated this debate, it would be proper to enable our colleagues to be recognized, and we could agree to a period of ten minutes for each, if the House agrees.
7682

November 8, 1973
Constitution


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will have any trouble at all in adhering to that gentlemen's agreement.


An hon. Member:: Because you have not much to say.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I have a lot to say, but I shall not say it all tonight. As a point of departure I should like to take the concluding remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). These were to the effect that one of the manifestations of a healthy federal system is the existence of tensions within that system. He said that as soon as the tensions and problems cease to exist, it means that the federal system has in effect died either by the absorption, total and complete, of the provinces by the national government or the virtual total destruction and rendering ineffective of the federal government by the provinces. The minister put it much more elegantly and eloquently, but I think that is an accurate summary of his remarks.
I think what characterizes federal-provincial relations to me is not autocracy and oligarchy, as suggested by the motion, so much as confusion. I think the minister would be one of the first to admit, even taking his view as the point of departure, that tensions will always exist withip a federal state and that they are signs of vitality within the federal state; they are signs of experimentation and signs of attempts to adapt to new situations and changes in values. Therefore, it is desirable that we restructure our constitution to some extent with the end in view of removing to the extent possible the occasions for confusion in relations between the provinces and the federal government. It is necessary to reduce the confusion and ambiguities in the constitution so as to remove some of the causes of frustration and anger, as opposed to tension, that we heard expressed by hon. members from Alberta and Quebec who spoke this evening.
It is not so important to me that the constitution accurately define whether this country is to move toward centralization or decentralization, because I think if the constitution is going to serve the needs of the country it has to be able to move either way as the needs and locus of power in the country and values of the country change.
One of the ways to accomplish that objective is to alter our division of powers. At the moment, the division of power is in three lists. There is a list of exclusive federal powers and a list of exclusive provincial powers. Both of these sections have items which are not particularly well defined. There is also a very short list of three or four areas of concurrent jurisdiction. It would seem to me that we could overcome a good deal of the difficulty that we encounter in this country in permitting regions to adapt their relationships to the federal government in a manner which will enable the government to meet the needs of the people, by modifying our allocation of powers so that we, in effect, have four lists of powers. There would be a rather short list of exclusive federal powers such as

defence, international affairs, monetary policy, customs tariffs, and that sort of thing; then a rather short list of exclusive provincial powers, and a fairly extensive list of concurrent powers in which the paramountcy of federal or provincial power would be indicated in each case. There would also be another list where powers could be delegated from one level to another on the basis of bilateral agreement.
I feel this would meet the needs and shifts of balance of power in the country. There are times when a country needs stronger central direction and others when it is better decentralized. I think that such a normal political process has to be accommodated in the constitution. The delegation of powers from the federal government to the provinces, or vice versa, on a bilateral basis would accommodate that process and reduce the causes of frustration that presently exist as opposed to what are normal healthy tensions.
My point in rising tonight was not to suggest specific changes to the current constitution of Canada. My colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and also the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), during the course of debate suggested some areas which require change. They made specific suggestions and argued them very cogently, urging the government to proceed with them. I do not want to repeat their arguments and I do not want to refer to the specific areas that I think need change. What I really want to do tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to argue very strongly that now is a most propitious time to get on with the job of attempting to reach some kind of agreement on the kind of constitution we want-to bring it to Canada, to have it repatriated, and to complete the process which was begun a long time ago of modifying our constitution and deciding upon an amendment formula.
I do not think it is good enough for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to say that he is willing to embark upon this adventure when the provinces indicate to him that they want to undertake the exercise once again. As the minister who just spoke so properly pointed out, we are here as a national parliament to look after the national interests of Canada. The government is there to look after national interests. I think it is in the national interest that we complete this exercise.
Even if there is some reluctance on the part of the provinces at the moment, or a simple lack of interest, it is up to the federal government to provide the leadership necessary to get the process under way. I think now is a propitious time. There is a desire on the part of the people of Canada to have the constitution repatriated. This desire became obvious when, as a member of the joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on the Constitution, I travelled about the country and saw the interest generated by the committee in what might have been considered a dry, academic subject. This apparent desire to do something about the constitution is manifest in the fact that such a large measure of agreement was possible at Victoria in 1971 when the provinces and the federal government met. I would like to see the exercise completed.
What argues most strongly that we should try to complete this exercise at this point is that we are now, despite the current outrage of the representatives from Alberta,
November 8, 1973

