1978-12-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the expressed intention of Canadian General Electric to use the social insurance number as part of an identification badge system in its Peterborough plant, and considering the opposition of union officials and workers who regard this use of the social insurance number as unfounded and a threat to their personal privacy, I ask leave to move, seconded by 419-582-028, commonly known as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this government and the present Minister of Employment and Immigration cease their apathetic and indifferent attitude toward the expansion of the social insurance number in the public and private sectors, and introduce immediately legislation giving individuals the right to refuse the use of their social insurance number to any organization which does not have specific authority provided by federal statute, and making it obligatory for any organization which wants to make the social insurance number an employee identification number to have the informed consent of the individual.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LEGISLATION TO CONTROL USE AND ABUSE OF SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to deal with a similar matter: I think this indicates the urgency of the problem.
In view of the report today that Canadian General Electric requires its Peterborough employees to wear their social insurance numbers on outside ID badges, and in view of the grave potential for the invasion of privacy and employee intimidation arising from the improper use of SIN information, I would
move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government forthwith bring forward legislation controlling the use and abuse of the social insurance number.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Unanimous consent is necessary before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated in the labour committee on Thursday night last that the young people of Canada were prepared to be spoonfed and would, if given a chance, "sit at home, suck their thumbs and wait for the unemployment insurance just to pour in", since this has been proven not to be the case by studies done by the Department of Employment and Immigration which show that young people want to work, and by other studies which show that young people actually under-use the unemployment insurance program in relation to their actual percentage of unemployment, and since the National Union of Students has demanded an apology for this gratuitous insult to all of Canada's young people, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae):
That this House call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to apologize for his intemperate statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent is required before the motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 12, 1978


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Scottish Societies Association of Nova Scotia is promoting the international gathering of the clans of Scotland for the summer of 1979 and requires limited financial assistance to assure its success. Since the gathering of the clans interests people of Scottish ancestry around the world and will attract thousands of visitors to Nova Scotia and millions of tourist dollars for Canada, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That the government consider aiding the international gathering of the clans in Nova Scotia by taking action to arrange the limited financial assistance requested by the Scottish Societies Association of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, can be put forward for debate only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ACCEPTANCE OF FREE AIR TRAVEL PASSES BY CERTAIN MEMBERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
It was revealed this morning that at least three Progressive Conservative MPs, namely the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), have accepted free passes from Eastern Provincial Airways for members of their staff. Accordingly, I would move, seconded by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House refer the possible conflict of interest arising from the acceptance of these passes to the committee on privileges and elections for investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion can be made only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Canadian military personnel serving in the Middle East in isolation postings are being entertained with third-rate movies and poor quality canned television, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That this House urges the Minister of National Defence to review his entertainment policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am always appreciative of applause, particularly when it comes from York East. I thank the hon. member for his applause, but there will not be any applause for him after the election.
The question I should like to raise is very difficult, having regard to the fact that on Friday the debate on this question came to an end by effluxion of time. My question has to do with social insurance numbers. This matter is causing a revolt in the thinking of people in general across this country.
My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Everywhere there is widespread condemnation of what is taking place in this connection. Wholesale frauds are being committed through the use of the SIN. I cannot go into particulars in my question, but I could give full information.
Will the minister bring before the House immediately legislation in this regard? I hope he will be able to induce the government to agree that such legislation should be subject to diminution in so far as its comprehensiveness is concerned. The social insurance number should be used in connection only with social security and income tax matters. Why not bring in such an amendment to do away with what can only lead to the
December 12, 1978

erosion of individual rights and the privacy of individuals in this country?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry that the right hon. gentleman did not have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Friday. I know he was here but that he had other responsibilities. As a matter of fact, I indicated that I would have been quite prepared to yield my time in order to hear what he had to say on this subject.
The right hon. gentleman and others from his party, as well as mine, are right in expressing concern about the use of the social insurance number. The fact is that many people who use the social insurance number or who agree to having their social insurance numbers used do so because they feel it is beneficial and in their best interests.
I noted the motions which were proposed today. I do not want to usurp the role of unions. I think they have taken appropriate action in the Peterborough case. I think they will meet their responsibilities and indicate that there is no requirement on them to give that particular number, nor to agree to it. I think they will resolve that in-house.
I am somewhat apprehensive, however, about bringing in legislation which might very well operate to the detriment of many hundreds of thousands of people across this country who in fact want their numbers to be used in order to make certain that benefits which should go to them will, in fact, reach them and not go to some third person.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is the nearest approach to an alibi I have heard in a long time. That is what you call "cullenization".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said that there are advantages, but I wonder whether he has read about a number of cases across Canada in which up to the present time crimes have been committed because of the SIN. If he has not, I place before him the evidence of RCMP Assistant Commissioner Hank Jensen who, in giving evidence of June of this year, pointed out that this number is being used fraudulently. He gave examples. I will cite only two so that the minister will be in a position to answer.
Let me illustrate this with the case of a Calgary man-1 do not like to mention Calgary in this way-who had 109 social insurance cards, 59 UIC claims, and a monthly income of $33,000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Could the hon. gentleman identify himself? I would like to know what constituency he represents.
Then there was the Montreal case.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: That is a whole speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Two men had 60 social insurance cards over a period of two months.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, so you don't want the truth? They defrauded UIC of $33,000. Another group in Montreal defrauded UIC of $32,800. In other words, these cards are being used fraudulently, not protectively. Again I impress upon the minister that when he says there are hundreds of thousands who approve of it, they are not the ones who are being heard across this country. I think there are less than
1,000	people who are in favour of social insurance numbers, in spite of what the minister says.
Will he not reconsider this matter and give parliament a chance? He realizes this is wrong, in part, because he says he will give some guidelines. Let parliament make the guidelines and put an end to this practice in so far as it goes beyond social security.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I thank the right hon. gentleman for perhaps putting me in the history books in a vicarious way when he referred to "cullenization". I am sure that years from now, when I read that, I will laugh. I am not laughing now.


