1976-12-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I would like to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the fact that Camp Petawawa lacks runway facilities for C-103 Hercules aircraft and also lacks facilities to house and school families for the Canadian Airborne Regiment which is to be transferred from Edmonton to Camp Petawawa.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Prime Minister reverse his minister's foolhardy and senseless military decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs to report to the House within the next few days on the progress he is making in the preparation of legislation to provide pro rata pensions for widows of veterans where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent, and that such legislation be introduced at an early date.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to such a motion being presented?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter which is extremely important and weighs heavily on the Canadian economy.
Since the PQ government was elected in Quebec, Canadian speculators on the international foreign exchange market in Toronto, who are executives of the Canadian Bankers' Association, are taking advantage of that election to lower as they please the value of the Canadian dollar for the benefit of manipulators within the Canadian Bankers' Association, since only banks can determine and control the value of the Canadian dollar on the international foreign exchange market. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That a committee of the House be immediately instructed to look into and investigate that matter and to give the Bank of Canada exclusive control over the value of the Canadian dollar in terms of foreign currency, since the Bank of Canada is quite unaware of the secret manipulation conducted by private banks, through their association in Toronto, as they alone determine that value every day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the announcement today by Coast Ferries Limited that they are discontinuing service after 22 years to 100 B.C. coast communities on December 31 this year, ending their two year struggle with the federal maritime bureaucracy, and in view of the continuing
1634

December 3, 1976
Search and Rescue
chaos in water transportation along the British Columbia coast as a result of lack of planning and inattention on the part of the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
[DOT] (mo)
That the subject of water transportation on the B.C. coast, including all the decisions on subsidies and the awarding of contracts, be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications; and that the confidential report prepared by Acres Consultants for the Department of Transport be released to this committee and such committee be authorized to subpeona all persons they deem appropriate to their investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The announced plan to provide search and rescue capability in eastern Canada and the deployment strategy indicates a complete lack of appreciation of the basic and fundamental factors of strategic logistics and support planning. The deployment of coast guard and DND resources in Newfoundland confines the equipment in such a manner as to leave exposed the greater portion of the island on the western and southern sectors, which indicates complete defi-ciences in the capabilities of these supposed strategists who made the decisions. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House orders that the Minister of National Defence and the chief of the defence staff be dispatched to the nearest centre for a refresher course in basic training and that the whole matter of justification as to chosen locations be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Mr. Leggatt.]


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that mediation has broken off between the Post Office Department and its employees because of the intransigence of the Post Office Department, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House demands that the Post Office Department cease its flagrant violations of the contract between it and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for presentation. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, Mr. W. A. Bradshaw informed the public accounts committee of this House that on June 11, 1973 Mr. Lome Gray, who was then president of AECL, told the cabinet committee on government operations that a substantial agent's fee would be involved in the sale of a nuclear reactor to South Korea. In view of this evidence that the cabinet knew about this three years ago, would the Prime Minister tell the House what action he took to make certain that none of these agent's fees were going to be used in a way that might be repugnant to the moral standards of the Canadian people?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unusual to report what went on in cabinet, but in the circumstances I am prepared to indicate my knowledge of the matter. This was drawn to my attention. It happened in a cabinet committee in which I was not present but regarding which I checked the minutes. It was discussed with some of my colleagues and it appears that Mr. Gray, head of AECL, did mention this $500 million contract, that it would involve using an agent, that no authorization was sought. It was just a statement of reality and my colleagues took note of it but made no further comment or had no further discussion of it.
December 3, 1976


REQUEST THAT CABINET MEMBERS WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF USE OF AGENTS ATTEND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister be willing to direct the members of the cabinet who were attending that meeting to appear before the Public Accounts Committee so they could be examined by members of the House and asked about the extent of the conversation, their knowledge of the arrangement being made by AECL, and what they did about it at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think you will realize that the request is rather unusual. If cabinet members are going to be cross-examined on what went on in cabinet, then this would certainly be a breach of our whole parliamentary system.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Just release the tapes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Someone over there says "Oh". Obviously he does not know much about the parliamentary system, for very obvious reasons. I have been as forthcoming as possible by indicating what went on then, and the hon. member can rely on what I gathered from the ministers and from the record as being accurate.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, given the peculiar relationship that exists between Crown corporations and the government, and the fact that the government has set up Crown corporations to be independent of government, does the Prime Minister and his cabinet take the position that this relationship means the government and parliament have no responsibility in setting the moral standards and practices that these corporations operate within? In other words, my question is, what is the Prime Minister's definition of responsibility in setting the ethical and moral standards of Crown corporations? Is there any, or are they so far removed from the government that the government has no role to play whatsoever?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the legislation which sets up Crown corporations deliberately sets them up at arm's length from the government, so we have no direct power to command, intervene or survey the day to day operations. On a yearly basis we do look at their budgets. The question is raised as to whether or not the government should have, under some new legislation, a more direct power to intervene and direct, but this will be discussed in due course. This does not mean we are indifferent to the legal or moral behaviour of Crown corporations. When I issued the conflict of interest guidelines, for instance, I
Oral Questions
made them applicable to all members of my cabinet. In the case of Crown corporations, I sent them copies and suggested they follow certain procedures. We do not have any way of knowing on a day to day basis what their procedures are, but, I repeat, when they have very important budgetary problems they do come to cabinet where they are discussed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, the chief law officer of the Crown. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's position in respect of this matter appears to be the only law that is important is the Criminal law, will the minister tell us personally whether the law officers of the Crown have given a legal opinion to the government in respect of the legality or otherwise of transactions involving commission payments, and second, as acting Solicitor General, will he tell the House whether there has been an investigation by the RCM Police in respect of this endeavour to make sure there was no infringement of the Canadian law, particularly in view of the very great publicity that has been given this matter and the very great concern throughout the country?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to Crown corporations, some of them receive advice from the Department of Justice, but most of them do not. They have undoubtedly from time to time sought legal advice. In terms of the government, of course, from time to time the Department of Justice where appropriate provides advice. With regard to the second question, I would have to take notice of it. Of course, any breach of the criminal law would be a matter for prosecution by the provincial attorneys general.


CRIMINAL CODE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, at the first opportunity would the minister bring that information to the House so we can be assured that the government is concerned about any possible illegality, rather than continuing the evasive attitude thus far? Would the minister be prepared to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Code in order to have a standard put into law so that any offence which takes place outside the country that may not necessarily be an offence against the Canadian law would then be an offence under the Criminal Code and could be prosecuted, such as in the case of a bribe which might be unacceptable in our country but not against the law in the other country? This would then
80005-361/2

December 3, 1976
Oral Questions
be against the Canadian law. Would the minister bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Code so we can have our standard of law and practice amendment to ensure this end?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the Criminal Code was amended during the last parliament to provide what the hon. member has requested.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think if the minister looks at that amendment he will realize it was in relation to offences in other countries. In other words, if a Canadian breaks the law in another country it is deemed to be a breaking of the Canadian law. What I am talking about is a situation where a Canadian breaks a Canadian law but does so in another country and it is not against the law there. Would the minister consider that kind of an amendment to the Criminal Code so that in relation to Canadian residents we can have the moral and legal standard applied across the world?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Criminal Code were reciprocal in nature and contained provisions relating conspiracies in Canada for offences outside Canada and conspiracies outside Canada for offences inside Canada.
 * *


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has acknowledged there is a cabinet minute which documents the request by AECL to hire agents to promote the sale of CANDU reactors in South Korea. Relating to that matter, would the Prime Minister confirm that by virtue of having that minute simply recorded and no objection raised that this gave cabinet approval for this course of action? Would he tell us if the date of that minute was before or after the Prime Minister received his letter of March 22, 1973 from Mr. Henderson and why the government set no upper limits as well as other guidelines about the money that was to be spent on such promotions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the hon. member. It is not a request for approval. It is because it was a very large budgetary matter which was being dealt with that AECL came before cabinet to indicate what it was doing. One of the things it said it was doing was that it would have to hire an agent, I believe in South'Korea or elsewhere, in order to help us with this deal. I must point out to the House that just about everything that is sold abroad by Canadians, either by Crown corporations or private citizens, is sold through agents. So there is nothing unusual about that. When we sell powdered milk or skim milk we do it through an agent. When we sell wheat we do it through an agent. When

we sell material goods we do it through an agent. So, there are agents all the time, Mr. Speaker, and the House should not think the fact of the existence of agents is unusual.


Mr. Hees:: Do they all get kickbacks, too?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so interested in kickbacks I think we should bring before the parliamentary committee some of the records of what took place when he was minister of trade and commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Bring them all.


George Harris Hees: Then maybe you will learn something about positive trade balances.


CABINET INQUIRY INTO HOW MONEY SPENT BY AGENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy perhaps we should assume that the Prime Minister was cut off from answering any one of the three parts of the question I asked. I should like him to give us the date of that minute and tell us whether it came before or after he received the letter from Mr. Henderson. Can he tell us if the cabinet, as a matter of routine, would approve the spending of substantial amounts of money, which in this case could reach up to $18.4 million, without asking how that money is to be spent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first and second questions, that of the date, I believe it was quoted in the question by the hon. member for Don Valley. I am not quite sure if he gave a date, but I believe it is in the public record and the testimony to which he refers. I do not have it in mind. It was some time in the first part of 1973. If it cannot be ascertained from the record, I will get it for the hon. member.
As to the third question of whether we approved of any particular permission, the minutes of the meeting indicate there was no such approval and the memory of the ministers is to the effect that there was no discussion of any amounts or percentages. It was just a statement that an agent is needed in such a contract as this and most of the discussion turned on the contract itself, the financing, what is entailed in terms of funds and so on.


John Edward Broadbent: I take it that the Prime Minister is confirming that when cabinet receives such a document and if it does not object, that amounts to giving tacit consent, so AECL would automatically assume that the cabinet has agreed. Does the Prime Minister think that it is a sensible procedure to support open-ended proposals for spending substantial amounts of money without setting any upper limits on the amounts of money it is approving or without setting any other guidelines as to how that money is to be spent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat that that was not discussed in any way, and I repeat also that approval is not sought of any particular detail of this. Cabinet was informed of what was
December 3, 1976

going on and we take the view that any Crown corporation, agent of the Canadian government or persons acting on behalf of the Canadian government will abide by all the laws and practices which are commendable to Canadian people. Every time a transaction is to take place, particularly through a Crown corporation, we do not make a point of saying, don't forget, you must obey the law and keep your moral standards very high. That is a matter of course and is accepted as a prerequisite.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the very high rate of unemployment in Quebec at the present time, and more especially in eastern Quebec, which results in an increasing number of claims filed at the various unemployment insurance offices, could the minister tell the House whether he would be ready to recommend increasing the staff in those offices in order to provide better service to the people?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representation. In areas where delays and a backlog occur, there is usually a tendency to move staff into that area to help out on a temporary basis, or sometimes on a permanent basis if that looks necessary. But I will look into the matter referred to by the hon. member.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the uncertainties attending current federal-provincial financial relations, and in view of the fact that the deadline date of March 31 is rapidly approaching for expiry of the system of monetary transfers from the federal to the provincial governments, which is now in effect, can the Prime Minister inform the House what plan he has to cover the contingency that no new cost-sharing agreement will be worked out between his government and the provinces by March 31, 1977?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with that question. 1 recognize, as the hon. member does, that it is an important question as parliament will have to act before the end of next March to deal with the Fiscal Arrangements Act. I think I would prefer to
Oral Questions
postpone a comment on that until I have a chance to meet the finance ministers next week and until we can see what progress we make in relation to the discussions. As the hon. member knows, there are a number of important questions of substance on the table, and I think the procedure will be dictated by our progress next week.


Paul Yewchuk: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the House whether he is now willing to reconsider his government's intended cancellation of these agreements which are to expire on March 31? In other words, should we expect an extension of the existing agreements until such time as new ones are arrived at?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a little difficult to know what the hon. member means by "new agreements". If he is talking about shared-cost programs, I suppose that is possible. I think the hon. member would want to recognize that a continuation of the shared-cost programs would probably mean less in terms of financial resources to the provinces and will of course involve greater interference in their internal affairs. But it may well be that the provinces would prefer to continue on the present basis, and if that did represent a viewpoint, we would have to consider it very seriously.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FEDERAL ROLE IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the minister made an interesting speech to the Canadian Foundation the other day about this subject, and he said that the government wanted a seat at the table with reference to federal responsibilities in post secondary education. I suggest to the minister that this is a fairly general cliche, and I wonder what policy the government intends to pursue with regard to its undoubted national role in post secondary education, if and when it gets a seat at the table.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State, has been involved in discussions with the provincial governments on the aspect of federal participation in an education forum, and 1 wonder if he might respond to the hon. gentleman's question.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, when the Secretary of State gets a seat at the table, as his colleague wants him to, will he make sure that the government of Canada does not abdicate its undoubted national responsibility with regard to post secondary education by merely giving the provinces another point or two in taxation arrangements, which would be quite unsatisfactory as far as post secondary education is concerned?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated, there have been continuing discussions between myself and various ministers of education, and we

December 3, 1976
Oral Questions
have now established an arrangement in conjunction with the Council of Ministers of Education where, in a continuing way, we can discuss with the provinces matters of mutual concern in relation to education, particularly the impact of federal programs which affect the educational area and provincial programs which are of concern to us. There is no intention on our part to diminish the interest we have. Indeed, these developments are a strengthening of our involvement with the provinces in mutual problems in the educational area.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the public campaign of the Archbishop of Toronto, Archbishop Pocock, and also the open letter from him this morning to the citizens of this country which appears in the press, which is merely another indication of the very real concern not only of church leaders but also of community leaders regarding the laws in this country respecting pornography and obscenity and the very great difficulty which provincial officials and law enforcement agencies are having in respect of the enforcement of the existing laws relating to pornography and obscenity, I wonder if the minister would inform us if he is giving any consideration whatsoever to revising the definition sections of our laws relating to those two subjects.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am not considering any amendments to the law or making any recommendations. The Law Reform Commission has done considerable work in this area and will be doing more with regard to what the law should say.
However, I share the concern which has been expressed by the archbishop and which has been expressed to me by a number of provincial attorneys general. We discussed the matter of pornography at our June meeting, both in terms of more effective prosecutions under the Criminal Code which, of course, is their responsibility, and also, if possible, more effective measures at the federal level under the Customs Act. Since that meeting I have had a number of meetings on the subject with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to assure that there is the most effective possible liaison between customs officials, both in the field and at the head office and to ensure that there are proper procedures for liaison by which provincial police forces and attorneys general may communicate to the customs officers their knowledge of undesirable material which is coming into the country so that customs officers can be as effective as possible in keeping it out.


POST OFFICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Postmaster General. Since most of the material which is coming into the country which has been defined as obscene or pornographic under the provisions of section 159 is coming in via the post office and by other means, what steps is the minister prepared to take to deny the services of the Canadian mails to people who would use them to transport obscene and pornographic material? Will the minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to tighten up the inspection services in order to keep this corrupting trash from coming into the country?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I can undertake to do exactly that. However, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that there is the principle of the sanctity of the mails, and we are somewhat restricted in opening first class mail coming into the country. The Post Office has always co-operated to the fullest extent when there has been information which has indicated that the mails were being used to move pornographic materials in order to stop that particular practice, but we cannot go further than investigating situations and getting as much information as we can. We cannot simply open mail to determine whether within that mail there is pornographic material.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. With respect to the announcement of the minister on November 26 pledging a fixed amount of federal assistance to western rapeseed crushing plants to compensate them for increases in freight rates for products such as oil and meal to a new minimum compensatory level compared with present frozen levels, will the minister give any assurance that the sums mentioned in the statement will be sufficient or will be made sufficient to close the gap fully between the new rates and the present frozen rates so that the position of the western crushing industry will not be affected adversely during this assistance period?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that was the reason for the amount of money which is being put into the rapeseed crushing industry. The new rates which are being quoted as a result of the CTC decision are the lowest rates allowed under the law for rapeseed products, and because of the frozen rate having itself created some problems since 1974, we have decided at the present time to pay the difference to the rapeseed crushers while looking at the broader problem

December 3, 1976

of equity between freight rates on products and on the rapeseed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the fact that the Ontario environment ministry is preparing to test dioxin, which is an unwanted contaminant found in some herbicides and which scientists call the world's deadliest chemical, and in view of the problems the Italian authorities are having cleaning up the dioxin accidentally released into the air in an explosion in Italy last summer, 1 would like to ask the minister whether the federal government will monitor and participate in the tests about to be carried out by the government of Ontario.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we will participate. I will have to check on this, but certainly we will be very interested in the use of this chemical, as we are in the use of all chemicals.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Only a few ounces of dioxin are needed literally to wipe out cities. In view of its deadliness, and in view of the fact that there is now a court case in the United States with regard to the possible banning of 2-45T, is the minister's department giving consideration to tightening the standards concerning the use of substances in which the contaminant dioxin is found in this country?


Roméo LeBlanc: Under the new water contaminants Act we have some powers to effect some regulations. I will have to check whether they apply to this case, but certainly the question of the use of it as a pesticide should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POSSIBLE POSTPONEMENT OF CONFERENCE WITH PREMIERS- INQUIRY IF MEETINGS CLOSED TO PUBLIC
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister still hold his meeting with the provincial premiers in the near future, since Mr. Levesque has stated he will be able to be present for only part of the conference and will have to return before any constitutional discussion can take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be the situation that the premier of Quebec will be able to stay for only the first part of the second
Oral Questions
day, and therefore it is not his desire that we get on to constitutional items.


An hon. Member:: I suppose not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that that is also the feeling of several other premiers, so there should not be any difficulty there.


William Gordon Ritchie: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the proceedings will be held in secret, or will they be open to the public and televised, in line with the government's feeling that that is the plan the House of Commons should follow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the usual procedure here of consulting the provinces, which has already been done, to see if there is a consensus for an open or a closed conference. I have indicated before that the federal government has no preference one way or the other. What I am told now is that there seems to be a consensus developing for a closed conference. I would be able to report at a later date when I have heard in detail from all the provinces on this matter.


DENIAL OF HOSPITAL FACILITIES AT WATSON LAKE TO DR. WIGBY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What are the minister's officials doing with poor Dr. Wigby, after having thrown him in jail twice and now denying him the facilities of the Watson Lake hospital concerning which the government has by now received several letters from Watson Lake citizens?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is well in hand in the department.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. No doubt the matter is well under hand. I am asking why Dr. Wigby is being denied the facilities of the hospital at Watson Lake? Why has the department sent in a departmental doctor? Why cannot the citizens of Watson Lake have the services of their own physician in that community? What is being done with Dr. Wigby?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the doctor in question has been asked to follow the rules of the hospital. There are certain rules and regulations that have to be obeyed. It does not seem that the doctor in question has agreed to follow the suggestions that have been made to him. If he is willing and agreeable to accepting the standard rules that are followed with regard to hospitals, I will be happy to review the situation with the hon. member.