and despite the almost universal disquiet on the part of those representing Quebec about the results of the election there, in a period of relative stability. One of the things which I suggest to hon. members has contributed to our failure to complete the exercise of redrafting our constitution, to the extent it needs reform, and deciding on the amendment formula and bringing it to Canada, is the fact that the exercise has normally been pursued during periods of crisis, rapid change, shifts in value or of the locus of power in this country.
These are times when the tolerance of ambiguity on the part of governments is vastly reduced. At such times, if they are to change the constitution they want every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. Because the country is in the process of change, a government is not willing to take a chance on the possibility of an error being absolved and corrected by the unwritten part of our constitution, which is really the most important part. Governments are not willing to take that chance because they think there might be something unalterable in the written part of the constitution. That is how governments think in critical periods when they are most afraid to take risks.
At this point in time the country is relatively stable. Perhaps there will be a willingness to take that kind of risk on the part of participating governments. Perhaps it is really worth while pursuing that idea now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret interrupting the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I, along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), read the motion with great interest. I suggest that the minister, being a Queen's Counsel of the bar of the province of Quebec, has perhaps taken a somewhat legalistic approach to this issue which the Social Credit party has brought to the attention of the House.
I do not intend to become involved in what I consider to be a little confrontation within this chamber with respect to events of a week or so ago in one of the provinces of Canada. I merely say to the minister that perhaps the motion before the House expresses an attitude to something that is essential to confederation. By implication it deals, I submit, with the relationship between the federal government and all the provinces of Canada. It expresses an attitude that this debate shows has been developing in the country. That attitude is that this government, for better or worse, whether with malice aforethought or without, has tended to shake the foundations of the belief that it is truly interested in the federal system. One important element of this system involves consultation.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) spoke eloquently about the problems of Alberta and the feelings of the people of that province. Let us talk about the people of Alberta. I suppose that if we substituted for oil any commodity of concern to other provinces of Canada-let us say we were talking about something of concern to the province of Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or any other region-we would
Constitution
find, if the people of the province had been treated as the people of Alberta have been treated, that they would react in exactly the same way as the people of Alberta have reacted. It is to that feeling that the motion of the Credi-tistes is directed. In that sense, our embarking upon this debate is healthy for us.
We are considering in the House the entire question of foreign ownership. The members of my party, in their discussions on the matter, have not forgotten that an essential ingredient is leadership by the federal government. They have attempted to pay more than lip service to the idea that there must be provincial consultation. That matter is not one of mere tokenism. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) said, as the government has said, that this is not going to happen under the legislation to which I have just alluded.
A few weeks ago in Edmonton there was a conference on northern affairs and the question of revenue sharing arose. In the result, some provinces were in favour of the concept-the province of Ontario and others-and some were against it. There was an issue that could be discussed. Yet how did the government react? The minister responsible for urban affairs turned thumbs down on the idea, or used the federal veto, to use the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with respect to any discussion on revenue sharing as between the provinces and the federal government. The government even turned down any discussion on the subject. This attitude is creeping into many areas, and we are in danger of losing sight of what has traditionally been and remains an essential part of our federalism, that is, consultation.
According to what I read about the attitude of the provinces and what I hear from public men in the provinces, the provinces do not want the veto, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare suggested the other day. They want realistic consultation between provincial governments, which are responsible to the people in the provinces, and the national government which is responsible to the whole country. I suppose the message we can derive from this debate is that we must treat confederation as a delicate flower. It is delicate and, like a flower, must be gently treated. You must not hack at it with a hoe or a shovel. Our confederation must be handled with gentle and understanding hands.
I think we should look at this matter in the context of federal-provincial conferences. Some have been successful, others unsuccessful. The successful conferences have been those in which the parties felt there was a reasonable attitude of co-operation. The principals at the conference, the provinces and the federal government, accepted the need fo. co-operation. They felt that their own interests would not be overlooked or treated lightly.
The conferences that have been unsuccessful, and there have been many, have been those in which there was conflict and confrontation, invited perhaps for political purposes. In any event, one or more of the principals felt threatened at such conferences. We must not forget that our people want co-operation when these discussions go on.
Further, there has been some discussion in this country as to what form provincial power should take. What is the place of the provinces in relation to the national govern-
26635-55}