An hon. Member:: You will not for a while, either.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am certain that any system brought into play will be used in a fraudulent manner. What the right hon. gentleman is pointing out is the success of the department and of the RCMP in nailing those who have used these numbers in a particular way. Because of the widespread abuse, we introduced very recently additional requirements for individuals to secure their social insurance numbers and we were criticized by hon. members opposite because we decided it was appropriate to take this additional step and require people to identify themselves.
I think, also, the protection of the human rights legislation is singularly important in this instance. As I indicated in the debate, the information which we have would only be detrimental in effect, and in fact the right hon. gentleman has maintained from time to time that the use of social insurance numbers-which the hon. member for St. John's East gave freely and voluntarily in seconding his colleague's motion- causes very little damage, if there is no tie-in or connecting-up of data banks or of computer terminals.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would ask the minister this: will he not remove the requirement for the use of social insurance numbers from the armed forces? Mail today is being returned because it does not bear the social insurance number. Why should the forces of our country be penalized in this way?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I must say that I, too, was surprised when mail which did not have the number on it was returned. It may be that the address was imperfect. But, on the other hand, it may be that the Canadian men and women in the armed forces

December 12, 1978
Oral Questions
think that this is an appropriate use of the number to make sure they get their mail, because they are serving this country in many parts of the world and doing it very well.


USE OF SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS AT CGE PLANT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the answers on this topic given thus far, the minister and his colleagues are looking more and more like the Keystone cops.
Does the minister not understand that in the case of Peterborough, unless workers in the Canadian General Electric plant provide their social insurance numbers, they will be denied access to the grounds and to work? Does he not think that, under these circumstances, it is only fair and reasonable that the social insurance number devised by this government should be limited to the point where no sanctions can be imposed against the workers for simply refusing to give this private information? Does he not think the government could go at least that far?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: This would be piecemeal legislation to deal with "this" and "that" particular situation. As I indicated, I do not propose to usurp the role of union members. They indicated the company is wrong in this instance. In fact, they filed a grievance and I am satisfied it will probably be dealt with in the appropriate fashion by the people who have that responsibility.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government are clearly insensitive to what is going on in the country today. Nesbitt Thomson, investment counsellors, now are advising their people in the field to obtain social insurance numbers on the basis that they will be required for all financial transactions. The British Columbia Automobile Association requires social insurance numbers for their charter flights. There are other instances. The Lions Club in my town, for Open House Canada, under the Secretary of State, the seat-mate of the minister, required social insurance numbers for the purpose of participating in programs sponsored by the government for travel in Canada. Even the insurance industry now requires them.
Does the minister not have a semblance of feeling for Canadians who are being inconvenienced? Does he not think the least the government can do is to take the recommendations of its own task force and the many studies done on social insurance numbers and have parliament consider this matter before there is an extension of the use of social insurance numbers?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there is something to be balanced here. Individuals are voluntarily giving their social insurance numbers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Whether it is in the interests of seconding a motion in the House of Commons or picking up-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They do not get the service.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It was done voluntarily by the hon. member's colleague in the House today. He did not seem to think there was too much to concern him in that regard. In the interest of picking up a prize in a lottery, people are quite prepared to do it.
In the case recited by the hon. member, in the case where companies require social insurance numbers, I suggest that there is no requirement on individuals to give them and that the union will ensure that their rights in this regard are respected.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, a spokesman for the Department of Agriculture predicted that food prices in the coming year would increase another 10 per cent, such increase taking place after the products left the farm gate, that is to say, at the retailing and processing level.
Has the minister had an opportunity to investigate the report of the Economic Council of Canada which I brought to his attention over a week ago? It shows that profits in the food industry have increased some 63 per cent in the past year. What will the minister do to ensure that this level of profiteering will not continue into 1979?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the report referred to by the hon. member, the report put out by CSIP. To begin with, I must say that parts of that report were misunderstood and were not read in conjunction with other parts. On the other hand, I think the report was misleading in certain parts and also is subject to criticism in some parts. I should point out that the CSIP report dealt with both food and liquor, including beer, wine and hard liquors, whereas the AIB report dealt with only food.
The CSIP report dealt with only 20 firms in its survey. It had no information about those firms, whether they were large or small, whether they had been on strike, or whatever. On the other hand, the AIB report dealt with 81 processing firms and 14 retailing firms making up two-thirds of the food business. The CSIP report compared the first quarter of 1977 with the third quarter of 1978. That is a very unusual procedure because of seasonal differences in the food business. The AIB report compared the first half of 1977 with the first half of 1978.
Finally, the unit of measurement used in the CSIP report was profits per unit of output, which is not used on a regular
December 12, 1978

basis as a comparative measure. The AIB report used gross profits before taxes as a percentage of revenue. On the whole, I and many others feel the CSIP report did not give an accurate assessment of profits in the food industry. We are still concerned about increases in food prices next year. A report I have indicates that increases of approximately 14 per cent this year will decline to approximately 9 per cent next year.
[DOT] (U27)


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the same minister, who did not deal with the second part of my first question. The same agricultural spokesman to whom I referred in my question also said yesterday-it is presumably the view of the Department of Agriculture- that current food profits, if they are not up 63 per cent, are at least substantial and quite adequate in terms of giving a reasonable return to the industry.
In light of that, could the minister outline for us what steps he is taking to ensure that the increases that have been forecast to take place, another 10 per cent next year on top of the 15 per cent in the past year, do not involve profiteering in the industry?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out, as well, that the major food processing and retailing industries remain under the AIB until the end of this year and they have earned only 70 per cent of allowable profits under AIB guidelines.
In respect of the second question of the hon. member, my information is that price increases in food will moderate in the coming year. Of course, there are variations with different industries in the food business. I intend to continue to explore measures to keep food prices down. I cannot announce those measures now, but I will be making further proposals to my cabinet colleagues.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish members of the cabinet would get their act together. The Department of Agriculture is predicting a 10 per cent increase in food prices, and this minister is saying they are going to go down. I hope in the next few days one of these sources will clarify the situation and indicate what, if anything, is the coherent view of the government.
Since the Minister of Agriculture has said that the removal of the bread subsidy would result in only a 3.5-cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread, which is contradictory to what the Bakery Council has said, that the price should go up by some 12 cents, in response to which the Minister of Agriculture said that was ridiculous, will the minister assure the people of Canada that the price of bread will go up by only 3.5 cents? Will the minister also tell us how he is going to enforce that assurance?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I think the hon. member misunderstood what I said. I said that food prices had gone up this year about 14 per cent over last year, and that my information is that next year they will go up by
Oral Questions
about 9 per cent-not that they would go down, but the rate of increase would decline.
In respect of the second point, about bread, Mr. Speaker, I think both the Minister of Agriculture and myself have stated the increase would be about five cents to seven cents a loaf, but the Bakery Council has said it will be about 12 cents.