December 3, 1976
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


WATERVILLE, NOVA SCOTIA-STATUS OF REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to try to communicate with the Minister of Communications but in her absence I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question involving another form of communication. Knowing full well his interest in the flight plans and/or airports of the country, could he tell the House what the present status is of the request for upgrading of the Waterville airport in the heart of King's county in terms of improving secondary airports across the land so that all people can travel across this country and visit airports in all parts of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to check into that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence has not been in the Chamber since he made that foolhardy and senseless military decision, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? It is understood that the air support for the airborne regiment is to be based here in Ottawa. In view of the government's avowed intention to decentralize, can the Prime Minister explain the costly movement of some 250 more employees into Ottawa? Is Ottawa to be considered an economically distressed area or is there some other reason the Prime Minister wants these troops here in Ottawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is at a NATO meeting where it is his duty to be. I would point out to the hon. member that he has been in the House since this announcement has been made. The hon. member was perhaps not quick enough on his feet in asking the question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Any time you want to take out your black belt, go ahead. 1 do not think you have a black belt; I think it is a brown one.


George Harris Hees: You would never make that remark outside in the corridors.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let him answer.


Mr. Fraser:: You don't want to compete with twinkle toes over here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a black belt is of absolutely no use against an inflated ego.


George Harris Hees: Pierre, you ought to know.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would you answer my question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If you want an answer, ask him to shut up. This was a move which resulted from a long analysis by the military themselves of their needs and requirements. They have reached conclusions which have been made known to the House that they are over-extended in the number of bases they have. They are anxious, as the government is, to save the people of Canada money by cutting down on expenditures which are not absolutely needed for the force. It is always regrettable to close bases. This is not the first time it has happened. Some have closed in New Brunswick, some in Manitoba and some in other parts of Canada, many of these areas are less affluent than the area from which the hon. member comes. Until now Canadians have understood the need of the military to become more efficient and to spend less. I hope the people of Edmonton will understand that also.


ADEQUACY OF CAMP PETAWAWA AS TRAINING GROUND FOR PARATROOPERS-REQUEST FOR REVERSAL OF DECISION TO RELOCATE AIRBORNE REGIMENT
Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that Camp Petawawa is the worst parachute training ground in Canada and on May 8, 1968, seven of 24 paratroopers were killed on this training ground? Because of the lack of the facilities at Petawawa will the Prime Minister today reverse his minister's political decision on the movement of the Canadian airborne regiment from Edmonton to Petawawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know if the statistics given by the hon. member are accurate or if they prove anything.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They sure are. I never give anything else but accurate figures.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they are accurate they certainly cannot lead to the conclusion the hon. member is drawing without saying that the military are completely incompetent in having recommended this move. We accept their competency; the hon. member does not.


An hon. Member:: Who did you talk to?


Steve Eugene Paproski: You made a political decision by yourself. You are as phony as a three dollar bill.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the announcement of Coast Ferries that they will discontinue their scheduled service to 100 lower British Columbia coast outports due to seasonal negative cash flow factors which have been discussed in detail with the Department of Transport. I should
December 3, 1976

like to ask the minister if he has a contingency plan ready to service the 100 outport communities on the lower coast of British Columbia or is this transportation need to such out-ports considered a mature factor and therefore within the user-pay concept of the new transportation policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this has been a service which over the years has been supplied by private enterprise on a straightforward business basis. In the past couple of years it has run into some difficulties, specifically because of the problems in the logging industry which created some new and special problems for the ferry system. We took some special action last year by way of a loan to assist the particular ferry operator in question and we will now be looking at the question of the future potential for offering the service. It seems from past history, logging problems aside, that it has a real chance of having a viable operation.


WITHDRAWAL OF NORTHLAND FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA COASTAL SHIPPING SERVICE-REQUEST FOR TABLING CRITICAL PATH STUDY
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, in my supplementary I should like to return to the upper coast. In view of the minister's statement that the withdrawal of the Northland subsidy was carefully thought out, will the minister table a copy of the critical path study that must have been done by his advisers showing the unbelievable inconvenience imposed on people having to travel on the British Columbia coast today?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously making allegations about the nature of the current service which is not the final kind of service that will be in place. The passenger service to which I presume he refers is a linking of several vessels which are temporarily in use for that purpose with the British Columbia-owned ferry service. We are having discussions with the province of British Columbia to move toward a better vessel, probably one built in British Columbia, to join with British Columbia ferry services at the present time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of National Defence, but due to his absence and the absence of his parliamentary secretary I should like to direct it to the acting minister. It is supplementary to the question 1 put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on Wednesday of this week. In view of the fact that Canadian Marconi's joint venture with the United States in developing the NAVSTAR system, a primary navigation
Oral Questions
system for the 1980s, may be jeopardized by the dismissal of the prime moving force of this program, in the person of vice-president of the avionics division and considering that the technical capability produced by the Canadian Marconi Company may revert to the parent company with no financial benefit to Canadians and that this could constitute a near fatal blow to the Canadian high technology and electronics industry, will the minister take steps to protect the Canadian investment?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the invitation extended by the United States to Canada to participate in talks on the renewal of beef import policies and quotas for 1977. In view of the fact that Canada was not a signatory to the current U.S. meat import voluntary agreement, will the minister indicate whether Canada will participate in these discussions? If so, will our negotiators be authorized to sign the new voluntary agreement?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, our officials will attend the meeting in Washington. We do not know what they will be asked to sign, if anything. I do not know how you can sign a voluntary agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Would you sign one involuntarily?


Eugene Whelan: The reason the United States wants it voluntary-


George Harris Hees: Your agent will look after it for you.


Eugene Whelan: When the United States had that agreement before, no signatures were involved. It was a verbal agreement. In essence, there was nothing voluntary about it when President Ford triggered the meat import law.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. On October 28, the minister said, and I quote:

December 3, 1976
Ora! Questions
I have announced a comprehensive program which I believe will meet many of the concerns of labour-
That program amounts to the establishment of a multipartite national forum of government, labour, business, the farm community, "and others". In view of the fact that answers to questions by the minister on November 24 and by the Minister of Finance on November 29 completely avoided any mention of who these other parties will be, will the minister now please tell the House what other parties the government will be talking to, to whom he referred in his answers a few days ago, and whether he has told labour what other parties he has in mind.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot elaborate upon what the hon. member has already quoted. This is the very area in which we are involved in discussions with labour and the business community, as to whether they are prepared to participate in some type of forum along the multipartite format. These discussions are going along. Until there is some final determination by the parties that have to participate, it seems premature to talk about other parties that will be involved. We do not know whether there is going to be some real participation by, for instance, labour.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question with regard to a $2.4 million cheque paid to International Trading Establishment, a company which apparently does not exist. Has the minister had an opportunity to consult with the officials of AECL? I know that letters have been written to try to track this down. Has he consulted with AECL to see what checking they did in advance to ensure that this was a bona fide institution and what its credentials were or is AECL in the habit of issuing cheques for millions of dollars to companies which in fact do not exist?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I told the House on previous occasions, the payment was made as part of an arrangement entered into between AECL and its Italian partner. It was triggered by a letter from its Italian partner. As far as I know, payment was made on that basis.


THE QUEEN
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question could be directed to four people. However, to

eliminate some of the gabbiness that goes on around here, I will direct it to one. Therefore, I direct it to the acting House leader. Could time be set aside, under reasonably decent time allocations, before our Christmas break so that all members of parliament might make suggestions about the Canadian celebration of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee in February of next year?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very important event that has been described by the hon. member, and this government's sympathy and interest in the Jubilee, I will give his suggestion very favourable consideration indeed.


SUSPENSION OF PRODUCERS' RIGHT TO DELIVER TO OFF-BOARD FEED MARKET-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A recent Canadian Wheat Board instruction to the trade, number seven, on November 10 used the phrase "notwithstanding anything in the Canada Grain Act" and goes on to suspend one of the basic rights of grain producers. That is the storage ticket rights of producers who wish to deliver into the domestic off-board feed grain market. Will the minister look into this with a view to restoring the farmers' rights under the Canada Grain Act for which he is responsible?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost we must remember that parliament granted this right under Section 17 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Therefore, they have that authority. I have had some discussion with the vice-chairman of the Grain Commission. I am awaiting a report from them which I expect to have early in the week.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the concern of many farmers throughout Canada about the effects of the election of a separatist government in Quebec upon the future of national marketing programs, will the minister tell the House whether he has had any discussions with the new Quebec minister of agriculture? If so, can he give the House the assurance that national marketing programs will continue without disruption?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I checked to see what their agricultural program was during their campaign. I did not see anything to lead me to believe it
December 3, 1976

would be against any kind of marketing plan. There will be a meeting of all ministers, including the new Quebec minister of agriculture, on December 15.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. Has the Department of the Environment been called upon to offer any information or other expertise toward settling the growing controversy over the proposed use of the herbicide 2-4-D in the waterways of the Okanagan Valley?


Roméo LeBlanc: I will have to check on that matter, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. It arises out of earlier answers he gave in the House. Since the Prime Minister received a letter from Mr. Henderson, the former Auditor General, in March 1973 outlining very serious concern on his part about the financial operations of a particular Crown corporation and since evidence was provided to a committee of the House yesterday showing that cabinet in June approved the hiring of an agent with no ceiling on the money to be spent and no other guidelines and substantial amounts of money were spent to promote the sale of a CAN DU reactor, does the Prime Minister not believe that the information the Auditor General provided to him in March ought to have been relevant to the cabinet decision in June?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. They were on completely different subjects. Mr. Henderson's letter does not talk about any agent. It does not talk about any illegality. It just talks about accounting practices which are approved by some auditors and disapproved by him, practices of a Crown corporation, Polysar, the books of which he himself audited and signed the audit as correct. He was concerned with a particular practice, which was properly brought to my attention and upon which I took action, which the House knows.
The subsequent meeting-if the hon. member says it was in June, it was June-had to do with one of the contracts which another Crown corporation was seeking to obtain with one of the several countries where we had been trying to sell the
Privilege-Mr. Walter Baker
CANDU reactor. I do not see any direct relationship between them. I repeat what I have said earlier: most of what is sold by Canada abroad is sold through agents. Members on the other side, I would hope, take no exception to the use of agents. The only relevant matter is whether their actions are illegal or immoral. I made it clear that the government takes the position that their actions should be both legal and moral.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Henderson categorically rejects the view presented by the Prime Minister that what he was concerned about was just a question of accounting practices. Rather, the accounting practices gave rise to these moral issues. Given this judgment by Mr. Henderson, with regard to the behaviour of one Crown corporation, does the Prime Minister not think it would have been proper, the matter having been brought to his attention, not only to have referred the letter to the President of the Treasury Board for action but to have followed through to ascertain whether other Crown corporations were engaging in similar trade practices, possibly involving improper behaviour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must disagree with the hon. member when he says the concern of the former auditor general was with the morality of the practice. There is no question of morality in his letter, no indication that there might be anything immoral. His concern is about a contingent liability; other auditors say there is no contingent liability. Mr. Henderson in his letter, says:
The reason I have not insisted upon disclosure etc. of this contingent liability was that to have done so would, in my view, have been contrary to the best interests of Polymer as a multi-national corporation trading in a highly competitive field in world markets.
He is obviously concerned about what happened over there. He is explaining why he does not bring it out publicly. The reason is that he did not want to damage Canada commercially. This was a deal involving half a billion dollars and, I suppose, thousands of jobs for Canadians. If the Auditor General had thought action was being taken immorally on behalf of Canadians, no doubt he would have brought it to the attention of parliament or refused to sign the audit of the books of Polysar, which he did sign.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday an issue arose in the House in response to a question asked by me. The exchange began as recorded on pages 1592 and 1593 of Hansard. I gave notice to the Chair yesterday of my intention to raise a question of privilege today. I do so on the understanding that any question which I raise cannot affect me in a special capacity but it must affect all members of the House and it is my respectful submission to you, sir, that this did.
The matter was alluded to again in the last question asked by the leader of the New Democratic Party, but it all arose out of an unusual set of circumstances which I think I should be

December 3, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Walter Baker
allowed to develop briefly. It arose because of an incident which occurred in the House on November 26, 1976, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tabled certain documents which dealt with invoicing practices. One of those documents was a letter to the Prime Minister from the former auditor general dated March 22, 1973, and another important document related to is the Prime Minister's letter, also part of the House record, which was dated March 27, 1973.
The issue, of course, is an accusation that members on this side are smuggling lies and falsehoods into the debate. I raise the matter of the importance of the letter because of the fact that there was a special arrangement made with the Prime Minister so that he himself could put on the record that which he alludes to and accuses us of smuggling in as lies and falsehoods.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I refer hon. members and Your Honour to the proceedings of that day. I respectfully suggest that what happened to cause the Prime Minister to bring about his outburst yesterday was the fact that he is now reaping the bitter fruits of that which he seeded in this House on November 26.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister acted improperly on that occasion. I think he acted quite properly, and said so at the time. The point at issue is not whether the practice which was alluded to in the letter of the auditor general and which was alluded to in the response of the Prime Minister in his letter to the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury) is legal or illegal. That is not the issue, and that judgment will be made somewhere else. The point is not whether the particular actions referred to are moral or immoral; that judgment is already being made somewhere else outside this chamber. The point is not even the notable distinction between the Prime Minister and his Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien). The Prime Minister says there are ethics governing Crown corporations in their relationships with foreigners; there are guidelines. On the other hand, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advances the bedroom theory, as he did the other day in debate. The prime issue is a simple one. It is whether any member of this House can call another member of this House a liar.


An hon. Member:: Nobody did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to be able to give my undivided attention to all the participants in this discussion.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue is whether any member can call an her member, or members generally, directly or indirectly, a liar. It makes no difference whether the accuser is a backbencher or whether he is a prime minister. All the precedents say the answer is clearly

no, whether the accusation is made directly or whether it is made indirectly or even if it is made hypothetically, as might perhaps be argued in this case. Nor is it sufficient to say that the Prime Minister might have acted beneath the dignity of his office. That is no answer because it would merely be stating the obvious. Yesterday, as recorded at page 1593 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
However, it would be helpful if in the meantime members opposite did not smuggle in lies and falsehoods.


An hon. Member:: That is supposition.


Walter David Baker: Those who examine the record will note that I immediately objected and asked the Prime Minister for a retraction, in keeping with the way in which such matters have been dealt with in the past. I do not believe any serious argument can be made to suggest that the remark was anything but unparliamentary. Citation 151 of Beauchesne's states that among the expressions which are clearly unparliamentary are those containing charges of uttering deliberate falsehoods. When the issue arose on May 28, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux stated, as reported at page 4154 of Hansard for that day:
The hon. member confirms that he knows he has no right to accuse another member, whether he is a member on the other side of the House, a member of the government or on his own side of the House, of lying. 1 even hesitate to use the word. I would hope that in accordance with the long tradition of parliament the hon. member will co-operate with the Chair and not use language which is clearly unparliamentary.
For over 100 years this has formed the basis of a rule which is accepted by all hon. members. I think we set a very bad example to other parliamentary institutions in this country at all levels of government if the senior House in Canada does not conform to the long established rules of parliamentary debate.
Some hon. members have suggested-indeed, it was even suggested this morning in interjections across the floor-that the Prime Minister may have saved himself by the words "it would be helpful if in the meantime", used as a prefix to what he said and to which I refer as unparliamentary. If they take that view, then they have ignored citation 154(2) of Beauchesne's, which provides:
Words may not be used hypothetically, or conditionally, if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation. Putting a hypothetical case is not the way to evade what would be in itself disorderly.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that citation is directly applicable to this case. In requesting that the Prime Minister withdraw the words he used yesterday, I wish to refer to words used by the former member for Verdun in connection with words used by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) which were ruled unparliamentary, and as a consequence the hon. member for York-Simcoe acted quite properly and withdrew them. The then member for Verdun said on that occasion:
-I hope the hon. gentleman, who has shown that he is basically a House of Commons man, will understand that some of these rules to which we seem to over-react are really to make the House of Commons work as it should, which is the concern of most of us. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal put it the other day, democracy depends on this House of Commons and the House of Commons depends on certain basic rules which may look rather silly but in the general context of things make the difference between this House operating and not operating.
December 3, 1976

Later, the then member for Verdun said:
Because this is a civilized chamber in which there are civilized people, members usually stand up, swallow their pride and apologize.
I hope the Prime Minister will be guided by those words of his former colleague, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the words quoted by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to which he took offence are recorded on page 1593 of Hansard. I will read them again.
-it would be helpful if in the meantime members opposite did not smuggle in lies and falsehoods.
I read that, Mr. Speaker, as a wish, as an expectation.