November 8, 1973
Constitution
ment? I think it is true to say that all members of this House, regardless of party affiliation, think there is a duty on the Government of Canada to treat the provinces of Canada as essential partners in the development of national policy, which may involve social policy, resource policy, transportation policy or economic policy. I believe that attitude is demonstrated by the motion we are discussing.
Further, there are growing doubts throughout this country-not just in Quebec and Alberta but in Ontario as well-as to whether the federal government is permitting the provinces of Canada to assume their full responsibilities as essential partners in this country, whether in discussions involving regional development programs or any other matter. I think it is important for us not to forget that co-operation is at the root of our federalism and that the provinces originally were meant to be essential partners with the national government in any matter affecting this country.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part briefly in this debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). When we speak of the Canadian constitution, we almost have to review the history of Canada, and since time is rather short, I will attempt to confine my remarks to a few minutes.
I listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Champlain, which included some very true remarks. I also listened with great interest to the speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I was pleased to see the increasing number of meetings with the province and I must admit most sincerely and humbly that considering the steps taken by his department to consult with the provinces, there has really been some progress. However, after a hundred years, it is still surprising to see that some provinces are not yet satisfied. I think the present federal government and the ones that came before had as their goal the satisfaction of all provinces.
There is concern about this consultation and I feel that much attention is paid to it. In fact, numerous comments have been made about the importance of preliminary consultations with the provinces whatever the level and legislation to be amended.
It is my opinion that we will never pay too much attention to this question and that we will never insist too much on having the minister responsible or the government take measures so that the provinces will be consulted as much as possible.
There were also references to the reasons that seemed unacceptable to certain provinces. Mention was made of Alberta and Quebec. I think that certain provinces are not altogether happy with the present system. There have been reasons for this and I believe it is fair to discuss them. There was even criticism of the last provincial election campaign in Quebec.
Now I believe that if one is surprised to learn today that 30 per cent of the Quebeckers do not believe in federalism

anymore, I think one must recall that Mr. Gerard Filion spoke 30 years ago about economical separatism and that was due to the eastern policy on feed grain. I hasten to mention the fact in order to show those who are trying to understand that it is surely not Quebec that invented separatism, considering the fact that the province of Quebec lost $300 million on account of that feed grain policy that has been discriminatory for 30 years. But it seems to me that the government is now trying to correct that injustice. I know it is hard for the minister to do it for he is very busy and hard-pressed by western organizations. As a matter of fact, I believe he wants at last to do justice to all Canadian producers.
I think that unrest was due to a certain lack of consultation and to certain intrusions on the part of the federal government into provincial administration. But for this purpose I must refer to the two administrations that governed Canada.
Therefore, when referring to this problem, one realizes today that in Quebec, a great number of people are losing faith in federalism and often wonder why. But one can be delighted by the result of the provincial election.
As far as the economic stability of the province of Quebec is concerned, the answer was clear and it will enable Quebec to avoid this kind of slackening that takes place when a government is beaten, whether blue or red. There is always some slackening when we speak of changing a system. But in the circumstances, I am delighted by the specific answer that many citizens of Quebec and of Canada were anxiously waiting for.
We had well defined options, on both sides. Although the Parti Quebecois had submitted an option that was debated and debatable, it did so clearly and the people made their decision. But I urge hon. members not to forget the high proportion of French-speaking people who reject today the present system, because it might be dangerous to rejoice blindly when one considers that almost 38 per cent against 46 per cent of the voters rejected this system. I wish to have those figures recorded in Hansard in order to make my English-speaking colleagues-my French-speaking colleagues already know that and I hope that they will be ready to ask the federal government to better understand the claims of the Quebec government-aware of the problem, of the situation and present circumstances in Quebec. Now, the answer was for Quebec to remain within confederation. For my part, I have never recommended the separation of Quebec, on the contrary, but it is my duty as a Quebec member to uphold my interests, as it is the duty of Newfoundland or Alberta members to uphold theirs.
When those suggestions can be made objectively, I think that we shall have a better chance of reaching our common goal. While for many people in Quebec, and even in Canada, the answer was clear, I hope that with the power it has received, the newly elected government will be more demanding as regards some of the powers it needs. There is often talk in Quebec about additional powers as concerns immigration. The Laurendeau-Dunton Commission and the Committee on the Constitution have recognized, as we all know, that Quebec is the nucleus of the French-
November 8, 1973