An hon. Member:: They said another 6 cents.


William Warren Allmand: My information is that the increase in the price of a loaf of bread as a result of the removal of the subsidy would be about five cents. The Bakery Council said it would go up by about 12 cents. I have already spoken to some people in the industry asking for an explanation of this. They said that the price would go up anyway by about six cents and when you add on the result of the removal of the subsidy it amounts to about 12 cents. I am not quite satisfied with that answer and I intend to pursue it further.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Following the $34,876,000 subsidiary agreement on public equipment reached in May, 1978, between Quebec and Ottawa, each project was identified by its location when the agreement was signed, except an amount of $1.2 million which was earmarked for the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area. My question is as follows: Since that amount specifically represents the value of a project suggested by Noranda and since that town was the only municipality from northwest Quebec to submit a project when the agreement was concluded, could the minister say whether the 1.2 million will be granted to Noranda or as according to a recent report, whether it will be granted to the Val d'Or municipality?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed when the agreement was signed last May, an amount had been earmarked for a project in northwest Quebec and the town of Rouyn-Noranda had indeed tabled a file. On the other hand, since the signature of that agreement, the Quebec government, more especially the municipal affairs department, has reviewed its position about the application of Rouyn-Noranda with the result that the funds had not till very recently been definitely committed to support the Rouyn-Noranda project because another project was submitted afterward by Val d'Or. According to my latest information, the discussion is going on between the municipal affairs department and the industry and commerce department in Quebec.

December 12, 1978
Oral Questions


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us whether it is normal under these agreements when funds are being allocated to specific projects such as the one presented by the city of Noranda, whether it is the usual policy to allow other municipalities to come up afterwards with projects, and then to try to match the project to know which municipality is going to get it?


Marcel Lessard: To a certain extent, Mr. Speaker, some flexibility is indeed provided for in the agreements that we sign. The same kind of flexibility which under the provisions of another previous agreement-namely that of industrial infrastructures-is responsible for the development of the industrial park in Rouyn-Noranda and Val d'Or. The same principle applies in this specific case. And when the municipal affairs department-which under these circumstances is also the prime contractor-decides that the project under consideration can no longer be carried out, it is obvious then that they must resort to other projects and eventually the decision is left to them since municipal affairs are under their jurisdiction.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It relates to a disturbing report made last night, which I am sure the minister would want to clarify, concerning possibly charging refugees coming from Vietnam the cost of their transportation by Canadian aircraft to this country.
Since this may mean a cost in excess of $1,000 for each refugee, most of whom have come here with little or none of the wherewithal to cover this basic cost, could the minister clarify this unusual situation and, hopefully, incorrect report?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the report is correct. It is normal policy to require payment to be made. In the past, most immigrants once established have willingly paid this amount. If they are not able to do so, the Crown invariably wipes out the loan. But many immigrants like to repay the loan. There is a revolving fund available to help people in this particular category, and those who have been helped often want to repay. That is the basis upon which the transportation cost is collected: it is normal policy.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate whether that has always been the case, particularly for those who have literally had to flee for their lives, with no resources, and whether or not this is a procedure which has

been clarified with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees?
Also, would the minister indicate whether there have been any further requests, in view of the continuing serious situation in that country, for a further grouping of these people who might be in desperate straits in trying to find a country of refuge?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, yes, it has been applied in other cases. For example, many of the people from Czechoslovakia literally left their country with no assets other than what they had travelling as tourists. Many of them, obviously, could not become established and were not required to repay the money.
Concerning representations to take more people, as the hon. member knows, there is a meeting taking place at the present time in Geneva-I believe some 32 nations are participating- to determine how to deal with the problem on a long-term basis rather than the ad hoc method we have used to date. There has been no specific request to take more refugees other than general suggestions that Canada should take more.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in connection with another proposed refugee movement from Argentina, I think the minister is well aware of a recent communication from myself, the hon. member for Montmorency and the hon. member for Greenwood, concerning the situation of 100 political prisoners. The authorities in Argentina agreed to release these people if they could be guaranteed sanctuary in a country. After direct representations by the three of us to the officials in Argentina some time ago, it was indicated that Argentina would be quite happy to release these people.
Since there seems to be some difficulty in having any of these people released, even though some interviews have taken place, I wonder if the minister could indicate what steps are being taken with the Argentinian authorities in order that they may act in good faith with respect to the very serious plight, with prolonged detention and in some instances torture, of the people presently being held in Argentina.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, representations have been received and we have made representations to the Argentine authorities concerning 68 people who are being detained. In some instances the officials will not concede that these people are in prison, and in other cases they have indicated that where another country has expressed an interest in an individual, they will not give us access to that particular person in jail.
We have now interviewed two people. One person has already been admitted to Canada in a quiet way so as to protect his anonymity. Argentina has now indicated that we will be permitted to interview, I believe another 12 people, but has yet to concede that the total number of names we have submitted are in fact of individuals in prison there. However, we are pressing on with a very difficult situation.
December 12, 1978


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the president of CMHC indicated that it was their departmental policy to purchase the home of an employee on an interoffice transfer. The president did not explain whether or not there were losses to the government in the subsequent sale of these homes.
Could the minister advise the House whether such purchase of employees' homes by CMHC is government policy in terms of its departments or any of its Crown corporations?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is a policy relating to the covering of real estate costs, sales costs and things of that nature. It is not my understanding, as the hon. member suggests, that it actually covers a loss in the selling price. I would assume that is related to appraisals or something of that nature. However, I believe real estate costs, legal costs, and so on, are in fact covered when an employee is moved.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of every minister perhaps it could be best summarized in one sentence. The president of CMHC said:
Then, having acquired title of the home, we will attempt to dispose of it directly.
My concern is that in the disposal there may be a loss at the expense of the taxpayer. Again I would ask, is this just a policy of CMHC or does it also apply to other government departments and Crown corporations? If the minister does not know the answer, would he inquire and report back to the House?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to inquire for the hon. member. As I say, I know that a portion of the loss attributed to real estate fees and legal costs is in fact covered, but whether or not any additional loss is covered I am not certain.


DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREMENT BILL
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the government's proposals dealing with Bill C-12, the public service retirement bill which is before the House with respect to which a specific invitation was addressed to members by the government House leader. This bill, according to the government House leader, will not be reached by the end of the year or by the time we recess. Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House his plans in 1979 with respect to Bill C-12?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to indicate my plans to the House. As the President of Privy Council
Oral Questions
indicated at the end of last week, in view of the large number of groups which have indicated they would like to comment on this bill and make their representations before the committee we came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to have the bill in place before the end of the calendar year. Therefore, it is our intention to proceed with it early next year.
The provisions relating to indexation, in which I think the hon. member is particularly interested, would not come into effect on January 1, 1979. In fact, we would have a one-year hoist and the three-year tranche would run for the calendar years 1980, 1981 and 1982. We do not anticipate there being a retroactivity clause in the bill.
The provision dealing with prorating for new pensioners who retire during the calendar year 1979 would become operative at the time the bill was proclaimed. The provision relating to moving from age 55 to 60 for indexation would become operative at the time the bill was proclaimed. Also, I think a couple of technical provisions other than the ones relating to air traffic controllers would become operative.
I want to assure retired pensioners and the House that persons who are actually retired, or will be retiring during this year prior to the enactment of the legislation, will not be affected in any way retroactively by the bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that complete answer. Could he inform the House whether he will be tabling a document, or making a statement to the House before we rise with respect to the actual figures contemplated by the government for the triennial period? If he could do so today, that would be quite satisfactory; but if not, could he undertake to give the House, by way of a statement or tabling a document, an indication of the plans with respect to the actual figures, so that people who are appearing before the committee and are interested in the bill can have as much information as possible to assist them in their preparation?


J. Judd Buchanan: I will be happy to consider that request, Mr. Speaker. The only comment I have is that, in a sense, when these figures become operative they would be substantially out of date: they would be a year hence, for some time in November next year when the decision would be made on the amount of indexation for the succeeding three years.
It may well be useful to the groups making representations, but I would be a little concerned that the figures might be misleading in the sense that they could have another year's accumulation before they would have to be analysed and a decision taken on the precise amount of the indexation.

December 12, 1978
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


TORONTO INTERNATIONAL-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that cutting back emergency medical service at Toronto international airport could save some bucks but cost some lives, as pointed out in an article in the Toronto Sun dated December 5, 1978, and in view of the fact that present facilities at the airport provide emergency service for about 800 airport staff, travellers and visitors per month, will the minister consider reinstating the services of St. John Ambulance at Toronto international airport, terminals 1 and 2, that were discontinued some two years ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt, but something I had overlooked has been brought to my attention. I had mistakenly put the hon. member on the list when he is, in fact, a parliamentary secretary.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the new centre for occupational health and safety.
Many persons who worked with asbestos during the Second World War in a Defence Research Board plant at Ottawa have been afflicted with serious asbestos-related diseases. I believe four people have died in recent years. In view of this situation, I would like to ask the minister if he is considering setting up procedures to identify all the employees of wartime defence plants who may be similarly at risk from asbestos exposure, to determine if they have developed asbestos-related diseases and to compensate them and their families for the suffering involved.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that question arose in the "late show" last night and we gave a preliminary answer to the hon. member. I have asked my department to try to determine what we can do, as the Department of Labour, to assist these people in this matter. The responsibilities may be shared among several departments, but we do have it under consideration. I hope to give a more complete answer at a later date.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It has been documented in court cases now under way in the United States that Canadian asbestos companies were aware as early as 1949 of the potentially fatal health hazards to which their employees were exposed, but they still took no action to inform their workers.

I would like to ask the minister if he would consider setting up a government fund for victims of asbestos-related diseases, in order to assist them to bring civil actions against companies and corporations which knowingly failed to alert workers to the danger of working with asbestos.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider that representation. And so that no one will be under any misunderstanding, I should point out that most of the health and safety in enterprises in Canada fall within provincial jurisdiction.
I do not want to give an answer this afternoon that will leave the impression that the federal government intends to intrude into provincial jurisdictions. However, where there is a federal establishment where persons may have worked with asbestos in the past, we will accept our responsibility. In fact, we have the equivalent of a workmen's compensation fund at the level of the federal government: it is known as the Government Employees Compensation fund. Moneys are set aside to compensate injured workers or those whose health has been damaged, so long as they fall within the limits of federal jurisdiction.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. My colleagues and I have received complaints with reference to veterans gaining entry to former veterans' hospitals which have been transferred to the provinces. There have also been several recent news articles dealing with this subject.
Two recent cases are causing concern, one at Sunnybrook and the other in Victoria at Memorial Pavilion, where veterans were refused access and by the time they gained entry to another hospital the opportunity for possible effective care had passed and they died shortly after. Is the minister aware of these cases, and what action is he taking to see that this does not occur again?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the case at Sunnybrook, but I am aware of the one in British Columbia. We have priority beds for veterans in those hospitals. The system is working very successfully.
There was some misunderstanding in the case in British Columbia. The request for a bed was not made properly, through some misunderstanding between the patient's people and his private doctor. I was in Toronto just recently, but I have no knowledge of the Sunnybrook case. This is an ongoing situation and I keep in close touch with it every day.
Further to the case in British Columbia, I want to make it clear that this particular bed was never asked for and I am prepared to refute the remarks which appeared in the press article.
December 12, 1978


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The information respecting the Sunnybrook incident is on its way to the minister's office. Is the minister satisfied that his officials have properly explained to veterans' organizations and, through them, to veterans just what responsibilities his department has to veterans after these hospitals are transferred to the jurisdiction of the provinces?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this has certainly been fully explained. As the hon. member knows, when people are admitted to hospital for the first time, they are in a new process. This process has been fully explained to veterans' organizations. I might say that in most cases it has been in operation for 12 years, but some cases are fairly recent. I have nothing but praise for the provinces and for the institutions to which our hospitals were transferred: things are working out extremely well.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? On January 4 this year, the minister announced assistance for the docks at Esquimalt, Vancouver, Les Mechins and Lauzon. At the same time, he said he would be working with Newfoundland to examine the opportunity to expand ship repair facilities in St. John's and to provide additional capacity for the federally-owned drydock there.
The minister has had an application from that dockyard since March, 1978, for an $8 million loan to put in a synchrolift so that they can handle 60 Russian ships per year and do additional work and create 200 more jobs in the dockyard. Where is that now, and when is the minister going to carry out his promise of last January?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to do that very, very soon. We will be announcing a number of contracts with regard to drydocks very shortly. The problem arises from the severe cuts the government has made and the cuts necessary in the transfer payments to the provinces. If we succeed in getting some of that money out of the transfer payments through the provinces, then we can go ahead with some of the capital projects we would like to see developed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. The Prime Minister stated on November 28 that $445 million of new money had been reallocated by the government to provide new support for the shipbuilding industry. On November 24 he said that the minister's board would be concerned with improvement in the delivery of federal
Oral Questions
programs. The minister said he will help cut through red tape. He stated it will be an action board, not a talkfest.
My question is this: will the minister now act to cut through the red tape in connection with expanding employment in the dockyard in St. John's, Newfoundland, for which the Prime Minister said there is $400 million in additional moneys available, and there is supposed to be $75 million specifically available for Industry, Trade and Commerce for this purpose? Will the minister do this and create 200 new jobs in this area of terrible unemployment by taking some action and showing how this board will function?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: I note the representation with sympathy, Mr. Speaker.