John Allen Fraser: It is a pious hope.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Maybe it is an unrealistic hope, too, but that is what I read into those words. I do not read them as an accusation. If the hon. member opposite, any of his colleagues, or Your Honour, reads them as an accusation, then I want to withdraw them as an accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry I did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of orders-I was answering a question from the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent)-and had I done so perhaps I could have saved the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton the need to make the statement that he did. But his having made it, I want to make one of my own. I would say there is no accusation intended there, and to the extent that there is one contained in the words, it is withdrawn. But there is an accusation which is very clearly made at the top of that same page and to which the hon. member does not take offence. I say this:
-the hon. member has smuggled into his question an allegation that is false and erroneous.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that these words are not unparliamentary and that I can use them, but that the other allegation of "lying" is unparliamentary. I do not want to make much of the words that are used, but last night I did look up the Dictionary of Canadian English by W. J. Gage, Toronto, 1967. All of these words appear to be synonomous: "false, falsehood, lie, false statement"-


An hon. Member:: "Liberal".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite did, I would ask Your Honour whether that is not at least an indirect statement that we are lying and it should be withdrawn. But I did accuse the hon. member of having smuggled into his question an allegation that was false and erroneous. What was that allegation, Mr. Speaker? At page 1592 the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton stated the following:
I wonder if he can advise the House whether those guidelines condone the practice which has been admitted by the head of the government, the practice of issuing inflated invoices by Crown corporations-
Privilege-Mr. Walter Baker
That is not only false and erroneous; it is a grave accusation which is false and erroneous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is the accusation that there is a practice of issuing inflated invoices and that I admitted I knew of that practice. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is at the heart of the debate which has been going on for the past week or so in this House and in the country. I have established quite clearly that the only knowledge I had of inflated invoices was in one letter, which was followed by action which the House will be free to judge but which, in my mind, cleared up the matter, at least to the extent that there is a contradiction between two auditors. The matter has now been referred, quite properly, to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The point that I make, Mr. Speaker, is that the member for Grenville-Carleton made a false statement. Did he know that it was false? Only he can say if he knew it was false. If he knew it to be false, that is the dictionary definition of a lie. I assume, very gladly and openly, that he did not know it to be false but that he used it, as the expression goes, in the cut and thrust of debate. He was asking the question in the heated atmosphere of the House of Commons: he did not know it to be false. But if he did make a false and erroneous statement in a very serious accusation, I suggest that he owes me an apology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Words are used all the time, Mr. Speaker, and I must say, sitting on these benches on this side of the House, I am not overly sensitive to them. I believe that the number of times I have asked hon. members opposite to withdraw has been very few indeed. Once or twice in a period of ten years I have drawn such a thing to Your Honour's attention, and that must be the maximum number of times. I think every member knows that day in and day out things are hurled across this aisle which are meant to offend, at least in a superficial way. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) constantly come back with the line that the government should come clean, that the Prime Minister has not come clean, and so on. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, there is not much difference between that and saying that I am hiding something, that I am lying. But I do not take objection to it every time it happens.
I just want to make my point, that if the hon. member does not apologize, knowing that he made a grave accusation which is false, one must conclude that he wants that falsehood to stand; in other words, that he made that falsehood knowingly and I think that is the definition of a lie. I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I am convinced the hon. member opposite did not know he was making a falsehood and did not do it knowingly. Therefore, I suggest he owes me an apology.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the Prime Minister for the unconditional withdrawal,

December 3, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Walter Baker
in the first part of his interjection, regarding the documents and the statement he made yesterday. I think it should be noted that it was unconditional. He went on to say that if I knew those words to be false, then 1 owe him an apology. Let me say that in making any statement I made in the House, I relied on the documents that were filed by the Prime Minister and I think the written documents have to stand on their own words.


An hon. Member:: You are a weak man.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: Quite frankly, I did not make the remarks on the basis that I knew them to be false. My remarks were made on the basis of the two letters to which I referred earlier. I think it is important that the House and the Prime Minister understand that basis. On page 2 of his letter to Mr. Drury of March 27, 1973, the Prime Minister said:
Perhaps the right course would be for the appropriate minister, on behalf of the government, to draw this-
That is the practice referred to by Mr. Henderson.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not the practice, the incident: that is the difference.


Walter David Baker: The "incident", to use the Prime Minister's word. The letter continues:
-to draw this to the attention of the management of Polymer and CDC and express the hope that they will give serious consideration to the question whether any modification in the practices of Polymer in its trading arrangements is required.
Let me say this to the Prime Minister directly, through you, Mr. Speaker: when I read that document of March 22, 1973, I understood that the Prime Minister was accepting the words of the auditor general of Canada at that time when he stated the following:
-this arises from the subsidiary's practice of invoicing certain European customers, by agreement, at inflated prices, with the difference being remitted to the customers or their representatives in cash in Switzerland or placed in numbered Swiss bank accounts as directed.
Relying, as I am, on the records of the House, as I look at the record I do not feel I owe the Prime Minister an apology at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) was the first to raise this question of privilege yesterday. I cannot but conclude that the intervention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whether or not the technical language was unparliamentary, and I must say that 1 agree with the interpretation-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will I not be allowed to speak for a moment, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not really see how I can entertain further discussion on a matter that has been conclud-

ed. When it was suggested that unparliamentary language was used yesterday, I did hear the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants develop his argument, and it is as a result of his having raised the point that it has come to the fore today.
The argument that was put forward by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants yesterday was that the use of the words "lies" and "falsehood" constituted unparliamentary language. It is always difficult for the Chair to have to decide on the interpretation of language. The clear precedent of the past is that even though there are always shades of meaning which tend to excuse the use of such language, when such language was used in the past it was found to be unparliamentary, and rather than getting into an interpretation of shades of meaning it is a safer course to take it as a danger signal and when that kind of language is used it must be withdrawn. The Prime Minister has conceded that point and has withdrawn the language. In my view, that puts an absolute and final conclusion to the question of privilege.
The next question raised was a matter of disagreement and not a question of procedure. It was not a matter raised as a question of privilege. It is, rather, a subject of interpretation as to whether the Prime Minister has, or has not, made an admission. The Prime Minister rejected that position in his intervention and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) reiterated it. That is a disagreement between two members as to the interpretation that ought to be placed on the letters or the language suggested by the hon. member. As everyone will realize, there is a disagreement as to that interpretation and it constitutes a matter of debate, not a question of procedure in any way.
In so far as the procedural question is concerned, again I suggest that the Prime Minister, in withdrawing the words, has put a conclusion to it which certainly satisfies the Chair and, it seems to me, should satisfy all members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask, before Your Honour made his decision, because of the nature of what has taken place, that I be allowed to withdraw my motion. I think what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has done and what the House leader for my party has done is in the best tradition of parliament. That is all I wanted to say.


MR. LAVOIE- FAILURE OF MEMBER TO BE RECOGNIZED BY CHAIR
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hochelaga on a question of privilege.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a question of privilege to point out to the Chair that, since November 17, I
December 3, 1976

have tried to catch your eye in order to put questions to the government, but I have yet to be given the floor.
Yesterday, I noticed that my colleague for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) rose, as I did, but that neither he nor I, members from Quebec, were recognized. Today, the same thing happened. I protest that my rights are being encroached upon for the simple reason that I feel I have the same rights and privileges as all my colleagues in this House. 1 know your task is not easy, and I am not blaming you; 1 am merely trying to set the record straight and point out to you that I too like to put questions to the government; if 1 have to wait before being allowed to do so, naturally my questions become obsolete and I have to find new ones. I might also point out at this time that the usual questions I put are always of public interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hochelaga rose on a question of privilege, which gives me the opportunity to explain that question of privilege and to ask him to kindly explain it to his colleagues on both sides of the House. Today, for instance, in the case of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), it was impossible, to my mind, to grant him only one question. It is always difficult to restrict the privileges of an hon. member who tries to follow up on an important point, but today the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), as well as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for instance, if I remember correctly, were the three whose names were on the list of those who tried three times this week to be recognized. The same thing happened in the case of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). So, the hon. member for Hochelaga was only one of several of his colleagues who tried to be recognized not only yesterday but also Wednesday. The Chair always has to make a choice among the hon. members who bring up important topics. And this happens every week during the oral question period which is always quite busy; it is next to impossible for the Chair to make a choice.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
First Report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, in English and in French-Mr. Bechard.
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
First Report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Martin.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion through the usual channels and I believe there would be unanimous consent of the House that I move and that we pass the following motion:
That the draft bill to correct anomalies, errors and other matters of a non-controversial nature in federal statutes, tabled on November 18, 1976, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
As I say, through normal channels I believe there is unanimous agreement that this motion be moved and passed now.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, there is agreement that this matter be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree.


Eudore Allard: D'accord.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 317, 490, 595 and 714.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who are the Directors, Special Industry Teams, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what are the (i) classifications (ii) salaries or salary ranges of the positions?
2.	(a) What previous positions in the Public Service did each hold (b) what were the (i) classifications (ii) salaries or salary ranges of the positions?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Ten positions. (1) 1. (a) H. Lafleur. (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500. 2. (a) He was not in the Public Service.

December 3, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(2)	1. (a) J. Fell, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500. 2. (a) Ontario Regional Director-Consumer and Corporate Affairs, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-$36,500.
(3)	1. (a) N. Nuttal 1-Seconded. (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-$36,500. 2. (a) Manpower and Immigration, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500.
(4)	1. (a) D. Stewart, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-$36,500. 2. (a) Revenue Canada-Customs and Excise, (b) (i) F17; (ii) $26,400-533,000.
(5)	1. (a) G. Roston. (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500. 2. (a) He was not in the Public Service.
(6)	1. (a) G. Massel-Seconded, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-$36,500. 2. (a) Revenue Canada Taxation, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500.
(7)	I. (a) J. Elliott, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500. 2. (a) Treasury Board, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500.
(8)	1. (a) D. Taylor, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500. 2. (a) Industry Trade and Commerce, (b) (i) FI7; (ii) $26,400-533,000.
(9)	1. (a) J. Smith, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500. 2. (a) Treasury Board, (b) (i) FI7; (ii) $26,400-533,000.
(10)	1. (a) R. Mather-Seconded, (b) (i) SXI; (ii) $27,500-$36,500. 2. (a) Director of Finance Supply Administration /D.S.S.; (ii) $27,500-536,500.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who are the Directors, Case Work, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Case work is the responsibility of the Directors, Industry Teams. See answer to Question No. 317 answered this day.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of Energy, Mines & Resources (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. (a) Twenty.
2. Date	Number of	3. Present(b)	Regional Offices	Location	(c) Responsibility Area	Established	Personnel	Strength(i)	Earth Physics Branch:	Geophysical	Victoria, B.C.	Geophysical research in	1936	unknown	13Observatory	Western Canada and offshore	(ii)	Regional Map Sales	Quebec, P.Q.	Quebec, New Brunswick and	1962	2	4Office	North Eastern United States	(iii)	Legal Surveys	Vancouver, B.C.	British Columbia	1972	12	11Regional Offices	Edmonton, Alta.	Alberta	1972	6	5Regina, Sask.	Saskatchewan	1972	3	4Winnipeg, Man.	Manitoba	1972	3	6Toronto, Ont.	Ontario	1972	12	12Quebec, P.Q.	Quebec	1972	6	6Amherst, N.S.	New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland	1972	6	6Whitehorse, Yukon	Yukon	1972	1	2Yellowknife, N.W.T.	Nothwest Territories	1972	1	2

December 3, 1976

Order Paper Questions
2. Date	Number of	3. Present(b)	Regional Offices	Location	(c) Responsibility Area	Established	Personnel	Strength(iv)	Geological Survey	of Canada:	Regional and Economic Geology	Vancouver, B.C.	Bedrock and offshore geology of Pacific Coast, Yukon and	1917	unknown	39British Columbia	Institute of	Calgary, Alta.	Sedimentary geology and fossil	1950	unknown	136Sedimentary and	fuel of Canadian Arctic Islands	Petroleum Geology (ISPG)	which form part of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British	Columbia, Districts of Mackenzie, Franklin and Yukon Territory	89
Atlantic Geoscience Centre (AGC)	Dartmouth, N.S.	Atlantic Coast Marine Geology and fossil fuels of offshore	1972	74	
						
			and Maritime provinces			
(v)	Canada Centre for					
Mineral and Energy Technology: Coal Resource	Sydney, N.S.	Nova Scotia and New Brunswick	1967	1	2Laboratory Western Research	Edmonton, Alta.	Whole of Canada in respect	1951	1	16Laboratory	to coal preparation and carbonization	Western Office	Calgary, Alta.	Mining research in support of mining operations in Western Canada (British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan), e.g., coal tar sands and potash	1970	6	20Elliot Lake	Elliot Lake, Ont.	Mining research in support	1965	5	31Laboratory	of mining operations in metal mines, mainly in Canadian Shield	(vi)	Resource Management	and Conservation Branch: Resource Geology	Dartmouth, N.S.	Supervision and control of	1970	4	6Regional Office	mineral resource activities in East Coast Offshore Region	(vii)	Energy Policy Sector:	Regional Coal	Calgary, Alta.	Continuing contact with	1975	2	2Office	industry and provincial agencies in Canada and the United States west of Lake Superior	4.	Yes. (a) Calgary, Alta, (b) One-Sub-office of Technical Field Support Services.5.	The duties performed are line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa.


Mir. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the AIB were (a) recruited by the Public Service Commission (b) hired by other methods?
2.	How was the decision made as to the employment of those employed other than through the Public Service Commission?
3.	How many employed other than through the Public Service will receive some form of protection for employment with the Public Service if and when the AIB is dissolved?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As of October 1, 1976; 1. (a) 762 were employed by the Public Service Commission, (b) 104 were hired by other methods.
2.	Other employees are hired by contract through the Executive Interchange Program and through employment agencies. The objective is to minimize the number of employees with indeterminate appointments in the Public Service.
3.	None.

December 3, 1976
The Constitution


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions mentioned by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: That this House condemns the central government for threatening the provinces with a unilaterally imposed patriation of a constitution which is obsolete and no longer responds to the aspirations of Canadians, rather than, as it should, leaving to the provinces the task of drafting a new constitution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to thank the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada for this opportunity to introduce in the House a most important motion for the future of Canada, especially in the light of the current constitutional situation, due to the outcome of the November 15, 1976 provincial elections in Quebec, where the elected party's platform included a possible referendum within two years on the question of whether or not the people of Quebec want to remain in the Canadian confederation.
In view of the importance of the election of the Parti Quebecois as the government of Quebec and in view of the future of Canada, it is urgent that we deal with this question in all seriousness. Since the Fathers of Confederation took very seriously the future of Canada, it should be dealt with all the more seriously today when the future as well as the past of our country are threatened.
Many very important questions come to mind. What is our constitutional past? What is our constitutional future? Do we have a constitution? A real one? What is it? When was it agreed on? By whom? Where is it? Should we patriate it if we have one or should we develop a new one? If so, who should do that? How are we to do it? What should be included in it?
In order to give appropriate answers to all those questions, we have to go over the constitutional history of our country to find out where we stand and what we have to do, taking into account past and present circumstances so that we may plan a better future for our country and prevent, if possible, its break-up, because our ancestors put all their hopes in the future of Canada.
On February 5, 1841, the Union Act of Lower and Upper Canada united Quebec and Ontario. This union was based on

the principle of parliamentary equality of both provinces until the population of Upper Canada, which was Ontario, was almost equal to that of Lower Canada, which was Quebec. This union was then quite satisfactory. But when the population of Upper Canada clearly exceeded that of Lower Canada, Upper Canada began to ask for a better representation of its population. Facing this unsatisfactory situation, the Conservative member for Sherbrooke, Mr. Alexander Galt, then said on July 6, 1858 that unless a confederation was created, Canada would be swallowed by the United States. Thus Mr. Galt was the first member to request his party to introduce a confedera-tive project within the electoral program of the government party. Mr. Galt, who was then Minister of Finance, rejected the governor's invitation to form the government. Cartier had this honour but Galt had convinced him of the value of his project to set up a confederation. So, on September 1, 1843, the Honourable John A. Macdonald, the future Prime Minister of the Canadian Confederation in 1867, married his cousin, Miss Isabelle Clark. They had two sons and in the fall of 1858, Cartier, Galt and John Ross went to England to submit their project to set up a Confederation of Canada drafted by Galt. This project met with polite indifference on the part of .England because Great Britain had by then lost practically all interest in Canada. On September 1, 1864, a conference to promote a federal union was held in Charlottetown. This meeting was adjourned to October 10, 1864 in Quebec City where all the provinces were represented. In Quebec City, on October 10, 1864, the respective merits of a legislative union, a confederation or a federal union were discussed. The first resolution of this important conference reads as follows, and I quote:

Whereas the best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown-

And on March 13, 1865, those resolutions were ratified by both Quebec and Ontario legislatures and accepted by the Maritime provinces in 1866. On December 3, 1866, Canadian delegates arrived in London with their project on a federal union. Their conference opened on December 4, 1866 to terminate on December 24, 1866, Christmas Eve. Sir John A. Macdonald acted as chairman for the Canadian delegation. At the opening of the morning session on December 4, Canadian delegates who were meeting at the Westminster Palace Hotel to draft a bill concerning resolutions passed in Quebec were handed another bill which had been drafted by Lord Thring, parliamentary adviser to the British treasury, upon instructions from Lord Carnarvon, the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs.
Canadian delegates did not appreciate at all the early interference of the Colonial Office in London. They were told that the bill drafted by the Colonial Office was designed only to help them in their deliberations, to guide them and not to influence them. On the front page of the bill which had been drafted and printed by the Colonial Office in London, one can read the following and I quote:
December 3, 1976

The union of the colonies and or the government of the United Colony. Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for purposes of government and legislation would be attended with great benefits to the colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom.
[ Translation]
And clause 1 of the bill reads as follows:

This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1967. [Translation]
On the right hand side of the copy of the bill of the Colonial Office in London that Sir John A. Macdonald had been given and that can be found at the National Archives, one can see what Sir John A. Macdonald wrote in his own hand to correct the bill prepared by the Colonial Office in London and showing clearly among other things the disagreement of the Canadian delegation with the draft bill prepared by the Colonial Office in London. These corrections read as follows, and 1 quote:

Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union for the purposes of government and legislation based on the principles of the British constitution-

Consequently, the purpose of the British North America Act that was proposed by London was to unite the colonies in a Dominion while the purpose of the bill that the Canadian delegation was preparing went along the lines of the resolutions passed in Quebec City to unite the provinces in a federal union somewhat like the Union Act that had united Lower and Upper Canada.
Federal union meant complete and total freedom of the provinces; federal meant freedom of choice; Dominion means domination over the colonies. In fact, England was not ready in 1866 to give sovereign status to its colonies, particularly the provinces of Canada, because of the situation that existed in 1865 between the Canadian provinces at that time and the United States that had broken away from England in 1776.
Several reasons gave England cause to fear annexation of the Canadian provinces by the United States in 1866. Among others, on July 2, 1866, exactly five months after the Canadian delegation had been to London, the American banks put before Congress a bill asking it to welcome the Canadian provinces as American states. So the Canadian delegates prepared their bill for a federal union from December 4 to December 24, 1866, and then waited impatiently for the bill that meant so much to them to be assented to, because they had gone to London to fight for the federal union of the provinces which would have given them full sovereignty or national independence since they had been strongly influenced by the American independence that was already more than 90 years old. Furthermore England no longer seemed interested in Canada because it had done very little for it for a long time.
The Constitution
While there was some lobbying by Canadians towards a federal union and the Colonial Office was planning some strategy to have the British North America Act passed, the chairman of the Canadian delegation, John A. Macdonald, who was however totally trusted by Canadian delegates, was very seriously courting Miss Suzan Agnes Bernard, Colonel Montague Bernard's sister, secretary to the Canadian delegation in London. That position was cleverly entrusted by Lord Carnarvon, the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs. Meanwhile the sentimental negotiations of John A. Macdonald were making better progress than the constitutional negotiations of the federal union of the Canadian provinces. Instead of achieving that union, John A. Macdonald achieved the marital union with Miss Suzan Bernard on February 16, 1867. John A. Macdonald had met his future wife, Miss Suzan Bernard, in Toronto in 1856 when she was staying at Lake Simcoe, Ontario.
On December 28, 1857, Mrs. Macdonald, his first wife, died, and in September 1865, Miss Suzan Agnes Bernard and her mother decided to move to London where her brother, Colonel Montague Bernard, was already living. It was a year later, in December 1866, during the Canadian delegation conference in London, that John A. Macdonald met again Miss Bernard with whom he had remained on friendly terms after her departure from Canada and following their first meeting in 1856, particularly due to Miss Bernard's brother, Colonel Montague Bernard who had been John A. Macdonald's private secretary when he lived in Canada. In 1866, he was professor of international law at Oxford University in London and, at the same time, secretary of the Canadian delegation conference in London. The wedding of John A. Macdonald and Miss Bernard took place in St. George's church, Hanover Square, in London, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, on February 16, 1867. At half-past twelve on the same day, John A. Macdonald and his intended wife were honoured with a special audience with Her Majesty the Queen Victoria. They were accompanied by Cartier, Galt, Tupper and Tilley, and Her Majesty the Queen was attended by Princess Louise and Lord Carnarvon, Colonial Secretary of State, who had arranged the protocol in every detail to please the bride and the bridegroom, the most important member of the Canadian delegation who was seeking from London the federal union of the provinces, which Lord Carnarvon would not accept under any circumstances.
England was resorting to diplomacy and strategy, while the Canadians naively thought they were sincere and truthful. Macdonald came in first to meet Her Majesty, and then the other parliamentarians followed one after the other. They had never met Her Majesty before. They were delighted and the Queen offered the highest praise to Macdonald and his colleagues. She hardly mentioned the purpose of the Canadian delegation's visit to London, but she said to John A. Macdonald:

It is a very important measure and you have always exhibited so much loyalty.