Canadian nation, and that it holds a special place in Canada because of its largely French-speaking population.
I believe that those admissions, those works, those studies, must be followed by concrete action. I hope that the federal government will consider this. In my opinion, the government of Quebec must be more demanding and negotiate like responsible people. Then, I hope that the majority of my colleagues in this House will understand the importance of the discussions which are going on in Canada and that we shall reach agreements which will be acceptable to all the provinces.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left I would like to thank very much my hon. colleague for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for his cooperation. I wanted to express certain views following the comments made, among other speakers, by the minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and also the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien).
Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced today by my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), is essentially practical and is obviously aimed at-the hon. member for Champlain said so openly, and so did the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert)-bringing our federal colleagues for whom Quebec is a problem or an obscure province, for whom the problems might be unsolvable or remote, to reflect with us upon two things. First, on the implications for all Canadians, those at least who still believe in Canada, of the election results of October 29. I think we would be hypocrits burying our heads in the sand if we refused to get together on this as we all say that we are genuine Canadians.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion was to urge the federal government in particular to revise its position on the need of a new constitution for Canada and to begin with the close cooperation of the provinces.
We did not say today that nothing had been done. We simply said that the fact that 30 per cent of independen-tists voiced their choice unequivocally in the Quebec election means that there is really a problem and that the provinces are also faced with the oil problem, the natural resources problem and the health problem. It is obvious that no matter what the system is there will always be problems. Mr. Speaker, the present situation and the point we have reached show not only that our constitution is not a Canadian constitution, but that Canadians themselves cannot be properly served by this constitution.
What I really meant to say is this: Listening to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, one gets the impression that whoever is not a member of the Liberal party today is not a true federalist and Canadian. If you are not a Liberal, you are a trouble maker; if, in addition to this you come from the province of Quebec you are dangerous.
Some Quebecers keep on fighting because we cannot all think "liberal". In Quebec, there is a political reality which says that there are so many independentists and so many creditists. Contrary to common belief the Social
Constitution
Credit Party has not disappeared from the provincial scene; there are still over 10 per cent creditists.
I know Parliament and as my other colleagues I prefer my seat here to that of Premier Bourassa in Quebec. Moreover, this lack of opposition indicates that our parliamentary system is completely obsolete and that the number of members elected as a function of the voters is not proportional and unfair. Finally, it is growingly impossible in Quebec to express one's opinions because the Liberal steam-roller, the only federalist party, that of the only true Canadians, is crushing everything along its path.
I have newspaper articles about the Saint-Jean-Baptiste manifestation of June 24, 1968 in Montreal. If you read those articles and if you connect them with other incidents when the separatists or certain hot heads, I should say stupid heads, as Chartrand and others would say, used a group of disatisfied people to raise violence in the province, if you connect those incidents with the October crisis of 1970, who is responsible? Nobody knows.
If you consider the sluggishness of Quebec justice inquiry into organized crime you can smell the rottenness of our political world, combined finally with the polarization of voters during the last provincial election in Quebec you wonder whether this discord is not purely and simply generated by the Liberal party or by high finance. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether these dissent movements, this encouragement to separatism or if the importance given to separatism is not entirely and mainly the making of federal Liberal members served by provincial members. Mr. Speaker, in order to get such an unmistakable polarization of the vote, I am entitled to ask that question.
Mr. Speaker, I talk with several of my colleagues behind the curtain. We are true Canadians and we believe in Canada. We have the right to ask questions. I shall ask that question to my colleagues: In 1973, out of a total of 110 members, there are 102 Liberal, 6 Pequists and 2 Creditists. In three years from now-


George Albert Proud: There are too many.


André-Gilles Fortin: I invite my colleague to be serious. He may find out that there are quite a number in his own riding.
Mr. Speaker, in two, three or five years, at the next provincial election-what will happen? We hear more and more about a third political strength which would be federalist. The value of the men or of the ideas involved does not really matter. Our colleagues of all parties including some observers say more and more that the important thing is not the value of such a party, but the fact that it should be federalist. Would this serve the interests of the country? No, Mr. Speaker. It would once more serve the interests of the Liberals. What will happen? The Liberals cannot gain anything more without losing something first. It might be a gain for the people of Quebec but-
Mr. Speaker, everybody had hoped that this election would mark the end of separatism. Let us be honest. Everybody was thinking: In this election, we have to stop the Parti quebecois. Because of separatism, it became a priority. This caused the polarization of the vote. For whom will the young people aged 14 to 18 be voting? For whom will those unsatisfied with the regime be voting,

November 8, 1973
Constitution
because this time the people of Quebec have been made to forget their actual social, individual and financial problems. They have been made to forget their day to day problems, their inadequate salaries or their poverty within a rich province, in order to fight the threat of independence.
But what will happen in three or four years? Will there be the same vote polarization? Will there be a different division of the vote? Will the separatist movement take on strength? I think that these are serious times; it is too easy to do like the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and say that the Creditistes are separatists. When the minister Says that we are separatists, he pretends that this is convenient for him. But at other times, Mr. Speaker, he is among those who say that the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) is truly a great Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, personally, as a Canadian, I am fed up-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would say to the hon. member that I did not say that the Creditiste members were separatists, but one of his colleagues said this afternoon that he would vote for a separatist Creditiste party, and I called him a separatist. I will not retract myself, and if the hon. member has the same opinion, I will bestow the same epithet on him.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there a question of privilege? Surely all these remarks are on record; there is no need for them to be rehashed again. The hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, I should like to question this procedure. When I had the floor, I was interrupted and aware of parliamentary practice, I readily accepted because a question of privilege always has priority and in order that the Minister may be able to express his views.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you rise and you call it ten o'clock. It seems to me, that if I had not been interrupted, I could have completed my remarks before ten o'clock. It seems to me that I should be given the same privilege that was given to other members and be allowed to complete my remarks. I find it improper-
I shall make good use of it, Mr. Speaker, and say that we are happy to have had the opportunity to move this motion today because it allowed us to judge the attitude of our federal colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that from now on, this House will really deal with the problems of the Canadian people and of the Canadian provinces so that they may express themselves. It is high time, Mr. Speaker-I think it should be kept in mind-for us to stop dividing into political parties in this House and to start cooperating with one another to