RAILWAYS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker: it is one more reason to be grateful for not being a parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: My question is to the Minister of Transport: it flows from recent accusations in the press aimed at the federal government whereby Ottawa is alleged to be responsible for lives lost at specific railway crossings in Ontario.
Will the minister inform the House which level of government is presently responsible for delays in the implementation of this policy?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to make it clear that the recent cost-cutting exercise has not removed any of the funds which have been committed to the Urban Transportation Assistance Program and, therefore, for grade separations. There has been some phasing of the way in which that money will be paid.
In looking at the particular case of Ontario, we as a federal government had approved some 26 grade separations and projects under the Urban Transportation Assistance Program. To our surprise, the province rearranged some of its priorities and slowed down the progress they will be making on grade separations, even though we were satisfied that the flow of funds we had made available to them would allow them to complete their original program. In addition to the two crossings mentioned in the article in question, we have approved, specifically, some five additional crossings, such as at Run-nymede Road, Main Street and Osier, Erin Mills Parkway and at least one other.

December 12, 1978
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Cape Breton, the Deputy Prime Minister. What progress is being made in assessing the proposal filed by the Sydney Steel Corporation in connection with refinancing and modernization of the Sydney steel plant?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the proposal was made some weeks ago by Premier Buchanan, and earlier by the former government of Nova Scotia. No response has yet been given to this proposal. Certainly, it will be considered very carefully. It is under consideration.
As I stated outside the House, it is unlikely it will be possible to give a final answer on this proposal before the end of the year, because of the very large stakes involved and the complexity of the problem. Certainly, this proposal will be considered sympathetically by the government.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his answer. The second question is based largely on what he referred to. In view of the fact that the Tree Island Steel Company contract is apparently dependent on the upgrading of the billet mill, will the government be prepared to provide that portion of financial assistance, rather than the whole amount required, by December 31 in order to finalize the contract? I ask this question realizing that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stated that he only recently learned of this stipulation in the contract as was reported in the last few weeks.
[ Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to this part of the hon. member's question because I feel it is specifically directed to me. We are indeed considering this element of the agreement, but we were advised of the terms of the contract between SYSCO and the Tree Island Steel Company only these past few weeks. We are also considering most attentively that part of the contract which requires a firm commitment from SYSCO to invest in the modernization of the mill, so that it can produce the required steel billets. But as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated, it would be very difficult to render a final decision before the end of the year, as we have had this issue under review only a few weeks. However, an interim decision could be made to meet this contract stipulation.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport: it arises out of a question I asked last February following a helicopter crash north of Revelstoke, B.C.
The minister indicated at that time there would be a review of safety regulations related to the sport of helicopter skiing, and that would come following investigation of the crash. Has that investigation been completed? Was any public report made? Has there been a review of the regulations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the investigation has not been completed. The safety bureau did release for the public three pages of material in relation to the analysis of the accident. While the report is being developed with regard to a specific accident, the Department of Transport has been reviewing helicopter regulations both with regard to regulation as such and with regard to safety. That work is now moving forward.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, 1 will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport).
In light of the fatalities that have occurred in the new but rapidly growing sport of glacier skiing, is the minister considering publishing guidelines on the training of glacier skiing guides in order to improve the safety record of that exciting sport?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing me with notice of his question. We have made appropriate representations to the sport governing body involved. In addition, we have made contributions to the protective and safety area of this sport governing body, to the Alpine Club of Canada and the Canada Ski Patrol Association in the amount of $28,768 and $66,157 respectively. Over-all, in skiing, the people of Canada are contributing this year $776,000, of which $422,000 was extremely well spent in developing our alpine ski team which members on the other side have seen fit to congratulate with us.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice: it arises out of two specific circumstances affecting people in my constituency in relation to so-called, far-out religious cults.
My question is this: has there been any survey of the number of these so-called religious cults or communes operating in Canada? Is there any estimate of the number of

m
iy-


December 12, 1978

individuals directly involved as being members in Canada? Is there any federal government monitoring of their activities, their fund-raising methods, what they do with their money, how they invest it and, finally, generally speaking is this a matter of provincial or federal jurisdiction?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the latter part of the hon. member's question he asked for a legal opinion. The hon. member knows very well that the Canadian Charter of Human Rights guarantees religious freedom in this country. Therefore, I know of no surveys or inquiries being done on a continuous basis with regard to religious organizations in Canada.
If the hon. member has in mind some particular groups which he has reason to believe are not obeying the laws of Canada and acting as genuine religious groups, I would be happy to have that information. I will try to get him the information about such groups, or get that done through the appropriate department.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: This is just generally speaking, Mr. Speaker; I am not now referring to any specific group. Generally, is the minister aware of any monitoring whatsoever by the federal government in relation to the activities or even the question of membership in these groups?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of any such monitoring of religious groups by any organization at the present time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the House knows that last night the government announced through the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that the order of business that we discussed last week had been changed. I understand today the government intends to call Bill C-9, dealing with referenda on constitutional matters.
In view of that change, and having regard to the time which is left to us, I wonder whether the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) could tell us today what he plans with respect to Bill C-9. When are we likely to be returning to the bill governing Canadian non-profit corporations and the order of business we discussed earlier? Certain arrangements have been made on the assumption the government would remain firm in its legislative program. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is returning from France on Wednesday. When does the Deputy Prime Minister propose to call the motion in the right hon. gentleman's name dealing with the new ministry of state? Perhaps he could clarify the intentions of the government with respect to the order of business because we would appreciate it very much if these matters could be settled.
Social Insurance


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would disagree slightly with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). On Friday I did give a very strong signal that we would be dealing with the referendum bill on Tuesday, depending on the progress which had been made on the four items I listed ahead of that measure. I propose to call the referendum bill today and probably tomorrow, except that if the Prime Minister returns early in the day he might be prepared to proceed with the measure in his name creating the ministry of economic development. That must remain indefinite until his return, though I would hope to be able to advise the hon. member of our intentions tomorrow.
In addition to the items I have already mentioned I should like to advise the hon. member that I am awaiting with great interest the reporting of the unemployment insurance bill. When that bill comes out of the committee it would get priority over all the other items to which I have referred.