December 3, 1976
The Constitution

Lord Carnarvon stayed throughout the meeting with the Queen, John A. Macdonald and all the other Canadian delegates.
The day following the wedding reception which was held at the Westminster Palace Elotel, the very day when the Canadian delegates conference took place, Colonel Montague Bernard, John A. Macdonald's new brother-in-law and former private secretary in Canada, conveyed him a message from Lord Carnarvon, namely that the bridegroom would be appointed to the very important office of Privy Councillor in London, but that there were a small technical problem to be settled before that important appointment.
That technicality, as explained by a teacher of international law, was readily understood by John A. Macdonald: his appointment to the Privy Council in London would be impossible without his accepting the British North America Act. Now, a few days later, March 27, 1867, only one month after the marriage of John A. Macdonald, Queen Victoria signed the British North America Act. By accepting this act, John A. Macdonald legalized in advance the possibility that he might become a member of the Privy Council of London and Her Majesty, as he had been promised.

Because before 1867, or before the acceptance of the British North America Act, no right hon. member of Her Majesty's Privy Council could sit in the legislature, and after the British North America Act of 1867, John A. Macdonald could sit, as he did, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council of England in Canada. By the promise of eventually becoming a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, John A. Macdonald was compelled to take orders from them, and as prime minister of Canada he was appointed as a member of the High Commission to the United States to settle the terms of the Treaty of Washington with his brother-in-law, the Right Hon. Montague Bernard, on May 8, 1871.

History never told us why John A. Macdonald's brother-inlaw was also appointed to the London Privy Council on that date. After having served well the British Crown as a loyal British subject, and because he had not caused any problems for England with the Federal Union Act, and because of the very great facility with which he understood the message of Queen Victoria on his wedding day, and for having accepted the British North America Act, as promised he was appointed to the London Privy Council in July, 1872, and was sworn in at the St. James court in London.
And as the British North America Act stipulates-
The Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald could sit as the sole representative of the British government in Canada. This has been possible only through the acceptance of the British North America Act.

On February 19, 1867, just three days after John A. Macdonald's wedding and the commitment made by his brother-inlaw that he would eventually become a member of the Privy Council in London, the private bill for the British North America Act that had been drafted by the Colonial Office was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Carnarvon, the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, the chief of Colonel Montagu Bernard, new brother-in-law of John A. Macdonald and appointed by him secretary of the Canadian delegates in London.
The Canadian delegation that went to London to obtain Canadian sovereignty through a federal union, came back very disappointed with the official status of colony conferred by the British North America Act. But with his great power of persuasion, the chairman John A. Macdonald, convinced the majority of delegates that it was a good compromise, while his colleagues who had visited the queen with Macdonald were unsatisfied and considered the British North America Act as a complete capitulation. As for John A. Macdonald, while he had not achieved the federal union of the provinces, he had nevertheless tied a bound of matrimony and was promised, as a wedding gift, a seat in Her Majesty's Privy Council, to which he was indeed appointed in 1872.
Having stressed the negotiations, diplomacy, strategy and extra-parliamentary relations which paved the way for the British North America Act, I would now like to comment on the funny way with which the London Parliament dealt with this bill, because at the time of the first reading they did not discuss the preamble of the bill but rather the Quebec resolutions which were not even printed in the bill but merely attached to it.
At the time of the second reading, that is February 27, 1867, the Quebec resolutions were indeed printed but the preamble of the first reading had been substituted between the first reading and the printing of the bill for its second reading. This parliamentary process raised the protests of Mr. Had-field, member of the British House of Commons, as reported in the British Commons proceedings of the 26, 27 and 28 of February, 1867.
Mr. Speaker, in order to demonstrate the kind of wheeling and dealing which surrounded the passing of the bill, I would like to quote a statement by Sir John Bourinot in Canada: [English]
In "Canada under British Rule," chapter 8, page 215, he says that it is interesting to know that in the original draft of the bill the united provinces were called "the kingdom of Canada", but when it came eventually before parliament, they were designated as the Dominion of Canada, and the writer had it from Sir John A. Macdonald himself that this amendment did not emanate from the colonial delegates but from the imperial ministry. This act was drafted by the law officers of the Crown attached to the Colonial Office of which Lord Carnarvon was chairman. I quote Sir Frederick Rogers, undersecretary for the colonies, as follows:

December 3, 1976

They held many meetings at which 1 was always present. Lord Carnarvon was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in the power of presidency.
That is taken from "Lord Blachford's Letters", page 301. The law officers of the Crown drafted the bill to guide the delegates, the title of which read, "The Union of British North American Colonies and for the Government of the United Colonies". The preamble was as follows:
Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for the purpose of government and legislation would be attended with great benefits to the colonies and be conductive to the interests of the United Kingdom.
This was the desire of the Colonial Office, and it appears that it prevailed over the desire of the provinces, which was as follows:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union under the British Crown for the purpose of government and legislation based upon the principles of the British constitution.
Why was Lord Carnarvon chairman of the delegates from Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Was this not a violation of natural laws? If the British North America Act contained in some measure the desire expressed by the provinces, would it not have been simply a matter of common courtesy on the part of the noble lord who was chairman of the delegates from Canada and who introduced the bill in the House of Lords at least to have returned a copy of the act for the consideration and consent of the local legislature?
The British North America Act which was enacted by the imperial parliament was not the British North America Act our delegates desired. It did not conform with the Quebec resolutions. Instead of becoming a federal union, as the Quebec resolutions called for, Canada was demoted to the status of a colony under the name "dominion" which, according to the Interpretation Act enacted 22 years later, was defined as one colony. Had Canada become a federal union, an agreement between the provinces would necessarily have had to be signed and later ratified by the Canadian electorate. No such agreement was signed and the British North America Act has never been submitted to the Canadian electorate for its approval, without which there cannot be a legal constitution. It was not in order for the British North America Act in the form in which it was enacted to be ratified by the Canadian people because it was nothing but an ordinary imperial bill with which the imperial parliament alone had the authority. This parliament has always been a dominion parliament and not a federal parliament. Calling it federal will not make it such. A federal government can be created only by agreement among the provinces, and that agreement must be ratified by the electorate. This has not been done.
What reason, therefore, have we for calling this a federal parliament? Through the British North America Act the sovereignty of the Canadian people was withheld from them. Consequently, they were unable to federate. The British North America Act is not a constitution in the true sense of the word. It has been called a constitution and has been used as one, but that does not make it one. A federal constitution is an agreement between federating states, and it must be ratified by the people. The British North America Act is not, and cannot be,
The Constitution
a federal constitution. It was designed by the imperial authorities as a statute for the government of a colony, and obviously it cannot be used as the basis of an agreement for a federal union. Dr. Ollivier former joint law clerk of the House of Commons, at page 85 of the committee report on the British North America Act in 1935, said:
A confederation is a union of independent and sovereign states bound together by a pact or a treaty for the observance of certain conditions dependent upon the unanimous consent of the contracting parties who are free to withdraw from the union.
The definition indicates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as Dr. Ollivier, former joint law clerk of the House of Commons, said at page 85 of the report on the British North America Act in 1935:
Confederation is a union of independent and sovereign states bound together by a pact or a treaty for the observance of certain conditions dependent upon the unanimous consent of the contracting parties who are free to withdraw from the union.
This definition indicates that the status of sovereignty must precede confederation and that a federal union can be consummated only by the mutual consent of contracting states adopting a constitution.
Mr. Speaker, from the evidence which I have thus far submitted, I draw the following conclusions: first, the provinces of Canada desired a federal union; second, the Quebec resolutions provided for a federal union; third, the bill drafted by the Canadian delegates at the London conference also provided for a federal union; fourth, the Colonial Office was not disposed to grant the provinces of Canada their request for a federal union; fifth, the British North America Act, enacted by the imperial parliament, carried out neither the spirit nor the terms of the Quebec resolutions; sixth, Canada did not become a federal union under the British North America Act but, rather, a united colony. The privilege of federating, therefore, was still a future privilege.
Seventh, the parliament of Canada did not become the government of Canada, much less a federal government. It became merely the central legislature of a united colony, a legislative body whose only power was that of aiding and advising the governor general as agent of the imperial parliament. Eight, the British North America Act, as enacted by the imperial parliament, was not a constitution but merely an act of the imperial parliament which united four colonies in Canada into one colony with the supreme authority still remaining in the hands of the British government.

December 3, 1976
The Constitution

Mr. Speaker, of all the debates held on the history of Canada, the constitutional debate seems to be recurring most often. Although the opinions which were voiced here are most shocking, they nevertheless reflect what I consider as the only truth. However, we should not believe they are unfounded revelations since they are shared and have been made public by people whose competence is well known such as Dr. Ollivi-er, Doctor of Laws and former law expert in the House of Commons, Dr. Scantland, former Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Beauchesne, former clerk of the House of Commons, who appeared as witnesses before the Special Committee on the British North America Act of 1935. Further, the opinions voiced are similar to those expressed by Professor Roger Smith, an expert on constitutional matters and Mr. W. Kool, Member of Parliament for Jasper-Edson in the 40's.
Mr. Speaker, the remarks I am making today are the result of ten years of intensive research and are based on undeniable sources of work, research and competence. The British North America Act was nothing else than the recognition of a unified North American colony under the authority of the Imperial government in London. Moreover, this Act did not allow the formation of a government as such, but rather that of a Central Parliament and Provincial Legislatures subject to England. The statute of sovereign government would have given the provinces their sovereignty if the British Parliament had granted their request for a federal union.
But this sovereignty only remained a remote possibility because, by refusing to form a real confederation, the English Parliament denied the provinces the right to create:
A Union of Confederation of sovereign states created by treaty or by mutual adoption of a federal Constitution . ..
-according to the definition found in Mr. Bouvier's law dictionary.
It is therefore obvious that following the English refusal, Canada was not in 1867 a Confederation as requested in the Quebec resolutions, because the British North America Act should have been based on the Quebec and not the London conference. Indeed, while the Quebec resolutions contained 72 paragraphs, the British North America Act contains 147 paragraphs, that is more than twice as much.
Secondly, the so-called constitution of the British North America Act is not a contract between the provinces, since in 1867 no agreement had been reached among them. The most obvious evidence of that lies in the BNA Act having been amended six times between 1871 and 1918, namely in 1871, 1875, 1886, 1907, 1915 and 1918, five of which without the consent of or even consultation with the provinces.
This is indeed contrary to the concept of a contract or a confederative pact, as mentioned on page 59 of the Special Committee report on the British North America Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I notice that he has other points to make, but as his allotted time has expired, perhaps I should ask whether the House consents to let him complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Especially on the point he is trying to make. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thirdly, the British North America Act has never been either legal or valid as a Canadian constitution, because its preamble is wrong, there having been a change between two Parliamentary readings, as I demonstrated a while ago. Because of this procedural infringement, it is worthless as far as the constitution of Canada, a sovereign and independent state since 1931, is concerned.
Canada then has no constitution, since there is no certified copy in Canada to prove the agreement of the provinces. Although there was a central legislature, there was no centralized legal sovereign government in Canada following the signing of the British North America Act in 1867. At all events, the Statute of Westminster adopted on December 11, 1931 finally made Canada a sovereign country. Normally, Canada should have the right to change its constitution, if she had one, or to adopt a brand new one, by mutual agreement with the provinces, since it was to them that the new statute granted sovereignty.
Now this, and it is very important, Mr. Speaker, has not been allowed because section 7 of the Statute of Westminster stated that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930. Yet it would seem that were it not for this section, which however only applied to Canada since Australia and New Zealand were exempted from it, there would have been no federal government nor common constitution for the provinces, but they would rather have been fully sovereign and totally free to give themselves a constitution and to decide on which kind of central government they wanted.
And finally, to submit the whole thing to their citizens for approval or adoption. However, they were denied that most legitimate right to that unique and true independence, strictly because the then central Parliament in Ottawa wangled its way around the government in London and asked it to include Section 7 in the Statute of Westminster which gave it the right to keep such powers as it exercised since 1867, powers determined by the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, Section 7 is unconstitutional. Why? Because the government in London could, under no circumstances, without the consent of the provinces, transfer to Ottawa the power it held over the Canadian provinces, by including Section 7 in the Statute of Westminster.
The fact that this imposture resulted in the impossibility of changing the constitution on the one hand, and in the denial of the true sovereignty of the provinces on the other hand, did not seem to impress the central legislature of the time enough to make them hesitate before this supreme infamy. In view of those facts, Mr. Speaker, Canada's new status as sovereign state under the 1931 Statute of Westminster has never been submitted to the people for approval and consequently section
December 3, 1976

7 of this statute from which the federal government derives its present power-a government which still continues to submit us symbolically to the British Crown-is illegal and void. As a result, the Canadian provinces, which acquired their independence in 1931, do not have a constitution for they never voted on it. So the central government of Ottawa which, by constitutional pretention, takes its authority in section 7 of the Statute of Westminster, does not have any legal status because the parties to which the Statute of Westminster refers-the Canadian provinces-never did grant or give it such authority. In brief, Canada does not have any constitution. This explains why it is necessary to adopt one and to submit it to the people, as did Australia after the Statute of Westminster, and as suggested by Mr. Beauchesne and several other competent witnesses who appeared before the special committee on the British North America Act of 1935. The federal government has been governing this country for more than 40 years without any legal status because the newly independent provinces of 1931 never granted it any authority.
Through the Statutes of Westminster, the people of Canada and the provinces of Canada acquired their sovereignty. Since that time neither the provinces, by agreement, nor the people of Canada, by ratification, have delegated any of this sovereignty to a central government. The central government of a sovereign nation can acquire the power of disallowance, if such there be, only from the provinces which create and delegate authority to the central government. This has not been done in Canada. The Statutes of Westminster, in my opinion, now remove the obstacles to federation. By virtue of this act, the overlordship of the British people was relinquished and the people of Canada are now in full possession of their sovereignty. The provinces of Canada were given sovereign status in order that they might federate.
They could not federate without this status, but to date neither the provinces nor the people of Canada have acted upon this attainment of sovereign status. Legally, Canada is a state of anarchy and has been so since December 11, 1931. All power given to govern in Canada since the enactment of the Statutes of Westminster has resided with the provinces of Canada, and all power legally remains there until such time as the provinces sign an agreement and ratify a constitution whereby they delegate such powers as they desire upon a central government of their own creation.
Since December 11, 1971, the parliament of Canada has governed Canada on assumed power only. If we are to have a constitution, we must make one. We must do as Dr. Beauchesne suggested to the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935, when he suggested that we begin this new constitution by calling a constituent assembly of representatives from the provinces. This constituent assembly was to draft a constitution which would later be ratified by the people.
The Constitution
In the creating of this new constitution, provision can be made for its amendment. This would end once and for all the controvery that arises whenever an amendment to the British North America Act is contemplated. On page 125 of the report of the same committee Dr. Beauchesne had this to say:
The new constitution must leave nobody with a grievance. A spirit of conciliation should predominate. For these reasons, the task must be entrusted to an independent body in which all the elements of the country will be represented.
I, therefore, beg to suggest an imposing constituent assembly formed of eminent men coming from all parts of Canada. Provincial conferences attended by a few ministers meeting behind closed doors would hardly satisfy public opinion. The debate should be public. Again, as is said on page 129, whether our country should be changed from a dominion to a kingdom is also a subject which might be discussed. I would suggest that the country be called "The federated states of Canada".

Having enjoyed sovereignty since the Statute of Westminster, the provinces are the only ones that can proceed to a new distribution of powers. It is only through usurpation of powers that the federal government can even speak of a new sharing because it has been acting since 1931 as if it had a constitution. When the new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque, elected last November 15, will want to ask the population of Quebec whether or not it wishes to stay in confederation, he will be mistaken for Quebecers cannot be asked to opt out through a referendum since they were never so consulted to join it in the first place. In order to opt out, they had to opt in in the same way. Since the Statute of Westminster, Quebec and the other provinces are already separated because they are sovereign and if they still think they are part of the Canadian confederation, it is because they still believe in the myth of a constitution which still does not exist.
And when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) says that he wants to patriate the constitution, he perpetuates a myth; without this, the existence of a constitution is impossible. So the federal government is powerless among sovereign provinces because if the provinces of Canada stopped believing in the myth of a so-called constitution tomorrow morning-I am concluding my speech, Mr. Speaker-and if they believed in their own sovereign power, our constitutional problem in Canada would immediately be 95 per cent solved.
Mr. Speaker, a federal council without any executive or financial power was established in Australia in 1885 by an act of parliament, and in 1891 there was a federal convention to consider the establishment of a new constitution for Australia. It was rejected but it became the basis for the federal convention of 1897 and 1898 which opened the way to a constitution and which was approved by a referendum in 1899 and ratified by an act of Parliament on July 9, 1900; this gave birth to the Commonwealth of Australia on January 1, 1901. Mr. Speaker, since then Australia has a true constitution. Just prove to me when such a procedure was followed in Canada to give the country a constitution which is truly Canadian.