become true Canadians instead of saying that since I am Liberal, I am a true Canadian and that the tories or the others are not.
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals want to build Canada alone, they can always try, but so far we have seen that going it alone is a failure. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have the right and the possibility to cooperate in the building of Canada because we strongly believe in it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this adjournment debate on a replacement for the Argus. I want to be kind to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), who I think is sincerely trying to come to a decision on this question. However, there have been other sincere ministers of defence during the past five years-which some Canadians think have been five years too long-of the Trudeau government. There have been four different ministers of defence during these five years, and I am afraid that in a constructive but rather critical way one could say that a review of the parliamentary returns to questions raised about replacing the Argus shows a rather sad catalogue of confusion and uncertainty in Department of National Defence planning.
With four ministers in five years, is it any wonder that those who served, and who served well, in the armed services are themselves confused about the role they are supposed to play in defence policy? I intend to review, in the short time available to me, those parliamentary returns which began when the issue of the Argus was first raised. I am talking about five squadrons, involving 32 aircraft which have been in use really since 1958. They have been operating almost on a daily basis somewhere in the skies over Canada, except when grounded for weather reasons or sometimes because of mechanical breakdown, for 15 years. Even though it is a different mode of transportation, how many of us are using a 15-year old car with the same confidence as when we first purchased it? The airframes were first designed for 10,000 air hours. Because of procrastination and indecision, the airframe lifespan was revised to 19,000 hours. Some of the aircraft are beginning to approach this extended airframe life.
November 8, 1973

I do not have time tonight to debate defence policy in all its aspects, but to set the record straight it was on March 17, 1969, as reported at page 6681 of Hansard, when the first recorded question that I have been able to find dealing with the Argus was asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). He asked:
Is the DND presently giving active consideration to the question
of a follow-on replacement aircraft for the Argus presently in
use by Maritime Command?
The Hon. Leo Cadieux, then minister of defence, replied, "Yes". On May 7, 1969, as reported at page 8419 of Hansard, in reply to a written question from the same member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the parliamentary secretary to the minister replied:
No decision will be made until phase II of the defence review has been completed.
On June 26, 1970, as reported at page 8643, the Hon. Leo Cadieux, replying to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), said:
We have conducted an evaluation of prototypes of new aircraft that could eventually replace the Argus aircraft, if the government so authorizes DND ... it will be later than October when these studies are completed .. . There are many considerations involved. The fundamental decision is as to whether we will make a replacement at this time . . . The decision will not be a decision of the Minister of National Defence, it will be a decision by the government, and no doubt all the relevant factors pertaining to it will be considered.
Then on September 29, 1971, as reported at page 8279, the new minister of defence, the now Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), replying to a question from the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), said this:
I should remind the hon. member that as well as the option of replacing the Argus, there is the option of refitting it for future use.
Then on March 28, 1972, as reported at page 1211 of Hansard, the next minister of national defence, the Hon. E. J. Benson, in replying to a question from me, said:
If my hon. friend would look at what I have said with regard to the Argus and Tracker aircraft, he would understand that the question of their replacement is presently being studied and a report is expected in the very near future.
Then on June 16, 1972, as reported at page 3205, I asked this question:
When will there be a decision on the Argus replacement?
Mr. Benson replied:
The matter is being studied, Mr. Speaker.
On February 5, 1973, as recorded at page 946 of Hansard, the present Minister of National Defence, in reply to a question from myself, said:
The government has decided to replace the Argus but we have not yet made a decision as to the type of aircraft to be ordered. We have sent out letters to five airplane manufacturers inviting them to make proposals against our specifications and we have requested that these proposals be in our hands by March 21 . . . We will also be looking at the regional aspects and, hopefully, this major purchase will bring industrial benefit to all regions of Canada.
Then on October 17 of this year, as recorded at pages 6955 and 6956 of Hansard, again in a reply to a question from me, the Minister of National Defence said:
Adjournment Debate
We will be entering the contract definition phase in the near future. I expect to make a recommendation to cabinet within the next two or three weeks.
I do not have the time now to review all those answers, Mr. Speaker. However, it has been 55 months and 22 days-more than four and a half years-since the first question was asked in this House about the status of the aircraft. Also, the minister well knows, from reviewing the file, that questions were also asked in committee before that of a fifth minister of national defence who is now the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) sitting on this side of the House. In all that time there still has not been a decision.
Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the complexity of the decision. However, in closing-because my time is just about finished, according to the rules governing this proceeding-I say that there must be a decision so that the contract specifications can go to the main bidders, if it is confined to that, and so that the people of Canada, and especially the servicemen of Canada who are vitally involved in this project, can be informed and will have some reassurance about their future prospects. Further procrastination cannot be allowed to play with the lives of the men who are flying the Argus aircraft-and we will be reaching that stage very soon.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has given a very excellent summary of the discussions and thinking that have gone into our attempt to resolve this really most important question of the purchase of long-range patrol aircraft. I think it would be right to say that no member across the floor has demonstrated more interest in this subject than that hon. member. This is partly because CFB Greenwood is in his riding. I would like to think it is also a matter of very real importance to Canada and to our whole posture in national defence. This is probably the biggest single purchase that will ever be made by National Defence; therefore, if it has involved a great deal of thinking and consideration, I believe it is justified.
I think the House knows that the purchase of long-range patrol aircraft not only will be the biggest single purchase we have ever made, but perhaps from an operational point of view the most important that we have made. The selection of the appropriate aircraft to perform long-range surveillance and patrol duties is of importance not just to my department but to the taxpayers of Canada. It is also important to our NATO partners, and particularly to the aerospace and the electronic industry of Canada.
As the hon. member and the House are aware, we have received proposals from four aircraft manufacturing companies-Hawker Siddeley, Douglas, Boeing and Lockheed. Further, as I have said, a special project management team within the Department of National Defence has conducted intensive evaluations of these proposals. We are now at the stage where we would like to enter what is called the contract definition phase. I indicated to the House on October 17 that I was planning to make a recommendation to cabinet concerning which of these four companies, which two or more, were to enter the contract definition phase.