Walter David Baker: We would like to be firm about this. If the Prime Minister is back in time, I take it the Deputy Prime Minister intends to have the motion put in his name tomorrow. If not, do I understand he will be dealing with that matter on Thursday rather than on Wednesday, depending on the time of the right hon. gentleman's return; that we would be dealing with that matter, then, either on Wednesday or on Thursday? Is that the intention of the government? It is important there should be some certainty with regard to this. After all, the proposal has been hanging around for some time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the intention as I look at the clock at 3.07 today, but that could change depending on the availability of the Prime Minister. But it is my intention to call the referendum bill tomorrow if the Prime Minister is not prepared to proceed with the legislation setting up the ministry of economic development, and to proceed with that item on Thursday also. In the meantime, if the unemployment insurance bill is reported I would give that bill priority over all other matters.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked me about a letter signed by the Minister of National Revenue on November 22. I undertook to report very quickly to the House and I am now ready to report. I have here a rather lengthy explanation. There was a little bit of exaggeration in the letter-even Senator Joe Guay can make a little mistake-so I should like permission to table the reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have the leave of the House to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 12, 1978
Order Paper Questions


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I put a question to the Minister of Finance on an extremely important matter, namely the 5 per cent tax on building materials, more particularly storm doors and windows, and at his invitation I sent him documents which he required to answer my question. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he has read these documents and whether he is in a position to clear up this fundamental matter because if manufacturers of doors and windows do not inform their customers properly, it is the consumers who will pay the price. I would therefore like to know, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister is in a position to inform us on this subject.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member had required, I met my deputy minister yesterday afternoon and I gave him the documents the hon. member had sent me. I also asked him to contact the hon. member directly to answer him. He was to do that this morning. I will therefore inquire on the matter. I want to inform the hon. member that the person who sent him these documents could have gotten all the information he or she wanted by simply checking with the local office of Revenue Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 70, 154, 193, 255 and 481.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is it the intention of the Superannuation Branch of the Department of Supply and Services to establish its operation in the facilities leased from Multileaseholders Ltd., Moncton, New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the exact location of the offices for such a facility?
3.	What is the square footage and the rent for the premises?
4.	Is such decentralization a temporary or permanent arrangement?
5.	(a) How many employees are to be employed (b) what are the entrance requirements for such employment (i) linguistically (ii) meritwise (iii) in all other respects?
6.	What (a) will be the total payroll in such a branch (b) is the classification and salary for each employee, already employed or to be employed?
7.	How many (a) employees are re-locating to the Moncton Constituency with this arrangement from outside the Constituency (b) will be from the Constituency?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The superannuation division of the Department of Supply and Services commenced initial operations in the Moncton area, in facilities leased from Multi-Leaseholds Ltd. The commencement of operations was May 15, 1978.
2.	Building No. 4 Parkview Plaza in Moncton's Industrial Park at 310 Baig Blvd.
3.	Office space-44,163 square feet at $7.97 per square foot per year in four phases:
(1)	26,367 square feet in May, 1978,
(2)	6,635 square feet in October, 1978,
(3)	7,168 square feet in April, 1979,
(4)	3,993 square feet in October, 1979.
Storage space-800 square feet at $3 per square foot per year.
4.	The superannuation division has relocated temporarily to the facilities rented from Multi-Leaseholds until appropriate permanent facilities are available.
5.	(a) Eventually, approximately 400 over the next four years.
(b) (i) Either bilingual in the two official languages, or English or French identification will be accorded to the various positions.
(ii)	Appointments to within the superannuation division shall be in relation to the relevant selection standards, and within the context of the Public Service Employment Act.
(iii)	Nil.
6.	(a) Approximately $5 million at full strength.
December 12, 1978

(b) Following is a breakdown by group and level showing anticipated establishment and salary range accorded to each of the positions.
Group/Level	Number	Salary RangeAS-8	1	$29,700-36,700AS-7	2	$29,200-32,500AS-6	4	$26,489-29,576AS-5	3	$22,778-25,404AS-4	20	$19,469-21,665AS-3	1	$17,835-19,845AS-2	27	$16,734-18,645AS-1	1	$15,031-17,414PE-3	1	$18,500-26,700PE-2	I	$16,300-23,400CR-6	21	$14,701-16,088CR-5	84	$13,654-14,933CR-4	25	$12,031-13,154CR-3	109	$10,837-11,843CR-2	46	$ 9,083- 9,856CR-1	1	$ 8,721- 9,635ST-SCY-3	1	$13,263-14,056ST-SCY-2	3	$11,635-12,722ST-SCY-1	5	$ 8,043-11,456ST-OCE-2	10	$10,403-11,346ST-TYP-2	7	$ 8,455- 9,168FI-2	1	$16,674-18,697FI-3	1	$18,268-20,490DA-PRO-5	1	$15,648-17,129DA-PRO-4	1	$14,067-15,394DA-PRO-3	3	$12,633-13,821DA-PRO-2	4	$11,294-12,347DA-CON-5	1	$14,624-16,002DA-CON-3	3	$11,109-12,140DA-CON-2	12	$ 9,585-11,069
7. Present indications are that about
(a)	67;
(b)	the balance will be selected and appointed according to the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	In 1977-78, did the Department of Public Works undertake any projects in the constituency of Abitibi and, if so, what were they?
2.	Is the department planning to undertake any projects in the constituency of Abitibi in 1978-79 and, if so, what are they?


André Ouellet: 1. Public Works Canada undertook the following project over $5,000 in the Constituency of Abitibi in 1977-78:
Val-d'Or GOCB-Interior fitting-up for Health and
Welfare
2.	The following projects in excess of $5,000 are planned for 1978-79
La Sarre-Install furnaces, 221 Main Street
Referenda
Great Whale River-New Post Office, warehouse only Radisson (Baie James)-Fitting-up Post Office


Mr. Howie: Approximately what percentage of the Canadian market for consumer electronic products was served by imports in (a) 1972 (b) 1974 (c) 1976 (d) 1977?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that the percentage of the Canadian market for consumer electronic products, served by imports was as follows: 1972, 29.6 per cent; 1974, 38.6 per cent; 1976, 44.5 per cent; 1977, not available.