An eighth attempt was made by prime minister Pearson in June 1964. A great deal of work was done at that time under the aegis of the then minister of justice, the Hon. Guy Favreau.
There appeared what, was later called the Fulton-Favreau formula, since it took up again in part the formula put forward in the early sixties by Mr. Fulton. But once again it failed.
A ninth attempt goes back to the federal-provincial conference of February 1968 which evolved into a permanent constitutional conference. This constitutional conference, as you know, lead to the Victoria charter which also failed to find a formula agreeable to all parties.
A tenth attempt was made in April 1975 when the Prime Minister P. E. Trudeau made his proposal. During a dinner with the provincial premiers in April 9, 1975, the Prime Minister of Canada asked that the British North America Act be patriated without delay, according to the amending formula agreed to in Victoria, as concerns those parts of the constitution that cannot be presently amended in Canada.
The Prime Minister expressed the opinion at that time that this should be done without re-opening for the moment any other important constitutional issue. He said at the time that we could deal with that later after developing an amending formula and especially after taking that most important step, namely patriating the constitution.
The Prime Minister of Canada drafted some proposals and sent them to the provincial premiers on April 19, 1975. He wrote among other things: "It would be beneficial to patriate the British North America Act shortly before the 1976 Olympic Games. It would be an ideal opportunity, he said in his letter, for Her Majesty to attend a special ceremony in Ottawa, with all the provincial premiers in attendance, and to put the final touch to the historical proceedings pertaining to our constitution." Now, we know the rest, the Queen came to Canada, and there was no patriation of the constitution.
In April 1976, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) again sent provincial premiers, not a provoking, threatening letter as was suggested today in the motion put forward by the Social Credit Party, but a letter offering the premiers three specific, well defined motions. The first one, the easiest, reads:
.. . that we should at least repatriate . ..
-the Canadian constitution.
... it would be possible ... to include a provision under which parts of the constitution that are now unamendable, could be amended with the unanimous consent of Parliament and legislative assemblies, until such time as a permanent formula can be found and established.
That was an option open to the provinces.
... a second option ... would be to include a provision allowing the establishment of a permanent and more flexible amendment formula.
And finally, a third option which was put forward would:
... include in the patriation formula the entire content of the proposed proclamation ...
The Constitution
-which was enclosed in the letter. And the Prime Minister said in conclusion:
... we would avail ourselves not only of the patriation and amendment formula but also of the other provisions which were progressively worked out during the discussions which have been held so far.
And God knows, Mr. Speaker, how many discussions and talks there were during the past 50 years in order to repatriate the Canadian constitution. Now, when the hon. member for Shefford says that the government of Canada, through its Prime Minister, threatens the provinces, I suggest it is nonsense and unwarranted to make such remarks. It is obvious that one of the major reasons for our failure is that the provincial premiers have failed to come to an agreement. As you know, a series of meetings were held following the Prime Minister's letter of last April. The first meeting was held in Ottawa in June, 1976 and attended by the Prime Minister of Canada and provincial premiers. It was followed by a meeting in Edmonton in early August, and another in Toronto last October, just a few weeks ago. And the same headlines still appear in the press. I quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail, which says:
10 PREMIERS STALLED AGAIN ON BN A TALKS
And this one was published in The Press:


THE DEBATE ON PATRIATION WILL RESUME IN TORONTO IN OCTOBER
[Stage Direction]
-at the request of provincial premiers. Here is another headline from the Quebec Soleil:

[Stage Direction]
The real plain and basic matter is that the Canadian government would like to repatriate the Constitution; they would like this constitutional text to be here in Canada rather than in Great Britain but the problems we shall have to face remain the same-there must be unanimous agreement between all 10 provinces. Now, when the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said in the second part of his motion that the government should give the provinces the opportunity to draft a new Constitution, I must disagree with that suggestion and remind him that indeed, there is a Canadian constitution which concerns the elected provincial representatives as well as federal representatives. I find it surprising and amazing that a federal member would have been led to believe that there is no Canadian constitution and to abdicate its responsibilities towards Parliament advocating that the provinces and not the Canadian parliament has capacity to amend the Canadian constitution.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the minister, I have based my whole speech not on some personal views, but on the statements of individuals
1658

December 3, 1976
The Constitution
with greater expertise than myself and the minister in constitutional matters. I am referring to Dr. Beauchesne and Dr. Ollivier and their evidence given in 1935 on the British North America Act in Parliament.


Mr. Ouellet:: I have no objection that the hon. member should not endorse the words he has previously quoted. In any event, talking about expertise, I would like to quote again Mr. Jean-Charles Bonenfant, who in his book which was published by Les Editions La Presse under the title "La Constitution", said on page 29, and I quote:
There is another solution that is sometimes advanced by some politicians when they say: "Let us leave in London this old dusty document and let us write our own constitution and everything will be in order".
But those who still believe in the rule of law and who think that compliance is part of our tradition and our civilisation, and the best way to avoid trouble in the future, should however be reminded that legally speaking that part of the British North America Act which still comes under the British Parliament will continue applying to Canada as long as it hasn't been officially repealed by the same Parliament. In our system, a law simply doesn't die . ..
And the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) should listen to that-
. .. although it becomes obsolete.
There is no doubt that our constitution exists; there is no doubt and we must never forget that a constitution is the fabric of a country. In their constitution, the citizens of a country give shape to the type of life which seems best suited to their ideals and they develop government institutions best designed to promote its realisation.
Our constitution is old, very old indeed. Its roots go back to another century. It cannot be that bad, since over the years Canadians have been able to get by; but it is clear that it does no longer meet the demands of our modern era: television, jets, automobiles, did not exist when the Fathers of the Confederation wrote the constitution. But something remains beyond doubt: the efforts of the Canadian government, particularly under the thrust and the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau)-has gone beyond the call of duty in an effort to amend and improve our Canadian Constitution including its patriation.
I think that the federal government, more than any other government, has taken every possible care to meet that challenge and its own objectives. It is unfair and I insist on this point, as I would like all the hon. members of the House fully realize it-to claim that the very hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) lacks flexibility on constitutional matters. His government has published a series of papers clearly explaining the powers he intended to retain and the concessions he was prepared to make. We only have to refer to some documents published by the government: the Canadian Charter of Human Rights in January 1968, "Federalism for the Future" in February of the same year and "Federalism and International Relations", "Federalism and International Conferences on Education", in 1968, "The Constitution and the People of Canada" and "The Taxing Powers and the Constitution of Canada" in June 1969. Finally, we had a report entitled "Federal-Provincial Grants and the Spending Powers of Par-

liament". In December 1969, the government published a report entitled "Income Security and Social Services".
We have evidence that the Canadian government did all it could to clear the way and to create the conditions for dialogue and to promote the constitutional process. The federal government certainly cannot be faulted for inflexibility and immobil-ism. On the contrary, I think the major problem lies in the fact that the ten provincial premiers want to eat their soup, their meat and their dessert at the same time instead of going step by step, as we normally do, and having first soup, then meat before finishing the meal with dessert. This means, as far as the constitution is concerned, that we should start first by patriating the Canadian constitution and then we should try to find an amending formula which would be acceptable to all parties concerned. Then, we could negotiate new amendments to the Canadian constitution as far as taxation and responsibilities are concerned. Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential to go step by step and follow the recommendation of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and at least start meeting this goal, I mean the patriation of the constitution.
I cannot think that the new government in Quebec will not agree with the Canadian government to get rid as soon as possible of this last remnant of our colonial past: the Canadian constitution is still in London whereas it should be in Ottawa.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the peroration of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and his analysis of the non-status of the parliament of Canada, I want simply to reaffirm my faith in the parliament of Canada, in my right to be present in this chamber as the representative of the people who elected me, and my belief that this institution is fundamental to the existence of Canada as a sovereign nation. The motion before us today serves one purpose and one purpose only, and it is this: to bring the issue of constitutional reform out from the secret conclaves of federal-provincial conferences, down from the realm of the Prime Minister's intellectual musings and into the reality of parliamentary debate.
Free democratic countries regard their constitutions, whether they be bodies of law or bodies of conventions or a mixture of these two, as the sure foundation to their well-being. Canada is not different in this regard. We have been building our constitution for almost 110 years. It is a massive, even unwieldy instrument. It creaks and groans as it labours along, it allows for conflict and even misinterpretation-but given the will and the determination, it works.
The question is, do the governments who today are responsible for its implementation have the will and the strength to make it work? Like so many other Canadians, I am beginning to doubt it. Patriation of the constitution is an objective which all Canadians share. A few, I suspect, give it a much higher priority than do the majority. As an unabashed Canadian nationalist, I have long wanted to see the Canadian constitu-
December 3, 1976

tion domiciled in Canada. My leader and former leaders of my party have reiterated that sentiment on many occasions. The question is not whether or not we should have patriation, but how and to what extent it should take priority over the other issues that face the country.
Patriation should come about in such a way as to strengthen the bonds of confederation and confirm our commitment to our duly constituted institutions. It should avoid, at all costs, exacerbating the very real tensions that are increasingly evident in this country. Simple patriation carried out with the concurrence of the federal partner only-a procedure to which the minister referred as a last resort-would be a hollow symbolic gesture which, while it might serve to bolster the Prime Minister's ego, would be a divisive tactic, another needless irritant to the provincial partners. I very much doubt that such a move would have the endorsement of the majority of Canadians who, above all else, want to be reassured that the partnership which we call confederation is still that-a partnership.
Canadian sovereignty on symbolic issues cannot be expressed in a vacuum, devoid of reality. Canada is a federal state and always has been. Most Canadians have a healthy commitment to federalism and recognize the virtues of distributing governmental functions between a central government and governments of the component units of the federation. Indeed, that is what many of the important provisions of the BNA Act set out to do. Over a century of experience in the art of federalism has provided Canadians with workable political structure which is the envy of many countries throughout the world, given our complexities and diversities. Our federalism is itself an achievement, both substantive and symbolic; and it implies a rejection of the extremes of both centralism and decentralism.
To suggest that a document so basic to our federal structure be transferred from Great Britain to Canada without the agreement of the provinces is to ignore the fundamental basis of our political and constitutional system. Not only would this cause real damage to long-established relationships between the provinces and Ottawa but, more important, it would bring about such a transfer without any agreement as to an amending formula by which the document in future could be changed.
Simple patriation, even with the unanimous consent of the federal and provincial governments, while a laudable step in the right direction is still largely symbolic. Without federal-provincial agreement on an amending formula to ensure that what we put in place in Canada is a workable, amendable document and not something that is tied up in a blue or a red ribbon and kept on a shelf for decorative purposes-as would be the case for a document for which there is no amending procedure-we will have achieved an exercise in futility. Imagine the frustration of this chamber and of corresponding provincial legislatures of having the major body of law in Canada incapable of amendment. What a legacy for this
The Constitution
government and this parliament to leave to future generations! It would be nothing but a cop-out on the part of the government of the day.
As recently as in 1972, the Senate-Commons Committee on the Constitution of Canada, jointly chaired and dominated by the Liberal majority in the twenty-eighth parliament, stated:
It would be unwise to proceed with patriation in the absence of agreement on an amending procedure.
Canada is a mature nation. It is no longer an experiment. But if we are to grow in our maturity, symbolic gestures, however momentarily satisfying, are not enough. Maturity is gauged by substantive measures, and substantive measures, above all else, are based on trust. But that basic ingredient of trust, so necessary for sound federalism, has been grievously lacking in recent years as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has pursued the path of confrontation with the provinces. Until there is greater trust and greater mutual respect between the partners in confederation we will go on discussing symbolic gestures rather than the substantive realities which this country has to face.
I, for one, believe that the present federal government, given its past history of dictatorial utterances, unilateral moves and broken promises, is incapable of restoring trust and respect in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They appear neither to have the will to accomplish it nor, regretfully, even to see the need to accomplish it. A constitutional debate, whether it concerns patriation, the power to amend, or the redistribution of powers, is a debate to which all Canadians must feel they have the right to contribute.
I made reference earlier to the secrecy of federal and provincial conferences, the number of which has increased dramatically in recent years. If we stop to analyse it, we find that more substantial decisions about the future of this country are now being made at in-camera federal-provincial meetings than in all our combined legislative chambers. That is a trend about which I have serious misgivings. Very shortly we shall be faced with legislation dealing with new fiscal arrangements between the federal and provincial governments-massive fiscal arrangements which could drastically alter the economic bases of confederation.


John Allen Fraser: Face it fast.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Discussions have been going on for months on the singularly important matter. And where? Behind closed doors to which only a select few are privy.


John Allen Fraser: This is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: You are the government of the day. Start remembering it.


Ralph Goodale: You are ignoring the legitimacy of the ten provinces.
80005-37i/2

December 3, 1976
The Constitution


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Indeed it is wrong, and this is why there should be more openness in this whole process.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You guys eat too much beef.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members should await their turn to make a speech. Now they should let the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) continue her remarks.


Ralph Goodale: Let the lady speak.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: One expects continuing negotiation to be carried on with some degree of privacy, but surely on an issue of this magnitude the whole question of the new fiscal arrangements involving some $10 billion, and the fundamental concept of equalization, the matter should be debated in principle in this House prior to the start of negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: To do otherwise, as has become the practice, is to erode the influence, the integrity and the raison d'etre of this great national institution-parliament. The continuing erosion of the strength of this national institution lessens its credibility with Canadians, diminishes its meaning and encourages a drift into regionalism and parochialism. The country becomes the poorer for it, as region competes with region and Canadians lose their sense of Canadianism.
I have just returned from Israel. In that country nobody asks whether it is "rentable" to be an Israeli. Most of us forget what a diversity there is among the people of Israel. Its citizens and their fathers have come from all over the world, from many different national and linguistic backgrounds, from western, central, and eastern Europe, from Asia and Africa, from the greatest imaginable differences of economic and social backgrounds-not only the eminent scholars and scientists we have heard about but many thousands of the poor, the illiterate, the peasants of other lands for whom going to Israel from where they had lived was like going forward not one, but several, generations in time.
Some would say that what unifies Israel is that they have lived for almost 30 years in mortal peril of their existence. That is far from being the essence of the story. The essence is that Israel is an idea, and for that idea there have been enormous sacrifices and enormous achievement. I am not referring to the wars they have had to fight; I am thinking of what they have done in spite of war.
Canada, too, is an idea. The idea did not spring from the theory of government. Nobody left us a version of the federalist papers. The idea of Canada has evolved over 110 years. The year 1867 was important. It had to do with our vulnerability to the United States; it had to do with our trade and economic potential; it had to do with the preservation of language rights

and systems of law; it had to do with the failure of previous systems of government; it had to do with some peoples' vision of a "new nationality" across this continent. Yes, 1867 was important. But so were 1870, 1871, 1873, 1905 and 1949-


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -when the new provinces joined confederation and being a Canadian took on new aspects and new dimensions with added responsibilities, new perspectives. The Fathers of Confederation in 1867 did not have the last word about Canada, nor should the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) think that he has, or is, the last word on the subject. Nor should any prime minister or parliament hold that view.
Our search is not for an ultimate truth, either to find one or to impose one. Our duty is to pass on this country to our successors unified, vital, improved by our efforts with the expectation that further changes will be necessary as Canadian society changes.
The idea of Canada and the destiny of Canada will not be found in political theory or constitutional law. To talk to Canadians about their country exclusively in those terms is almost as sterile as talking about "federalisme rentable". No, Canada has not been the work of constitutional lawyers. The Canada we want to build cannot be defined or expressed or, indeed, realized in terms of distribution of powers, or as a set masterpiece of political theory. The average Canadian does not see it that way. What Canadian, if asked to explain his country or his feeling for his country, does so in terms of the British North America Act?
Canada has been a painstaking work of accommodation and reconciliation from the beginning. I am not referring only to differing points of view about language and culture, but also to the views of the anti-confederates in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and more recently in Newfoundland as dramatic examples, and the many accomplishments in the face of such events which have only been possible because of a spirit of accommodation in this country.
The blackest moments in our history and the most lamentable turning points have come when the spirit of mutual generosity and reconciliation has been set aside and partisan, sectional, or short term interests allowed to prevail. It happened even under the greatest prime ministers; the hanging of Riel under Macdonald, and the virtual abandonment by Lauri-er of federal responsibility for the educational rights of Franco-Manitobans.
However, the most shortsighted view of all is to see Canada today as a power struggle between contending governments in Ottawa and the provinces. Governments and their bureaucracies will always contend; it is in their nature to do so. That is not the problem of confederation today. The problem is that this country is becoming increasingly fragmented. But regionalism as a popular sentiment ceases to be a source of vitality for the country and becomes a menace when it is directed against something, and especially against national institutions
December 3, 1976

and national leadership. That happens when people become convinced that those institutions and that leadership do not represent what they are and what they mean to Canada. The result of that insensitivity is called alienation, and there is too much of it everywhere in Canada today.
It is said that the Prime Minister came into federal politics to fight Quebec nationalism. That may be his purpose, but it will not serve as a national purpose. Most Canadians would like to think their country has some higher and more positive purpose after 110 years. Suggesting that because the Quebec government proposes to have a referendum the federal government will have one in the rest of the country shows the paucity of this government's proposals.


John Allen Fraser: Absolute bloody nonsense; a national referendum is the stupidest thing you could be talking about.