November 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
I think the hon. member is interested in the timing. I would say to him that the reason for the delay has been primarily the fact that the cabinet agenda has had matters of priority that are higher than this particular consideration. That has been the reason for the immediate delay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight).


AIR TRANSPORT-BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON ROUTES WITH UNITED STATES-POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF ONE ROUTE FOR SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 I raised a question with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) related to the fact that in recent bilateral air agreements between the Government of Canada and the U.S.A. there were no air routes for the province of Saskatchewan. Because of that situation I asked whether the Minister of Transport was considering bringing into the negotiations, before the agreement is finally signed, the question of providing the province of Saskatchewan with an air route out of Regina or Saskatoon into the American market. That is the topic which I wish to pursue.
An analysis of the latest bilateral proposal reveals that the province of Saskatchewan was not included in the proposed route configurations. This is the result of unilateral decision-making on the part of the federal government. The federal government has had every opportunity to learn at first hand the need for direct air access to the United States. Top representatives of the Ministry of Transport and Air Canada were in attendance at the provincial transportation conference held in Saskatoon on March 22, 1973, when the Premier of Saskatchewan stated:
Historically, Saskatchewan governments have supported Air Canada as the sole regional and transcontinental air carrier. We opposed Air Canada divesting itself of its regional role as we felt, I think, that if you have a monopoly in a province, you have certain responsibilities to maintain adequate levels of service.
Because Saskatchewan is the only province in the west with only one class I carrier, with no north-south jet service and with no international connections, who can blame us if we feel disadvantaged and if we demand adequate air service. Well we don't feel a bit backward in this regard and I can advise Mr. Baldwin he will hear all about it tomorrow.
A wide-ranging discussion which followed on international air transportation made little impression on the former Air Canada president, the director general of civil aviation and the executive director of the air transport committee, all of whom were in attendance and participated in the discussion.
Saskatchewan has not and, if the recent bilateral proposal is ratified, will not have a direct air route to the United States for some time. Saskatchewan requirements for direct air connections with the United States have been pointed out to federal authorities on several occasions in the past. The province's requirements for a U.S. air connection are, in order of priority: first, a direct route to Minneapolis from Regina; second, a direct route to Denver and access to the southwestern United States from Regina or Saskatoon. It is felt that a direct routing to Minneapolis and Chicago is required because of the needs