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the constituency of Provencher were given work by the Treasury Board and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.


Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the constituency of Victoria who performed services for the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission during 1977 and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows: None.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-9, respecting public

December 12, 1978
Referenda
referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to move second reading of Bill C-9, the referendums bill. This bill is being introduces by the government at a critical time in Canada's history. I am sure all hon. members recognize its potential importance. The bill provides the framework which would permit parliament to approve that referenda be held on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, where that includes all the conventions and enactments of the constitution as well as the political and judicial processes of Canada.
I want to deal with three themes in my remarks today: first, the need for the bill; second, its implications for parliamentary democracy and for federal-provincial relations; and third, the principles underlying it as the framework for a democratic procedure.
[ Translation]
Canada has clearly entered the decisive stage of the constitutional debate which has been active since the early 1960s, but which goes back to the 1920s-if not beyond-and the first attempts to deal with the problem of an amending formula. The debate is exciting and it is necessary. Canada today is radically different from the four colonies which drafted the British North America Act 111 years ago. Where then there were four provinces and three million Canadians, during the past 111 last years, Canada has been transformed from a rural frontier society into a strong and sophisticated industrial state.
Where then-that is in 1867-we came almost exclusively from British, French and native ancestry, now we include an important fourth stream-that 30 per cent of Canadians who come from continental Europe, from Asia, and the other continents. While in 1867, it took months to travel from the Gulf of the St. Lawrence to Vancouver Island, now we can do it in hours, and our messages and images can do it instantly.
Where then the state played a relatively marginal role in most people's lives, today it has grown to absorb 40 per cent of our gross national income and to touch our lives in ways never then dreamed of.
Given these enormous changes, we must have the greatest respect for the Fathers of Confederation who drafted our constitution. It has served us well and provided the framework for extraordinary accomplishments. But it is necessary that Canadians look carefully at this constitutional legislation to ask whether, after over a century, the time has not come to renew our most basic law.
And this, of course, is exactly what is happening. The government has worked actively to promote this review: first, with the white paper "A Time for Action" last June; secondly, with Bill C-60 setting out possible changes; and, most recently,

in late October, with its recent offer to discuss a number of questions relating to the division of powers.
The recent constitutional conference was a success, I do not hesitate to say so. It is now being followed by intensive discussions by the federal and provincial governments on a number of significant items. The justice ministers and the ministers of federal-provincial affairs or intergovernmental affairs have already held a three-day meeting.
Another one is scheduled for tomorrow night or rather for Thursday morning. It will be held in Toronto and will last for three days, ending after next Saturday's meeting. This conference will allow us to further examine the constitutional proposals which have been discussed during the recent first ministers' conference in late October and early November. But whatever the prospects for agreement on these constitutional issues may be, I for one am confident that real progress will be made during the conferences and discussions which will take place in the coming weeks.
So whatever the prospects for some agreement on some questions, it is clear that the Canadian public is not yet directly involved in the process of constitutional change. I believe there may be circumstances when such direct involvement could be of the utmost importance. For instance: It could serve to acquaint the large majority of our citizens with the importance and character of proposals for constitutional changes and permit the people to express themselves directly on these proposals. Even if the proposals were supported by the great majority of federal and provincial governments and by the important political parties, such public participation on the process of constitutional change could be very valuable.
This involvement of the public in the constitutional reform could directly demonstrate the legitimacy of the constitution and help transform this legal document-which is out of necessity somewhat dry-into a people's statement of their basic principles which would guide them over many decades. Direct public involvement could also serve to guide the federal and provincial governments, should the process of constitutional revision ever become blocked. Obviously, a referendum in these circumstances would not be entered into lightly. As well, any federal government would be aware of the great risks of defeat in a referendum if it asked parliament to approve a question with important provincial governments or parties ranged against it.
The referendum bill before us, Mr. Speaker, would do nothing to minimize those risks for the federal government. As a matter of fact, under this act, the federal party would not get more than 20 per cent of the television time allowed by the CRTC to the various political parties. And provincial parties generally would get as much television time as federal parties. These and other measures ensure that no federal government would ever be in a position to manipulate the result of a federal referendum over the opposition of the provincial governments or opposition parties. But the federal government
December 12, 1978