An hon. Member:: Who is speaking here?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired. However, she may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Just ask John Fraser to be quiet and let Flora continue.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The attitudes and actions of this government have not been a force for unity but rather a cause of divisiveness and factionalism. The Prime Minister talks about tribalism. Nothing encourages a retreat to factionalism and regionalism everywhere in Canada more than the spectre of a national government which manifestly does not know about and cares little about the legitimate problems which concern people in different parts of the country in their daily working lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is needed is a unifying force. Parliament could still be that unifying force, but the government would first have to restore its integrity and credibility with this institution, the one institution that all Canadians hold in common.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to open by extending my congratulations to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and his colleagues for bringing forward in this House the subject we are discussing today. It is in striking contrast to the general tendency of the government of this country, which is to think that you could discuss the constitution, the fundamental law of Canada, anywhere except in parliament.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I hope that that will change and that we in parliament will be fully consulted about the things which are
The Constitution
fundamental to the future of our country. Having said that, I also must say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Shefford that we totally reject the motion he has brought forward today.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, since I am sure the House will give the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) additional time if he needs it, I would like to ask him a very brief question. Why is it that when there have been opposition days the hon. member's party did not use any of them for this important issue? If the government is to be blamed-and I am not too sure the hon. member is not correct-why is it that the hon. member did not raise this issue at the first opportunity, as the Social Credit Party of Canada has done, so that there could be a debate on this subject?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: He wasn't here.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have no trouble answering that question. We in this party have extremely good intelligence in terms of what is going on, and we knew the hon. member for Shefford was going to introduce this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You weren't even here.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In addition to that, we had a very important subject to bring before the House. It was a subject dealing with the mismanagement of important affairs in this country. We brought that forward, and we are certainly very happy that the hon. member for Shefford has given us a chance to speak on this subject, which we think to be of great importance.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Please speak about the new constitution.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think I would speak a little better if I were not told exactly what I am supposed to say.
I think it is conventional wisdom generally nowadays amongst many people, including parliamentarians, the press and even some learned people, to speak as if the constitution is unimportant and that the subject matter is fit only for discussion amongst learned constitutional lawyers. I can assure the House that it is a good subject for constitutional lawyers, but it is also a matter which affects everybody.
I want to quote from a document which I will be quoting from again. It is the final report on the Constitution of Canada of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons of which the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was one of the joint chairmen. It includes some 103 recommendations, some sage observations, and some suggestions which are perhaps not feasible. I do not know; I am not putting it forward as the last word of wisdom. All I am saying is that it is a rather remarkable thing that this report was produced in 1972, with many constructive proposals, and has practically never been discussed in this House. I think the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and myself have mentioned it once in a blue moon, but it has really not

December 3, 1976
The Constitution
been adequately discussed in this House. I hope recent events will cause it to be looked at seriously once more.
In chapter 3 the report reads:
The purpose of a constitution is to distribute the powers of government according to the wishes of a particular national community-
May I stop there and say that that, of course, is an important function. You cannot operate a system in a vast area like Canada, with different and disparate regions, without having some instrument that distributes powers. That is what our constitution does and must do if we are to have a constitution.
It goes on:
-and to enunciate its fundamental values and common goals. A constitution ought thus to be both an inspiration and a mirror for its community. Of these two ends its inspirational role is the more important. A community that is unable to justify its existence to itself will eventually find that it cannot survive by structure alone.
I should like to say that our present constitution is grossly inadequate in this respect. The British North America Act may have been wisely thought of and conceived by our forefathers, but its expression is in no way suited to the present time. We urgently need a new statement of principle and purpose which would include, for example, our devotion to the partnership of the two founding peoples or nations of this country. We need a constitution to state clearly our acceptance of basic, fundamental human rights such as could be elaborated in a constitutional bill of rights rather than the partial bill of rights we have at the present time. We need to refer to purposes, removing regional disparities, giving a fair deal to our native population, and we need a statement, in a preamble or prospectus, of the sort of things that the constitution should include and which should be put forward as an aim, as an objective of the activities of the people of Canada.
We urgently need that, and in the strictures given by the hon. member for Shefford with reference to the British North America Act at least he was totally accurate in the statement that it is obsolete and that it no longer fitted the facts, and that some new constitution was required. He was just in saying the reason it was like that was because it was conceived in a time of colonialism, conceived in a colonial era, conceived in circumstances that are no longer with us, and it therefore has become an anachronism that requires to be changed. But the resolution reads:
That this House condemns the central government for threatening the provinces with a unilaterally imposed patriation of a constitution which is obsolete and no longer responds to the aspirations of Canadians, rather than, as it should, leaving to the provinces the task of drafting a new constitution.
It is clear from this motion that he sees no participation whatever by representatives of this parliament; that the provinces alone are to get together in some sort of constituent assembly-a difficult thing to arrange-and out of that a constitution would emerge.
I think this parliament has an obligation of leadership in bringing about developments and changes that are required in
(Mr. Brcwin.]
our constitution. I reject the theory that we should be totally eliminated from the picture.
As for the hon. member's proposition that because of some of the imperfections and now anachronistic provisions of the BN A Act-which, of course, was not the only act-that somehow or other we have not even got a constitution, I reject that totally. He said it was not ratified by the people. Mr. Speaker, we have had millions of people vote in this country from every part of the country, people sit in this House from every part of Canada; there are federal-provincial conferences, and representatives of this government are throughout the world. He cannot turn back the pages of history. His essay was well done and interesting but it had no bearing on the realities of the facts.
Canada is Canada; this parliament is here; it is a fact of history. We do not propose to abdicate our function simply because of some essay about the imperfections in the way it was founded. If there are, and I believe there are, some remaining traces of colonialism which are in no way essential to us, then we have to get rid of them. That brings me to the question of patriation.
I doubt if any member of this House thinks that patriation is not desirable. The right to amend the constitution of Canada clearly at the present time rests with the imperial parliament. They do not want that responsibility, and it is a most obvious anachronism that it should exist. The reason it exists is that we have been unable to agree to the amending formula which must go with repatriation. I think it was the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who said, and I am paraphrasing her, that it would be absolutely ridiculous to think we could suddenly bring some document over from England, take it from Westminster and put it here or somewhere else in Canada, and say that now we have the piece of paper and it is repatriated, unless we make it a living thing. The living thing would fill in the serious gap in the present situation, and that is that there is no method of amending, no method except the implied one, of going back to ask the imperial parliament all over again to assume responsibility for the future affairs of Canada. That would be absolutely silly.
If the proposal is to repatriate the constitution without an amending formula, then I say it would be going through a parade of words which would satisfy nobody's national ego and would be a foolish and futile gesture.
We do not have to worry too much about an amending formula. In my judgment a very sensible compromise was arrived at-not fully ratified, it is true-at the Victoria conference. It came between the two extremes: those who said that the federal parliament should unilaterally amend the constitution of Canada, which I think would be quite wrong and quite impossible, and the other extreme which gave absolute powers of a straitjacket-which put the constitution in a straitjacket requiring unanimity of every province. We went through that in the last decade.
We had the Fulton formula, the Favreau formula, then the Fulton-Favreau formula. The basic weakness of those formulas was that they proposed unanimity before any change could be
December 3, 1976

made. That meant the smallest province-and I point no finger at the province which is the smallest because some of its representatives are the most useful ornaments we have in the House-would have the power to prevent the will of the people all the way across the rest of Canada in regard to the fundamentals of Canada. This is an absurdity. Such a formula, an absolute straitjacket a la Fulton-Favreau proposal, would give it completely unlimited bargaining power to demand not only an unreasonable attitude toward changes in the constitution but special concessions because of obstinacy and such things as it might want to get. They would say, "We will do such and such a thing" and let it go through. That is not suitable.
The Victoria formula provides for a measure of consensus. In my view it provides justly for the two major provinces to give consent before changes are made.
One of our members has suddenly sprouted out as a constitutional expert, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson). He has objected to the fact that some constitutional change or repatriation would give a veto to the province or legislature of Quebec. I have never heard him object that it would give a similar veto to the province of Ontario. I do not understand the difference in principle between the two.


Mr. Isabelle:: You do not understand that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not think he understands it either. Frankly, the Victoria formula is a perfectly reasonable formula, consensus but not veto. I do not know why it cannot be adopted. It could be adopted as a formula both for repatriating the constitution and creating a form of amendment and it could be the start of a totally new approach.
I think with some confidence that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is perfectly correct in saying that under our present legal rules, leaving out conventions for the moment, a unilateral request from this parliament would be enough to persuade the British government to act and make the amendment being sought. However, what is legal is not necessarily sensible.
It would be extremely foolish at this time of great sensitivity, as far as the future of Canada is concerned, for the Prime Minister to seek to impose this. I am glad to know that he has yielded gracefully-although I did not observe the grace-to the suggestion made by the new Prime Minister of Quebec that this particular subject not be debated at the immediately forthcoming conference. It has to be dealt with sometime, but I do not think there is any great need to rush into repatriation at this time. It is not our major problem.
This debate on the constitution enables me to say one or two things that may not be strictly relevant to the resolution. I want to announce, as others have, including the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, my firm belief in the future of a federal Canada, of a united Canada. We do not wish to see this country broken up. There are many reasons for that. It will be our function as members of parliament in the next few
The Constitution
years to get out and see that the people of Canada understand some of the reasons.
In my judgment one of the basic reasons is that to break up the federal nature of Canada would greatly weaken us in our international role. We have an important contribution to make in the world as a whole. I have been told that by people who were not just trying to flatter me as a Canadian, but people who have thought about it. They believe there is a great deal that Canada can do.
One of the sources of great strength of Canada in the international world is that we are bilingual by and large, and that we represent two different founding races. We are, of course, enriched by cultures from other parts of the world. However, this fact of bilingualism and biculturalism adds tremendous strength to the international image of Canada.
I want to explain to our constituents and others throughout the country our contribution to dealing with some of the main forces that indirectly, intentionally or otherwise, threaten the independence of our country. Let us never forget that we are the neighbour of an immense super power with tremendously attractive politics. Neither French speaking nor English speaking Canada is desirous of being weakened vis-a-vis our neighbour. We are friendly with our neighbour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was something else I wanted to say. However, I certainly will not have time to elaborate on it in two minutes. Those who seek some separation of one part of Canada from another have failed to count the costs, the complications, and the difficulty that will inevitably arise. It is fine to say we are doing it in a nice friendly way, that we will have customs union, and this and that. All of these things are matters of dispute and difficulty. They might lead to a great deal of conflict and trouble within our two parts or nations of Canada if we have to do that.
May I conclude. I had intended to elaborate a little more on where my party stood over the years on these matters. However, another occasion will do for that.
It would be a tragedy if we were disunited. If we are not to be disunited, we must have an attitude of flexibility and understanding. We must have an imaginative attitude, and we must have an attitude of good will.
I appeal to all Canadians-there are not too many here this afternoon, but they are distinguished ones-to do all they can at this time by showing understanding, flexibility, good will and imagination to keep our country together with a new constitution, a new vision of what Canada can be.


Mr. B6chard:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

The Constitution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) on a point of order.


Mr.   Bichard@: On a point of order. Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   Bichard@: First I wish to congratulate him for his profession of faith in the unity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order.


Mr.   Bichard@: -the means. No, I will put a question to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. First, the member must be asked if he wants to answer the question.

Does the hon. member agree to accept a question from the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bichard)?


Francis Andrew Brewin: If I can, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Mr.   Bichard@: Mr. Speaker, if we want to preserve Canadian unity, as the hon. member certainly does, should not the CBC, which could be an important tool for the preservation of Canadian unity, change its attitude and work in the direction indicated in the legislation, failing which we ought to get rid of this Crown corporation?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed agree with the implication of the question. The CBC was created for that purpose. If it fails to carry out that purpose, it is failing what it is authorized by this parliament to do. As far as I am concerned, if there is any way of getting it to do better, I will be glad to endorse it.


Mr. Renl Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the election of November 15, 1976, whose results I had anticipated in my speech of November 6 when I appeared as a candidate for the leadership of the Social Credit Party of Canada, have proven and will prove again and again as months go by the correctness of policies I had been advocating.
Canada has now begun the irreversible process of modifying its constitutional framework. For any reasonably clear-headed person, this situation had been foreseeable from time immemorial. It is interesting to find that, without prior consultation, at the other end of the country, Dr. Brian A. Brown of 17, 92nd Avenue in Dawson Creek, British Columbia, whom I had the privilege to meet on Tuesday November 23, 1976,

arrived at the same conclusions. In his as yet unpublished book, of which he gave me a copy for the media and for which he had obtained the co-operation of the new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, he advocates almost exactly the opinions that Rene Levesque and myself are upholding. The only logical attitude the federal Parliament must take is to plan the ways to rebuild this vast Canada of ours. As for me, I shall fiercely defend this point of view, both in Parliament and within my own party. I do not object to being an ally of the new government of Quebec on the federal scene. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to show how it is possible to come to the same conclusions at both ends of the country, by quoting from the preface to Dr. Brown's book:
The purpose of this book is to assist English speaking Canadians to appreciate the positive reasons for suporting the aspirations of French Canada, up to and including the independence of the Province of Quebec, and to suggest the possibility of an exciting future for the rest of the country.

A little farther down, Mr. Brown adds:

Some may say that I am oblivious to the many problems Canada faces or that I am too hopeful about our prospects. This is the best known part of the Canadian complex-the belief that nothing truly significant could happen here. Nonsense! If any part of the world can lay claim to a bright prospect for the future, it is Canada. Things could go either way for us: we have the capacity to ruin one of the most fortunate parts of the world or to launch a new initiative toward the fulfilment of a Canadian destiny.
Rene Levesque is truly a very special Canadian. His contribution to this work and his personal encouragement have meant much to me. I congratulate him on his recent electoral successes. This book is offered as the starting point for the dialogue which responsible political leaders in the rest of Canada will now wish to join with Mr. Levesque.

That is the only healthy approach-


Mr.   Bichard@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to listen to the lucubrations of the hon. member for Bonaventure-fles-de-la-Madeleine.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that it is usual in this House, when quoting from a document, to table it. So, I would ask the hon. member to table the book in question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Champlain is not required to table a document.


René Matte: There it is, Mr. Speaker. The only fault with the book is its red color. This is the only healthy approach to the new situation which has developed in this country following the recent provincial elections.
December 3, 1976

In all this hubbub of cacophonous reactions from all quarters, we may have forgotten the only reaction which really counted, that of the Quebec people. What did happen in la Belle Province on November 15? Whether you were a white-collar worker, a blue-collar worker, a wage-earner, a farmer, an unemployed person or someone on social welfare, you all felt this puff of fresh and vitalizing air over the province of Quebec. First of all, it was a sound lesson taught to a spineless and unscrupulous government which was sleeping on his laurels after its tremendous victory in 1973. It also proved that the Prime Minister of this country was right last spring when he went to Quebec City to box the ears of his old friend "Ti-Pit" while partaking of a copious meal with this "hot dog eater", as he called him.
Mr. Speaker, I am telling you, the people of Quebec had the feeling that the sweet breeze of liberty and independence was following in the wake of this terrible sweeping storm. Many things have occurred which induce the people of Quebec to accelerate from now on the pace of history. One of those things is worth mentioning and it is the fantastic contribution made by the present Prime Minister, the hon. member for Mount Royal.
Indeed, since that famous 1967 conference, where the then minister of justice confronted his federalist thesis with that of the then Quebec Premier, the lamented Daniel Johnson, who waved the flag of equality or independence, the chips are down. Obstinately, paradoxically and at times arrogantly, the leader of the federal Liberal Party did everything in his power to force all Canadians, and in particular Quebecers, to become aware of their own identity.
The more he attempted to convince them of the value of bilingualism, the more every one of the Canadian ethnic group realized that they wanted to preserve their own language. The more we tried to make regional disparities disappear, the more each area wanted to jealously protect its prerogatives. The more attempts were made to set up a centralizing federalism and a central government, the more the provinces took care to safeguard their rights and privileges. As a good dyed in wool Quebecer, I must congratulate the Prime Minister for having been instrumental in that essential and salutary crisis.
However, he carries on his exceptional work doggedly, without flinching. As early as election night on November 15, his reaction seen by millions of televiewers made a sensation. He easily convinced a great number of citizens who had not voted for the PQ that it was essential to support the new government in order to achieve independence. His spontaneous statements leave no doubt; he shouts: "Long live a united Canada" so as to ascertain "Long live a free Quebec." I fully agree with him.
One day, history will recognize the efficiency of his action. We must realize where the true problem lies. It is not a matter of pitting the supporters of federalism against the supporters of independence; it is rather a question of recognizing that like the other Canadians, the people in Quebec will find their identity one day. Recently a good friend of mine who is now lawyer in Sherbrooke, Mr. Georges Labrecque, wrote a paper on the subject. This article was published in the newspapers Le
The Constitution
Devoir and La Tribune. I received a photostat of the original from which I shall quote extensively with your permission:
It is not possible to win a Quebecer to endorse independance. He himself feels this need or not. Endorsing this idea is a phenomenon of perception rather than an act of understanding. It is a mistake to believe that merely through logical arguments or incentives, someone will endorse independence. Such endorsement results from an awareness. The latter comes from accumulated actions which lead a person to seek his identity. This group identification evolves by means of comparisons with other entities. As long as our people called themselves "Cana-diens" and called the others "English", the identity problem did not arise but once they realized that they were not or were no longer "Canadiens", the search was on. It is a long but inevitable process. The group is redefining itself. Once the definition is complete, a new nation is born. Territory delineation follows the collective feeling of belonging. A true nation lives first in the heart of its inhabitants.
The more television, radio and publicity make the other entity known, the more acute becomes the awareness. The more the definition and identification process of a Quebecer is stepped up, the more the gap between him and the "Canadien" widens. The campaign of propaganda conducted by the federal government to strengthen national unity proves to be the ideal process leading to independence.
For generations, Quebecers did not make any comparisons. They were themselves and they identified themselves with Canada because they were Canada. They are now discovering another Canada.
The traditional nationalism met the aspirations of the times. To all intents and purposes, it did not destroy the established patterns. Henri Bourassa's nationalism was the weapon of the times, if nothing but a defensive weapon. Besides, it was well suited to the people's will, since the great majority still identified with the word "Canada".
In Papineau's time, identification through comparison was not necessary. National identification was a matter of fact. At that time, the problem was not one of national identification, but of liberation. Liberation was not the mental phenomenon it is today, it was a confrontation with power. The conquerers' bondage was recent and the fear of external domination remained.
Young people today identify themselves naturally. Identification as a Canadian is too complicated for it does not square with reality. The identification with Quebec is theirs, the problem is simple, they look at the patterns of others and reject them. By discarding established principles, by defining themselves they identify with the Quebec community. Whether they are politically oriented or not, they are Quebecers. The teachers cannot do anything about it; the young people reject offhand the definition of "Canadien" that their parents are trying to foist on them.
During World War I, Quebecers became collectively aware-they identified themselves. The war phenomenon was tremendous, the two solitudes found themselves facing a common problem, but they found themselves face to face: the two nations had an entirely different position on war. The issue was important and the positions were poles apart. During World War II, the phenomenon occurred again: communications improved between the groups and the identification went further on. A party-the Bloc populaire-was born. Its success in terms of popular vote was amazing. The communication of national identification was accidental and temporary, so the project aborted.
Around the sixties, bombs exploded. Some became aware of a reality that they wanted to bring to the fore. It is true indeed, there are two peoples in Canada; perhaps two nations, nobody knows. Ignorance used to prevail. The true Canada is born. There are French-Canadians and English-Canadians here. The masks are removed, people are wondering. There are two of us in the same house. Are we married? Do we have a contract? English-Canadians would watch us coming out of our box and ask: What does Quebec want?
For us, it was difficult to bear. Others had taken our name and even questioned our right to be here. They were awe-struck as they watched us get out of our box. The French-Canadians realized that they had not even been noticed-our people then got down on the street and started to demonstrate. Saint-John the Baptist Day proved not enough; the time of peaceful marches was over, people got tough and started smashing things around.
But, Ottawa had known the situation for along time. Now they knew that the people knew, and that desperate ills call for desperate remedies. Pearson,
1666