of business, agriculture, farm implement dealers and educational institutions, and also because of the two-way flow of tourist traffic. More specifically, direct air freight and air express service is clearly needed.
An analysis of the origin and destination statistics from Vancouver, Calgary and Regina to Minneapolis, from which centres there is no direct air contact, reveal the following: the statistics show that in 1972, 9,325 passengers travelled between these points and Minneapolis. Of these, 3,500 originated in or were destined to Vancouver and would certainly have travelled via Seattle.
Calgary passengers have the option of travelling south by Western Airlines or travelling to Winnipeg and connecting with North West Orient Airlines. Similarly, in 1972 the statistics indicate that 21,000 people travelled between Toronto and Minneapolis although there is no direct connection. The direct route of Vancouver to Calgary which would pick up Edmonton traffic, Regina, which would pick up Saskatoon traffic, and Minneapolis- Toronto showed a total passenger movement in 1972 of 30,280, all handled by American airlines as there are no direct Canadian connections. If Winnipeg-Minneapolis is included, 12,520 passengers can be added to this figure, for a total of 43,000 passengers.
Saskatchewan recommended to the Minister of Transport that every effort be made to negotiate a route by a Canadian carrier, namely, Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Minneapolis, Toronto. Such a route would give Toronto direct access to Minneapolis by a Canadian carrier, a direct route from Regina to Minneapolis-a most urgent need at this time-a one-stop flight from Calgary, and would result in a diversion of much of the traffic now being handled from Vancouver via Seattle. It is considered that this route effectively rebuts the claims of the officials of the Ministry of Transport that a Regina-Minneapolis link is uneconomic and will probably be uneconomic into the 1980s.
Mr. Speaker, if the government were to follow this line, they would find that with a growth factor of 8 per cent- which is below the national average-the figures over the next six years would show the viability of Saskatchewan's proposal to be most impressive. Saskatchewan wonders why such a route configuration was never considered by the Department of Transport, Air Canada or the negotiating team.
Second in importance to a Minneapolis connection is one to Denver. Mr. Speaker, I would follow that up if I had the time to do so. May I conclude by saying that Saskatchewan is of the opinion that the proposed Vancouver or Calgary, Regina, Minneapolis, Toronto routing is clearly feasible, and that if this routing cannot be negotiated into the current bilateral proposal there should at least be provision made in the agreement for consideration of this routing before the next round of formal bilateral route negotiation.
This is the position of the government of the province of Saskatchewan respecting a direct route on a north-south basis. It is supported by the people of Saskatchewan, the mayor of Regina, the city of Regina, the Regina Chamber of Commerce, the Saskatchewan Motor Club world travel department, Kramer Tractor Limited, the manager of John Deere Limited, the president of Roll-O-Flex (1970) Limit-
November 8, 1973

ed, the general manager of Western Canadian Agribition Association, the city of Yorkton, the Saskatoon Mining Association and the Prince Albert Chamber of Commerce.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, on a personal basis, I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) could add my name to the others, for the record. Speaking on behalf of the department, the study presented by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan on October 19 dealing with the need for direct air service between Saskatchewan and the United States contains some very useful information on the feasibility of establishing a Vancouver or Calgary, Regina, Minneapolis, Toronto route, particularly by 1978, or as a second priority a north-south route linking Regina or Saskatoon to Denver.
Apart from the question of public interest, any new route would require the support of an airline willing to operate it before the government could put forward a formal proposal for negotiations. The problem here is how soon would traffic between Regina and Minneapolis or Denver develop to a point where direct air service would be justified from the airline's standpoint? As the minister indicated earlier, it would be difficult at this time to relate or hold up the entire route agreement on the question only of a transborder route between Saskatchewan and a U.S. point. In any event, negotiations at the next round of bilateral talks will certainly take the interests of Saskatchewan into full consideration.
In the meantime, we might take advantage of the provisions of a 1966 exchange of notes between Canada and the U.S. relating to local and regional air services. Under these provisions, if a Canadian or U.S. carrier is interested in operating a local or regional-type route such as Regina-Minot or Regina-Great Falls, arrangements could be made by aeronautical authorities without renegotiating the whole route agreement.