The Constitution
Diefenbaker and others had one idea in their heads: national unity. To expect two solitudes to remain peacefully apart was no longer possible, and people knew that they were living in the same house. As the two cultures wanted to live, they would have to learn how to live together.
Mr. Speaker, this attempt at merging two different groups has indeed failed because, whether we want it or not, there is now a Canadian issue. It is the duty of this House to stay calm cool-headed and forward-looking. Now the provinces must have priority. They alone can indicate, through a referendum if necessary, which powers they wish to keep under their own jurisdictions and which ones they are willing to entrust to a central administration. However, we can already see that the national currency would remain under the control of the government of the Canadian common market, while credit would be under the exclusive control of provinces. Each province would use its actual credit by calling upon the financial services of the Bank of Canada Branch. For instance, Quebec and Ontario would be responsible for credit distribution just like Hydro-Quebec and Ontario Hydro are responsible for the distribution of electricity. The federal government could not en danger the financial credit of each province, and neither would any province be able to endanger that of another province.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to quote a passage from my publicity pamphlet which was distributed during our convention on November 6 and 7 last. It is entitled: "A New Canada", and I quote:
In this vast country of Canada, irresponsible governments have succeeded in creating a lack of understanding, resentment and even hate! People do not even know each other from one region to another, but they still cordially detest one another. This causes disastrous stands to be taken and doubtful policies to be developed.
We are adults, but we still fight like children to know who is responsible for whom and for what. We are unable to determine clearly provincial and federal jurisdictions. Yet, some people are interested in maintaining this ambiguous situation which often verges on ridicule!
Quebec might vote for independence very shortly and the government proposes to patriate the constitution! They want to impose another language against the rights and privileges that should be granted to any human being.
And yet there is a solution to this problem. Each Canadian entity should be allowed to choose its own rights, privileges and jurisdictions. Not only Quebec but also Ontario, the Maritime provinces, the Prairies and British Columbia would be new states; they would determine their own jurisdictions and those they would share jointly within a true confederation which would bring about a new and diversified but really harmonious Canada.
We should no longer advocate unconditionally that out-ofdate system which, as was clearly proved by my colleague from Shefford has never been anything more than John A. Macdonald's obsession.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). I would have liked to try to answer in French if my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, had not already done so in very eloquent French. In the circumstances, I prefer to speak in English.
[Mr. Matte.)
The hon. member for Shefford treated us to a very interesting speech, but I must admit that for a long time I was quite lost in discovering what was its possible point. It was a very interesting historical account, a combination of one part fantasy with another part of unwarranted inference from historical facts, aided by a great deal of purple prose descriptive of the events of the 19th century in language that was worthy of that century, and supported from time to time by actual quotations from historical documents.
This melange was such that it was only when he was well along in his speech that it was possible to ascertain the point of it all. The point, as I understand it, is that Sir John A. Macdonald betrayed the people of this country in order to gain a wife and an honour from the Queen. The alternate theory behind the historical exposition, if I might call it that, of the hon. member for Shefford was that a federal system can only be a federal system if it corresponds to the very narrow definition which the hon. member would wish a federal state to have. It was in the context of this Procrustean bed that he analyzed all of the constitutional history and law.
I think we should look only briefly, because I have a number of different points I want to touch on, at the actual historical facts at the time. It may be that people who live in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick could make some kind of claim that their governments did not approve the Quebec resolutions on which the act of 1867 was based, but no such claim is possible for those who live in the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec.
In the combined province of Ontario and Quebec a resolution was introduced in the parliament of 1865. That resolution, which was for the adoption of the Quebec resolutions of the previous year, was supported by that assembly by a vote of 91 to 33. I think it worth noting that, although there were not the divisions of Ontario and Quebec existing at that time in a legal sense, the majority of French members of the assembly also supported this resolution, the vote of the French members being 27 in favour and 22 opposed. However you look at this, Mr. Speaker, whether you look at it as a vote of that assembly as a whole or as a vote of the English and French members, there is no doubt that both groups as well as the whole assembly favoured the Quebec resolutions.
I will not deal with the situation in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I think most historians and political scientists are satisfied that the legislatures of those provinces through appointed delegations did eventually accept confederation. We are concerned here, as a result of the motion presented by the hon. member for Shefford, about the attitude of the people in Ontario and Quebec.
He attempted to draw a sharp distinction between the Quebec resolutions of 1864 and the actual act of 1867, the British North America Act. There were a few verbal differences. It is true that the British authorities did not want us to have the title for the country that we wanted. I believe that
December 3, 1976

originally the Fathers of Confederation wanted the name the United Kingdom of Canada, and I suspect most Canadians today are rather happy that that suggestion did not carry and that the word "kingdom," which was conceived by the British as being unacceptable to the Americans, was eventually cast aside in favour of "dominion", a word which itself is not considered by everyone to be a full description of our status at the present time.
There were some other verbal changes, mostly as a matter of putting the resolutions into legal form. The chief objection the British raised at that time to the Quebec resolutions was in respect of the Senate. They wanted a provision for the appointment of additional senators in the case of deadlock in the Senate, and indeed that was adopted as part of the final bill.
These are the changes, and the only changes, that were made between the act of 1867 and the Quebec resolutions of 1864. There is no substantial difference. Any difference in verbiage does not indicate a difference between a conception of the union which was held by the people in Ontario and Quebec on the one hand and by the British government on the other. It was common coin at that time that we were dealing with colonies which in a sense were self-governing, but nevertheless colonies which in many respects, especially in defence and foreign affairs, were subject to Great Britain.
I would be the last to say, since I was involved in a report which criticized very strongly this document, the act of 1867, that the British North America Act as it stands is satisfactory. I think it is precisely because it was conceived in this colonial atmosphere, and because of other changes in the world which have taken place in the course of time, that that Act is no longer satisfactory as it is. I have said so in writing many times. But this is not to say that it was not what the people wanted. It was what the Fathers of Confederation wanted, even though it may not be what we want. I do not think we do our cause any useful service today, whether it be the cause of the Social Credit party or the cause of any other party, in looking at historical facts in a way other than that which is strictly factual.
To come back to the Procrustean bed I have mentioned, to which the hon. member would confine federalism, he quoted some definitions of federalism. There are hundreds of experts in this area, of whom he quoted two. One could look at the classic analysis of people like K. C. Wheare and others. Wheare regarded Canada as a quasi-federalism. Other people have classified it in different ways.
In a very interesting paper of few years ago Professor Mallory of McGill spoke about five faces of federalism in Canada, and suggested that Canada itself had passed through all those stages of federalism. In other words federalism is not a single thing. It is a living reality. There is no way in which we can adopt some abstract definition of federalism which is taken by someone from observing the American constitution, probably before 1867, and say that if it is not like this it is not federalism.
One of the definitions of federalism which is given, and which I think is a general one which is reasonably descriptive,
The Constitution
is by W. H. Riker from the book "Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance" published in 1964. I quote this because it is an American authority and can be presumed to have no axe to grind in respect of any debate within Canada. Riker defines federalism as a constitution which provides for two levels of government, each of which has some guarantee, even though merely a statement in the constitution, of its contained autonomy within its sphere. In other words there are two kinds of governments, each having a certain degree of authority but no particular kind of origin, no particular kind of amending formula, no particular kind of mechanism for bringing it into operation initially. Those things are determined by historical fact and not by the definitions of political scientists. The fact that the hon. member has been able to find two from the multitude of people who have given useful quotations proves nothing about the significance of federalism in Canada.
He also quoted the Statute of Westminster and suggested that our government here has been, if I can find here his whimsical phrase, in a state of anarchy since December 11, 1931. The Statute of Westminster was basically a document of liberation for the self-governing dominions. It recognized what had been evolving and happening up to that time, but because of the fact that Canadians could not agree on how to amend their constitution then, and as a matter of fact we still haven't as we know, we were exempt from some provisions of that legislation. Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster, which my friend opposite quoted several times, says: "Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Act" and so on.
In other words it was not affecting what was already existing. It was not destroying it. It was leaving it untouched. It was saying that with the agreement of Canadians we are not going to do anything about this. It goes on in subsection 3 to provide that the already accepted division of powers between parliament and the legislatures in Canada should remain intact in the future as in the past without being altered by this document, the Statute of Westminster.
I think then we come to the essence of the resolution which has been presented by members of the Social Credit Party here today, that it should be the provinces which should draft a new constitution. As I said, I agree with them that we would be better off with a new constitution, but I am far from agreeing with them that this is a matter which belongs only to the provinces. We live in a country with two levels of government, and obviously the federal government has at least as great a role to play in drafting a new constitution as do the provinces. Our country has been proceeding on that basis for 100 years. He who would suggest that we have been living in illegality for 40 years or 60 years or 100 years is living in an unreal world.
I want to say a few words about the amending formula itself because this is a matter of some interest today. I listened to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) earlier talking about the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution which stated that we did not believe we should
80005-38i/2

December 3, 1976
The Constitution
patriate the constitution to Canada without an amending formula. I am still very much of that mind. I think that it would be sheer folly for us to attempt patriation of the constitution without having some agreement as to what we could do with it once it arrived back. This would be putting us in a situation of unparalleled rigidity in a modern state, a situation in which we would probably not be able to amend the constitution at all or, if we did, it would be because of some emergency which had arisen which was so extraordinary that it forced the hand of all of us. But that is a poor way to draft a constitution. A constitution should be the product of mature reflection, and should reflect all realities of the country, not just those which may be perceived as being most pressing during a sudden emergency.
I am very pleased that the government has kept its options open on this matter and that no decision has been made that anything of this kind will happen. Indeed it is hard to imagine that the government would proceed to force its will on the provinces in this respect for the sake of patriation without a formula. I would be quite happy to support the government of Canada in effectively using its unilateral power to impose an amending formula-if we were to have an amending formula along with patriation-provided the amending formula were something as reasonable as the Victoria charter which provides for a reasonable voice for all parts of the country: a majority of six provinces plus the federal government with two central provinces, two from the east and two from the west concurring in a proposed amendment. If it came to that, I think that might well be a proposal which would be worth enacting. It would be worth while for this parliament to use its power by way of a resolution to ask the British parliament-with or without the consent of the provinces if it cannot be obtained- to proceed to a formula of that kind. But to use the unilateral power-which we really possess only once under this act- merely with respect to patriation, because once we patriate the constitution we would no longer have the ability to go to the British parliament, would be to plunge ourselves into a constitutional pit from which I can see no exit. As I say, our government wisely has not committed itself to that course of action.
It would be unrealistic to talk of any of these subjects today without recognizing the fact that the whole situation has changed as a result of the installation of the Partie Quebecois government in the province of Quebec. Up to now I have been talking about these questions, and especially the amending formula, as if the situation were the same, but it is not the same and we have to take this new reality into account.
Another hon. member suggested it is worth looking back for examples, especially to the report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. That report recommended both more decentralization and more centralization, more decentralization with respect to cultural and social affairs, and more centralization with respect to economic affairs. I believe, the report in balance came down on the side of more decentralization, if one can work out such a balance. I think it is worth while looking back to this report because it is based on

principle. It does not attempt, on the basis of a momentary crisis, to decide what should happen, but rather it proceeds on a longer term basis.
I have to take issue with the leader of the NDP who, in his television address last week, said, after correctly quoting what the committee recommended, that instead of encouraging the implementation of such proposals-that is proposals of the constitution committee-the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has totally ignored this all-party report. These are not the facts.
I do not have time to go into all the ways in which the government has implemented that report in the last 4'/2 years since its presentation, but let me give a brief recital of the respects in which government policy has been formulated along the lines recommended by that committee. I will list them briefly. They are: official bilingualism in the constitution; multiculturalism; tri-level conferences between the provinces and municipalities; a broader equalization formula with respect to bringing the municipal level of government into account in equalization; sharing of the family allowances mechanism; broadcasting-we recommended greater provincial powers with respect to educational broadcasting; appointment of senators from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories; an entirely new structure of appointing senators; paramount power with respect to foreign ownership and with respect to the problem of national unity, a power which the federal government has been assuming more and more; the whole movement toward decentralization, which is perhaps the most prominent aspect of implementation within the federal government itself; and reconfirmation in that report of positions which the federal government was taking before that time on such matters as openness with respect to Senate appointments and appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and with respect to limitations on the spending power.
All of these are ways in which the report is continuing to be implemented by the federal government. I think this indicates that we have a good deal of leadership provided by the federal government, even with respect to decentralization, but as the Prime Minister pointed out last week-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse the privilege of the House and I will be very brief in concluding my remarks, although there were quite a few things I intended to say in addition.
As the Prime Minister pointed out in his television address last week, let no one think that this continual movement toward decentralization which is being sponsored and encouraged by the federal government will solve the problem which was raised in Quebec by the Parti Quebecois. This does not mean we can stop this movement, but certainly any
December 3, 1976

program of attempting to make concessions along those lines on a unilateral basis would not aid the situation.
I am one of those who support the notion of a national plebiscite on the question of the future of Quebec.


John Allen Fraser: You must be crazy.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I believe it should be taken not after the plebiscite in the province of Quebec but at the same time. The national plebiscite should be the only plebiscite, and I think the future of Canada will be determined as much-


John Allen Fraser: May I ask the hon. member a question? I am really astounded, may I say with respect. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that Canada is indivisible. That is the concept that the Prime Minister has been asking us to accept, whether we happen to be French speaking Canadians or English speaking Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was rising to ask a question, and if so I want to have the consent of the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan).


Mark R. MacGuigan: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but there has to be a bit of a preamble to my question. I am sure the issue the hon. member is raising is of great importance to the country. I am astounded, and I do not say this is an argumentative sense. It seems to me that the issue the Prime Minister, my leader, and other leaders in the country are talking about is that this country is an indivisible one. It has also been said that if we accept that, how can we take the position that there should be endorsed by the Parliament of Canada a national referendum on something which is not of itself legitimate? I realize that the hon. member is sincerely concerned about this issue. So am I and so are other hon. members of the House.
I also have in mind the hon. member's considerable expertise in the law, for which I have great respect, but how, if constitutionally and legally this country is indivisible, can we take a course which offers a policy which puts the whole divisibility of this country into issue with the endorsement of the Parliament of Canada of a national referendum? We just cannot logically have both, and it is a very dangerous notion to put forward. I ask the hon. member to respond to that because I had hoped that the Prime Minister put forward that statement only in a passing and casual way. It concerns me a great deal and it concerns other hon. members when the hon. member, with his distinguished legal background, comes in to the House this afternoon and endorses this in a more significant way than, I hope, the Prime Minister did.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member opposite well enough to know that he is asking his question in good faith, and I will respond in the same way. I am making this statement only for myself. I am not making it for my
The Constitution
party, my leader or anyone else. It is what I believe. I believe this because I do not see this as being a matter of law.
Legally speaking, of course, Quebec cannot secede, and this country must continue, but the life of a country is not just the law. It is also made up of social events, history, and what is happening now, and we are confronted by a situation in which what is in question is precisely the will of the people to continue the legal arrangement.
I do not agree with the attitude of Rene Levesque that this issue will be decided in Quebec alone. I think this issue should be decided by the whole of Canada, and if the rest of Canada can assure Quebec that we want Quebec to continue with us, I think this will have a big impact on the future of that province.
In conclusion, may I say that I think our country is worth preserving. We have a different kind of democracy and a different kind of federalism from others. Our federalism is different from that of other countries of the world. We have a different notion of freedom. It is more in terms of variety than that of our neighbour to the south, which is more in terms of uniformity. We have a contribution to make to the world because we have a large number of French citizens who have forced us to accept diversity, and it is this fact of diversity upon which our national life is based. For this reason I do not know whether Canada could continue without Quebec, but it certainly could not continue as the same kind of country it is now, and I for one would like to urge that we continue to manifest a common will to live together, not just on legalities but in brotherhood and friendship.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, some may wonder at the credentials a person such as myself might have to participate in an important debate on the future of our country, and more specifically, with respect to the constitution. I suppose if one's bona fide would have to be produced, the best one I could produce is the one which might be shared by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) in that my antecedents relate to Charlottetown. Growing up in that particular city, one could not help realizing the importance of the conference which took place there more than a century ago which contributed to the essential founding of this nation. I am going to say something a bit later on about that because I think it is essential to the kind of debate we are having this afternoon.
I too am delighted that the opportunity has been presented by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) for us to participate in this debate, although I regret very much the form in which the motion has been put. I find great difficulty understanding, let alone accepting, the position he and his colleagues have put forward. We have to be realistic, as mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The former premier of Saskatchewan, the late Ross Thatcher, said a few years ago that if he was to consider 100 priority issues in Saskatchewan at that time, the question of the future of the constitution would have to rank 101. Certainly there are other people in the country who regard the occasional discussion of this issue as not being the most relevant issue with which we are faced, and undergoing

December 3, 1976
The Constitution
the economic and social stresses we are today, one could not sell that particular position short.
In addition, as has already been pointed out, our constitution residing, as it does, in another country makes it somewhat unique. I think at one point the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was quoted as saying that we were the only modern or major country in the world which does not have its own constitution domiciled in its own country. However, the fact may be that the variety of constitutional arrangements which exist in the world today are just about as numerous as the number of nations. Great Britain, where our constitution resides, has functioned relatively successfully for many centuries without a specific constitution, and our neighbours immediately to the south have had a constitution to which they have had almost continuous resort. One might almost think that they had developed constitutionitis.
One has to ask in the first instance about the very nature of the revival of the question at this time. Since the conclusion of the Victoria conference in 1971 it has been abundantly clear that the question of the constitution has not been a lively topic. Certainly in answer to the occasional questions which have been put to the Prime Minister in the House over the past five years he has indicated that there was no real possibility of exploring the constitutional issue any further at the present time.
However, in the early part of this year, I think about the month of March, we began to hear a number of comments from the Prime Minister, and there were initiatives through correspondence with provincial premiers to the effect that suddenly some action would have to be taken. Indeed, the matter had suddenly become such an important one for the Prime Minister that he took a position which he hitherto regarded, I believe, as not only unacceptable but also unworkable, that of unilaterally asking for patriation of the constitution without any effective consensus among the 10 provincial governments. Of course the Prime Minister has made a number of arguments since in support of the fact that it is no longer acceptable to a large number of Canadians that the Canadian constitution not reside in our own country but in another country.
I am not sure in what way he has distilled this wisdom of a sudden shift in the attitude of the Canadian public, but he was able to announce that as a basic fact. In addition, he suggested that increasingly we are being faced with problems which could only be resolved by having the constitution on our own home soil.
When this debate was begun this year, there was an editorial which, more than any other editorial, suggested why the action of the Prime Minister was not only precipitous but fundamentally dangerous. An editorial in the Globe and Mail of March 24, 1976, headed "1867 And All That", read:
Canada is a country of tensions, some of them good, some of them bad, but tensions, nevertheless. Not surprisingly, the dominant characteristic of Canadian politics has been its preoccupation with reconciling those tensions. That is why
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
the style of Canadian politics has by and large concentrated on the art of compromise, the deliberate dialogue, the negotiated settlement.
I only wish that the Prime Minister had had an opportunity to read those words before he engaged in this round of what is increasingly seen as a rather foolish exercise on his part because it has done little except increase rigidities on the part of provincial governments and, if it is possible, create a situation of even greater mistrust with respect to the objectives, aims, and purposes of the central government. I say this because one surely has to ask why the Prime Minister has asked now for unilateral patriation of the constitution or would move to do this if no consensus could be achieved.
In the same editorial there appears a comment which I think gives an indication of some of the changes inherent in the proposal the Prime Minister put forward. It reads as follows:
Unilateral patriation is said to be possible, because the British parliament would act on the request of the Governor General to transfer the BN A Act to Canada and would not concern itself with whether the provinces agreed. If that is indeed the case, there would be nothing to prevent the federal government from requesting a transfer that would enlarge its rights at the cost of the provinces.
That comment puts a finger on one of the essential problems that would be in this proposal if, as the Prime Minister has argued, it is possible to take this action and wise to take this action. It is not just a question of whether it would be legally acceptable for the federal parliament to legislate the BNA Act back to Canada but whether, on the basis of that precedent, it would then have the opportunity to make unilateral amendments without any kind of consensus or consultation with the provinces. I find it a shocking lack of recognition on the part of the Prime Minister, who is apparently schooled in questions on the constitution, that he can ignore that essential problem. The fact is, of course, that he did not ignore the problem because during debate in the month of April he said that the Parliament of Canada now has the legal right and in fact has exercised that right historically, to act unilaterally in amending the constitution.
The Prime Minister was correct in one sense. As I understand it, a number of amendments to the constitution were achieved unilaterally before the early part of this century, but I would ask the Prime Minister to indicate whether there has been any amendment of the constitution since 1907 without the consent of the provinces involved? Of course there has not. What the Prime Minister is trying to do through his sleight of hand is create a new precedent, or return to a precedent that is no longer acceptable in the practices of this country, and that is to operate by unilateral fiat.
I think the Prime Minister has been understood not only by provincial governments but by the people generally to say that the nature of confederation being what it is and should be, we cannot have one element of the responsible structure of this country acting in this kind of unilateral and irresponsible way. In addition, it is not just a possibility of future unilateral amendments to the constitution which jeopardizes the present situation: there is the even more serious situation which faces us with respect to our own national well-being. The Prime Minister has stressed that what he is hoping to achieve in the
December 3, 1976

first place is simply to patriate the constitution and then at a later date, when there can be some reasonable discussion, the ten provincial governments will arrive at an acceptable amending formula.
If the Prime Minister has some special information about how long it would take to achieve an amending formula, I hope he will share it with the Canadian people. In the half dozen conferences held over the past 50 years on the question of achieving an amending formula, in spite of the tremendous effort of constitutional lawyers and provincial and federal leaders, we have not yet arrived at the golden moment when we have agreed upon a constitutional amending formula.
What the Prime Minister is offering is to patriate the constitution now, and sometime in the future- 10, 15, 25, 50, who knows how many years away-maybe then have an acceptable amending formula. What he is offering is in effect a constitution domiciled in Canada that would be as dead as the dodo. I doubt if there are too many people in this country who would willingly accept that. I believe it to be in the best interests of this country, as I am sure does every other member of the House, that we have our own constitution domiciled in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: However, if there is one thing that is worse than the present situation of having a constitution in another country, in the final analysis controlled by another parliament, it is that we would have a constitution in our own country that we would not control at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: At least in the present situation, cumbersome as it may be, 22 times since confederation we have been able to amend the constitution-by long distance if you like. Even a constitution which can be amended by long distance is better than a constitution which cannot be touched.
I find it incredible that the Prime Minister should attempt to face Canadians or provincial premiers with that kind of proposition. I presume in the nature of the events that have happened since, that the whole question of some unilateral patriation of the constitution on the terms suggested and defended by the Prime Minister, is now seen to be an incredible proposition and an offence to our social system.
I want to return to some of the essential elements considering the constitution itself. In the beginning I said there are a great variety of constitutions in the world today and, as has been suggested by previous speakers, ours is unique. It has problems associated with it and, as I indicated, we have real problems in dealing with it on a contemporary and satisfactory basis. But if our constitution represents anything it represents something unique about the country itself on this basis: it seems to me that both in 1867 and in major periods since when we have faced the kind of tensions I quoted from the Globe and Mail, the way in which we have resolved some of our essential difficulties-disputes between regions or between
The Constitution
ethnic or language groups-in the final analysis this country stayed together because we believed enough in respecting each other to negotiate, to hold dialogue, and compromise so that we could achieve a continuing measure of health in our national well-being.
I say this because I come from Charlottetown and to the extent that I have been made aware of what happened in Charlottetown and later in Quebec City, I have always been impressed by the fact that unlike our American friends who had to go through a tremendous inner turmoil and bloodshed, we believe in sitting around the conference table and hammering out some consensus about the country we are going to build.
I remember having this described in a very appealing way almost ten years ago, around the time of the centennial celebrations in Charlottetown. The comedy team of Wayne and Shuster produced a musical at the Confederation Centre and they had a song as the theme for the presentation about the Confederation Conference in 1864. I will not sing it because I do not want to burden members this late on a Friday afternoon. The title was "They just sat down in Charlottetown and built themselves a land". The message conveyed in that song, and it was comparing other countries like the United States, was that we in our country in our own way had a desire and obviously an ability to overcome some of the tremendous obstacles that existed, both in terms of the foreign influence of the major country that was developing to the south and the vast regions that were themselves separated by such great territory, much of it uninhabited at the time, and the linguistic and cultural differences that existed.
In spite of all that, as many an historian has quoted, in this highly unnatural and unusual situation the country was born. That is what makes for the kind of unique format and structure in which our constitution exists.
There is a particular irony to the kind of debate we are having today. We are having the debate because of the experiences and the problems that have arisen vis-a-vis a constitutional question and even more with respect to our confederation over the past eight to ten years. However, the man who holds the chief elected office in this country, the Prime Minister, came into that office very much on the basis that he was the one person who understood what federalism was all about. Here was a man who would show us the way to overcome some of the problems that had existed within Canadian confederation. The irony of that particular situation is that from his election as Prime Minister in 1968 up to the motion that our Creditiste friends have put on the order paper today, and I will quote it again, there has been a contrast between the man who was the leading light when it came to understanding the hopes and possibilities of federalism and this motion of his compatriots from the province of Quebec. The motion reads:
That this House condemns the central government for threatening the provinces with a unilaterally imposed patriation of a constitution which is obsolete and no longer responds to the aspirations of Canadians, rather than, as it should, leaving to the provinces the task of drafting a new constitution.

The Constitution
How tragic that our constitutional discussions, which in a sense is what this Canadian confederation is all about, should come to this today. Surely none of us are surprised. From the beginning when the Prime Minister served in the government of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson in his confrontation with the then premier of Quebec, Daniel Johnson, and since, his approach has not been one-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because there are others who want to participate. Beginning with the constitutional discussions from 1968 to 1971, the implementation of the War Measures Act, the whole approach to the then social and economic situation in Quebec, the present approach through unilateral patriation, and more recently the election of a government committed to separatism in the province of Quebec to some degree and in total indicate the rigid unilateral, anachronistic and confrontationistic position the Prime Minister has taken with respect to the health of the country itself in terms of its several peoples, regions and provinces.
What is obviously crucial for us now is to regain some positive sense of what Canada is all about. We must realize that we have a unique and, in some instances, a very fragile experiment. There are not very many federations of the world that have worked successfully. The Prime Minister mentioned this on previous occasions. In some ways our country is a unique experiment with federalism; vast, bilingual, multicultural, all the epithets you can use. I hope that through this debate and others that will follow we will regain some sense of value of our own worth and pluralism. I hope we will regain a commitment to the inherent worth and desire of fulfilment of all the various regions of this country.
Hon. members will know of the concern that many of us in this House share about the realistic respect for the potential of the various regions of this country, not hoping to achieve some kind of bland uniformity, some carbon copy region for region, but realizing there can be some realization of potential and a full free intercourse between the various provinces and regions if we have respect for one another and are prepared to trust one another in this venture. Essentially, it is a regaining of that sense of trust that this debate is all about.
[ Translation]


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first of ail I wish to congratulate wholeheartedly and most sincerely the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) who today presented an extremely important and above all timely motion.
The presentation of the hon. member for Shefford is undeniably the most documented and historically the best account of the constitutional past of our country that I have ever heard.

For me, as for the vast majority of my colleagues and Canadians, that account is astounding and unbelievable.
In my turn, Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes I should like to deal more specifically with the maze of federal and provincial jurisdictions we know and live with at the present time. As the hon. member for Shefford so ably demonstrated, no country in the world has as complex and anarchistic a constitution as Canada.
The constitutional past of our country and its constitutional situation can be aptly defined by the popular rural expression: a cow couldn't find its calf in it.
In practically every field the double jurisdiction has produced confusion and generates problems in almost every sector of economic endeavour. Let us take the official languages for instance. The British North America Act barely mentions the use of languages.
Section 133 specifies that English and French can be used in the debates at the federal level and in Quebec. However, section 133 does not provide sufficient guarantees for the rights of French-speaking and English-speaking minorities. Now, the federal government passed the Official Languages Act in 1969 to guarantee English and French-speakers, whenever this is justified in terms of numbers the right to be served in their mother tongue.
In addition, the Federal Public Service should include the same percentages of English-speaking and French-speaking employees as the population of the country. In 1974, another liberal government, that is in Quebec, passed Bill 22 providing that French was the official language in Quebec. However, eight provinces have no legislation on official languages which means indeed that they do not really have their own Bill 22.
Mr. Speaker, the most recent problem of dual jurisdiction in the matter of Official Languages occured with the pilots' dispute and I was one of the first members to call the attention of this House to this problem. The liberal government, particularly the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), has changed policies at least twice, or once a month, disregarding however the Canadian Official Languages Act.
This is sheer confusion, Mr. Speaker, because we are unable to solve a federal jurisdiction problem about interprovincial transportation. So the Quebec government supported the French-speaking pilots, because under Bill 22 of the Quebec National Assembly, French is the official language in Quebec, since the British North America Act is not clear on languages in Canada.
Let me now turn to the area of general communications. This is another major problem. When the BNA was enacted in 1867, there was of course no television and no radio. So there could not be any provision for either federal or provincial jurisdiction. Since 1930, there has been a major conflict between the federal government and the provinces in matters of communication. This problem is still unsolved, because it is first and foremost a cultural problem.
In French Canada, television and radio are extremely important tools to protect, promote and preserve French cul-
December 3, 1976

ture. The Federal government and the Quebec government are still fighting over this new communications problem, no reference of which ever appeared in the BNA. On the English speaking side, communications are an extremely sensitive issue, because there is a justified fear of Americanization. Therefore communications in Canada must be increasing and entirely Canadian. The Manitoba and Saskatchewan governments, for instance, want to regulate their own communications, particularly cable TV, as does Quebec.
Agriculture is another sore issue between federal and provincial governments. Suffice to recall the war about chickens and eggs that took place between Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba five yeas ago. Quebec tried to limit the import of eggs to protect its own producers when Ontario and Manitoba were shipping the bulk of their egg production to Quebec. But at the same time these two provinces were buying a great many chickens from Quebec and as a reprisal they decided to limit their imports. Yet, chickens and eggs are both products of the same hen are they not?
But the Supreme Court of Canada settled this war about chickens and eggs-which had become a real omelette-by saying the limitation of interprovincial imports was under federal government jurisdiction. British North America Act section 95 states that agriculture is subject to shared jurisdiction, but the conflict over eggs and chickens was caused exactly by this shared jurisdiction. The same thing happened in June 1976 with Quebec milk producers, this time shared jurisdiction over taxation. Once again, another problem occurred because of dual jurisdiction. Under section 92 each province may impose direct taxation within the province while at the same time the federal government may also impose any form of taxation.
This is obviously another case of dual direct taxation in Canada. This is the result of the mess now existing in the financial system: the provinces cannot levy enough direct taxes to pay for the program they are allowed to establish or meet their obligations under the British North America Act, and which are their exclusive jurisdiction.
Consequently, the provinces must get subsidies from the federal government to pay for provincial programs, including education which is, according to section 93 of the British North America Act, exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Why do we see greater centralization by the federal government and why are the provinces gradually losing their autonomy to the federal government?
Dual jurisdiction over taxation led us directly to dual jurisdiction over matters which are well specified in the British North America Act as coming under provincial jurisdiction. I should like to give an example to make my point. The federal government gives grants to universities which come under provincial jurisdiction. It can therefore through grants control university spending. As a result, the provinces lost some control over universities because of the dual jurisdiction over direct taxation. Under section 92, municipal affairs come
The Constitution
within provincial jurisdiction. Come on, there is already a minister of State for Urban Affairs in Ottawa! This government has managed once again to establish a dual jurisdiction by trying to settle the problem of cities under certain circumstances that are determined by the federal government.
Immigration is one of the most serious issues due to the dual jurisdiction. However, the British North America Act says that federal legislation on immigration takes precedence over provincial legislation, but at the same time immigration is also a matter of economy and culture.
Until recently, most immigrants with special qualifications, such as physicians or engineers, settled down in big cities, where their training is least required. Whereas, at the same time, a lot of Canadian villages have lost their physicians, who were never replaced. And because of this double jurisdiction over immigration, the talents of these immigrants are not used where they are the most urgently needed and could be used most profitably.
The cultural aspect is another issue. It is desirable that immigrants, whatever their place of origin, be able to preserve part of their native culture while living in this country. But, in most cases, immigrants must work in the language of the majority of the area where they are living in Canada. Therefore, it is very important that immigrants in French speaking areas should be prepared to learn French as the language of communication, work and trade.
The problem arising over the double jurisdiction in this area is that in the past, the federal government did do enough to ensure that newcomers to French speaking areas would have the opportunity to learn French. In August 1976, a white paper on the Bank Act was issued by the Minister of Finance.
One of the suggestions made in this document is that the federal government and the Bank of Canada will now have much more control over trust companies and credit unions than in the past. But most of these companies come within provincial jurisdiction. It is obvious therefore, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a fight over dual jurisdiction in 1977, when the Bank is reviewed. Section 91 of the British North America Act stipulates that trade is under federal jurisdiction. But the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1920 that trade came under provincial jurisdiction has led to the terrible state in which trade and industry are now in Canada.
For example, 30 years ago, the textile industry was very strong in Canada and produced all the textiles for our own consumption and even some for exportation. What happened? Once again, because of double jurisdiction, no government in Canada had enough power to ensure the survival of this vital industry and several textile manufacturers went out of business, one after the other, and many workers became unemployed, and the number of unemployed textile workers continues to increase every day, while Canada is importing more and more textile products.
The same thing is happening in the footwear industry, the oldest industry in Canada. Canada needs to determine the

December 3, 1976
The Constitution
specific jurisdiction concerning trade to better protect its industries. The problems of jurisdiction as concerns trade and agriculture are closely related because in many constituencies, trade depends directly on agriculture and of farm products.
There are many other ridiculous examples of federal action in various production areas. For instance, even though beef producers have problems selling their products in Canada, the country imports beef from Australia. If the jurisdictions as concerns trade and agriculture were better defined, these problems could easily be solved. Instead of solving problems of federal and provincial jurisdiction, and of doing something to better distribute power, we let the farmers starve. We let businesses go bankrupt and the other social classes lose ground because of the bureaucratic intervention of the federal government which wants to control everything and to decide nothing.
The control of Western natural resources is another very important problem caused by a double jurisdiction of powers that the federal government set up and imposed. Before 1930, the federal government had control over the natural resources of Alberta and Manitoba. After the thirties these three provinces were given the same rights as the other provinces over their natural resources. Section 92 of the British North America Act states that land, forest and property come under provincial jurisdiction, which means that the large oil reserves of Alberta belong to the province. However, oil is something very important to the country's economy and here again the federal government wants control by regulating the distribution price of Alberta oil, thus creating a new problem of double jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I could carry on my analysis of the federal-provincial relations in many other areas to demonstrate that this double jurisdiction of powers is paralyzing everyone and creating enormous problems for all the provinces and all the governments because of the complexity of the situation and the ridiculous things that can happen. For instance, milk from the same cow can go partly to Ottawa and partly to Quebec. That is if half the processed milk is used to make fresh milk, that kind of milk comes under provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the other half is used to make industrial milk products, that milk comes under federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, if the current pseudo-constitution has not yet created enough problems for everyone, I sincerely believe that it can hardly cause more. Even if in the past we have had problems, we have been living side by for over 100 years; we should be reasonable and serious enough to go on living side by side, as neighbours, in mutual understanding and harmony.
I prefer neighbours with different cultures who get along well to brothers who kill one another. So, Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Shefford, I ask for a new constitution that would put an end to all those federal-provincial quarrels and that administrative nonsense which are paralyzing everyone as well as the economic development in Canada.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock, I realize that I shall not have time to say everything I would like to say as I should have been pleased to use my 20 minutes this afternoon to talk to this very important motion.
In view of the circumstances and the remarks made by hon. members this afternoon, I realize that if many would like to take the floor on that subject, there have been only a few, apart from the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), who made a valuable contribution to the debate this afternoon as nobody really made concrete recommendations or expressed concern about our present constitution. As I have only a few minutes at my disposal, I shall sum up my comments in two points.

Two major points appear to arise out of the proposal currently being made by many of my colleagues in regard to the constitution. One of the first points is the desirability of securing as flexible an amending formula as possible for the constitution, and it should be noted that this has been the objective of successive federal governments since the matter was first raised at the first ministers' conference in the year 1927.
Prior to the period of constitutional review from 1968 to 1971, all attempts to devise a flexible amending formula failed. Even the Fulton-Favreau formula worked out between 1960 and 1964 retained the principle of unanimity for all amendments respecting provincial legislative powers, provincial rights and privileges, provincial assets or property, and the use of the English and French language. The formula devised during the period of constitutional review had and has two great assets; it was agreed to by all first ministers prior to the Victoria conference in the year 1971; and it was the most flexible formula devised in the history of this exercise.
The Victoria formula, which is the basis of the current discussion on the patriation of the British North America Act, gets away for the first time from the principle of unanimity and that of complete rigidity. Rather it provides for regional vetoes on fundamental amendments. A veto can be exercised by any two of the Atlantic provinces, or by Quebec, by Ontario, or by any two of the western provinces having at least 50 per cent of the population of the western provinces. Ontario and Quebec provinces, both of which have 25 per cent of the total Canadian population-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier);: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 6, 1976