AIRPORTS-PICKERING-COMPETENCE OF BOARD OF INQUIRY TO STUDY NEED AND LOCATION
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) enlarge the terms of reference for the board of examiners that is to study the proposed Pickering airport. On June 22 I asked the minister whether he was directing the proposed board to study the question of airport need. He replied that the board had been constituted in order to allow interested parties to make representations and appear before it. That is the point I seek to make tonight. The board is fundamentally a passive body, when it should be an active, initiating body.
As recently as October 25, according to a news release which I have in my hand, the terms of reference of that board were revised. Fundamentally, the character of the board remained the same as before. It is still, basically, a passive organization rather than an active one. It is fundamentally an organization for receiving opinions rather than seeking them. That might be justified in some circumstances but not in those surrounding the proposal
Adjournment Debate
regarding Pickering airport. I say that because of the public controversy which this proposal has stimulated.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in Scarborough in March, 1972, he told a large audience of electors that if 51 per cent of the people in the area affected by this airport were opposed to its construction, the government would not force it upon them. He did not say how he would find out that 51 per cent were opposed; nevertheless, he made that commitment. According to a newspaper survey taken by a Toronto daily last spring, 56 per cent of the Toronto people interviewed do not want this airport. Only 26 per cent of those interviewed spoke in favour of it.
As there is such evident opposition to this airport, it is absolutely mandatory on the part of the government to instruct, authorize and finance this board in such a way that it will seek to deal more actively with the fundamental questions that concern the people of the area. It should ask, namely: Does the public want Pickering airport? Should the airport be built at this particular location?
Let me give one further reason why it is absolutely necessary for a board of examination to do this work. Citizens groups should not do it for them. A recent study of the land to be used for this proposed airport shows that it is almost all prime agricultural soil. At a time of world food shortages it is surely unconscionable to take out of production land that should be used to grow food. In the study by two members of the Department of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph, the following claim is made:
Agricultural land is the world's most valuable resource . . .
To lose the best land is to lose the capacity to feed and trade . . .
In the years from 1951 to 1966 the farm population in southern Ontario and the number of farms declined by 26.3 and 24 per cent respectively.
Surely, in light of that trend, it is incumbent on the government to reverse direction and not, as it proposes, to pave over still more prime farmland. While such a decision might have been excusable a few years ago, it cannot be excusable any longer. We are living in a time of nutritional crisis, and it is a time for the government to act. Here, surely, is an opportunity for action. The government should instruct and fund the board of examination to authorize studies on all aspects of the basic question, which is: Should this land be diverted from food production to air transportation?
According to the report referred to, "Pickering township is capable of supporting a productive agricultural industry on a continuing basis." If that is so, and scientific opinion so concludes, the government cannot rightly take this land out of food production unless there are overwhelming reasons to justify it. That alone should require the board of examination to take the initiative instead of waiting for citizens to do its work.
In Chicago, O'Hare Airport handles seven times the traffic which Malton handles, yet O'Hare officials say that no expansion is planned until 1990 despite that airport being about the same size as Malton: it has about the same number of acres. Can we justify taking over farmland when it is clear that Malton could get us by for another 20 years? At a time when fuel shortages are causing some airlines to reduce flights, should we plan an airport expansion program as though there is no fuel crisis, no possibili-
7690

November 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
ty that there will be a fall-off in airline use, and do so at the price of removing 17,000 acres from food production?
As we are faced by the challenge that confronts us at a time of world food shortage and the fact that we are in danger of interfering with prime agricultural land, the government is under the absolute obligation to further enlarge the terms of reference of this board so that it may carry out adequate studies. It should initiate, fund and conclude these studies in such a way that the public will be satisfied that if an airport is to be built it is absolutely the only option open to the government. Otherwise, the government cannot justly go ahead with its proposal.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as well as I what the inquiry will do, but I will answer his question. On June 22 when the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) put his original question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), his concern was that the airport inquiry commission would not have the power to study need and location.
Since that date the commissioners have been appointed and the terms of reference they have been given specifically relate to need and location, among other factors, allowing them the very broadest terms of reference. I very seldom read anything into the record on the "late show", but to put the record straight I would like to read the pertinent parts of the terms of reference. The commissioners will:
-receive and record new evidence, if available, and, if available and adduced, to report on such new evidence in response to the following questions:
(a)	respecting need,
(i)	is there any new evidence as to what is the expected maximum passenger traffic volume in the domestic, transborder and international air traffic markets for the year 1980 and
what are the best estimates of rates of growth beyond 1980, and
(ii)	is there any new evidence that Toronto International Airport, Malton, can be expanded or reconfigured, within present boundaries, to meet all reasonable needs, having regard to runway capacity, ground access, terminal capacity and the number of people affected by disturbance from flight operations for the period up to 1980, 1990 and 2000:
(b)	respecting location,
is there any new evidence to prove that the site near Pickering, Ontario is not suitable for the new international airport for the central Ontario market having regard to
(i)	disturbance from flight operations,
(ii)	passenger convenience,
(iii)	regional economic effect,
(iv)	total environmental effect, positive and negative, and
(v)	facilities required, including related infrastructures such as roads, railways, guideways and helicopter facilities, and
(c)	generally, is there any new evidence of any relevant factor that has not been considered by the Government of Canada, such, for example, as established facts on technology or travel habits, that may appear to affect any decision of the Government of Canada taken to date.
This is what the board has been given to study. I am sure all members have a copy of the authority given to the board. The commission is headed by Mr. Justice Hugh F. Gibson, of the Federal Court of Canada. These are not just fly-by-night fellows who have been appointed. Members are former metro Toronto planning commissioner Murray V. Jones, president of Murray V. Jones and Associates Ltd., and Dr. Howard Petch, vice-president (academic) of the University of Waterloo and former member of the Science Council of Canada. This is a distinguished group of men whose integrity and independence are beyond challenge.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

Friday, November 9, 1973