would be able to ask parliament to approve a referendum question if it was confident that a public vote on the question would clarify the desires of the population in regard to constitutional reform.
These are two circumstances, and 1 could quote others, when a federal referendum may prove very useful in constitutional reform. There is another reason for this bill, Mr. Speaker, and it relates to the particular challenge to the country posed by the present government of Quebec. The Parti Quebecois, as is known, is committed to holding a referendum on the constitutional future of that province. I do not know what the question will be and nobody at present seems to know, not even the government itself which is eventually supposed to ask the question. 1 honestly hope that both the question and the Parti Quebecois' option will be clear so that the Quebec referendum will serve to clarify the desires of Quebeckers. But whatever the precise question and option, I think it is beyond question that the Quebec government is committed to an end to a federal Canada, that is an end to Canada based on two orders of government, each directly elected and having real powers to tax and to spend within its competence. Given these goals of the Quebec government and given that it has equipped itself to hold a referendum on the future of Quebec, the Government of Canada believes it is incumbent on itself and on parliament to ensure that we are equally equipped to consult with the people of Quebec, or of the other provinces, or all Canadian citizens at the some time, if need be.
Canada is a federation, and a federation requires a careful balance between the central and provincial governments. Canada and its provinces have parliamentary systems of government with well established principles and traditions for the political process. Some Canadians, and I respect their views, are worried that a law which would enable parliament to approve referendum questions on constitutional matters may have serious implications for either our federal system or our parliamentary democracy. Are they right to be worried?
Let us first consider the question of our federal system. It is basic to the present bill that referenda be consultative only. They would not be binding on parliament. This means that a federal referendum would not serve to replace the present procedures for constitutional amendment. This is clear in the bill, it is quite clearly spelled out, and it was clear in the bill which was introduced in the last parliament. This position is maintained in the present bill. It is therefore not a substitute for parliament, not a substitute for our present rules of constitutional amendment, but it is an addition to the present procedures, an addition which might provide extra relevance or legitimacy or which might help to move the federal and provincial governments closer to agreement.
What is more, as I indicated in the Elouse in April, the government believes it is clear that if a question which had
Referenda
implications for one or more provinces was posed, then consultations would be held with those provinces relative to that question. Finally, the procedures set down in the bill for the referendum campaign are designed to put the federal and provincial governments and federal and provincial political parties on a completely equal footing in such a debate. Thus, the rules of a referendum campaign would preserve the balance in our federal system.
Let me go to the second question or the second area of concern which some Canadians feel, and that is the concern for our parliamentary democratic system. Here I think three points are critical. First of all, referenda would be consultative in nature. Second, they would only be held on the authority of parliament; and third, they would be restricted to subject matters having to do with constitutional questions.
First, the consultative nature of referenda would ensure that parliament was still responsible in every way, as it is at the present time, for the actual approval of any constitutional amendments. Because referenda would be consultative, it would also be possible to distinguish between the form of referendum questions and that of constitutional amendments. There may be occasions when it would be appropriate to ask the public to pronounce on broad constitutional principles or on the general characteristics of political structures without becoming involved in all the details which characterize the legal description of these. Thus parliament and the provincial legislatures would continue to be concerned with the detailed examination of legal texts, but they might do so after a public expression on the larger question; and it would always be possible for parliament or a legislature to reject the views expressed in the referendum were its members ready to answer for this in a general election when their turn comes. That is how the democratic system functions.
I hear some hon. members on the other side laughing. Let me remind them-although perhaps this is not a good example to quote to them-that Mr. Levesque has said quite clearly that he would not consider himself bound by the answer he would receive in the next referendum and certainly would not intend to resign; but quite clearly in such a case he would be called upon to account for his decision before the electorate at the next provincial election, which would also be the case for any other government, provincial or federal, in a similar situation.
Therefore, I repeat that nothing would be changed in terms of our present system of proceeding with constitutional amendments. Referenda would provide parliament and the legislatures with the benefit of the views of the Canadian people expressed in a specific way on a specific subject at a specific time.
Second, only parliament itself can approve referendum questions. This is the most basic protection of the parliamentary system because members of the House would never permit our system to be eroded by the reckless use of referenda. It is worth noting that those countries which make extensive use of referenda, especially Switzerland and some American states, have procedures for citizens to initiate referenda by petition,
2036

December 12, 1978
Referenda
and it is these petitions which are largely responsible for the frequent use of referenda. These referenda take place at the initiative of a certain number of citizens, as provided for either by the state constitution, in the case of the American states, or by the national constitution, in the case of Switzerland. However, in country after country where there is no right of initiative by petition arising out of a group of citizens, the use of referenda has been extremely limited.
Finally referenda would be restricted to constitutional questions. This type of restriction is found in many countries with parliamentary systems. There is no evidence that the possibility of constitutional referenda is the thin edge of the wedge which leads ineluctably to referenda on other questions. Even the Mother of Parliaments, the parliament of Great Britain in Westminster, has held two referenda in recent years; one in Northern Ireland and another one throughout the country concerning the entry of Great Britain into the European Common Market.


An hon. Member:: Both divisive.


Marc Lalonde: Those referenda were held on constitutional questions. Moreover, the Mother of Parliaments recently approved two more referenda on the constitutional future of Wales and Scotland.
Also, 1 might draw the attention of the House to the fact that Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, New Zealand and Norway are all parliamentary democracies which hold occasional referenda but which restrict their subject matter solely or almost entirely to constitutional questions. I have not included in this list other democratic countries which use the technique of referenda on various subjects over and above constitutional questions. The most obvious ones which come to mind readily are the United States and Switzerland.
Of course, there is a logic to restricting referenda to constitutional questions. The constitution is the basic law of a country. It establishes the structure of the state and the sovereign relations between parliament, people and the different orders of government. In some countries, sovereignty is deemed to flow directy from the people. In those cases it is entirely natural, through constitutional referenda, that people should determine the institutional form which sovereignty should take.
In Canada we consider parliament is sovereign within its domain. But even here, most would recognize that people are the most important source of sovereignty. Consultative referenda permit the population to express itself on questions of sovereignty without violating the legal sovereignty of parliament or of the legislatures.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe the principles on which the government has based the proposed procedures for referendum campaigns and voting. But in doing so, I want to avoid entering into details, for the nature of this bill is

necessarily complex and, obviously, it would be better to get into them at the committee stage of debate. The government has based the bill on certain broad principles, which it hopes make the bill a model for referenda in a federal state. Besides, we have had consultations with opposition parties when the legislation was first presented during last session. However, the government recognizes that a bill of this type-like the electoral law-should as much as possible represent the views of all parties on proper procedures for a political contest. I want to underline, therefore, that we approach the debate on this bill with an open mind, Mr. Speaker, and we hope to work in as close co-operation as possible with all parties to ensure the procedures are widely acceptable as the best possible. In this regard, I think our debate at this stage is especially important because it gives us the opportunity to examine the principles underlying the bill before entering into details.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members opposite will recognize that in some cases no procedure could be devised which fully satisfied all our principles. We had to make difficult choices between principles to which we all believe in this House. I am confident the opposition will recognize these difficulties and that in its criticisms it will show full regard for such difficulties. So these are the major principles underlying this bill. First, the procedures governing a referendum should be fully consistent with all those political rights normally respected in Canada, especially freedom of expression and freedom of association. Secondly, the procedure should impose financial controls which encourage a fair and open debate.
I want to discuss these two principles together, Mr. Speaker, because they are so closely related in the provisions of the bill. If we had been concerned only to ensure freedom of association and freedom of expression without any financial controls our task would have been greatly simplified. In fact, it is the combination of this freedom of association and of expression with the need to exercise some financial controls on the other hand which is so challenging. Our analysis led us to conclude that it would be impossible to satisfy both principles by trying to impose over-all financial controls on the "yes" and "no" campaigns within a referendum campaign.
The Quebec government, in its referendum legislation, has decided to impose such over-all financial controls on the two opposing sides in a referendum. An in-depth study of this bill has convinced us that the approach and the policy adopted by the Quebec government necessarily leads to infringements of the freedoms of expression and association.
December 12, 1978

Hon. members of this House will certainly want to voice their opinion on this matter-this is a very serious issue-and they will indicate how, by legislatively forcing people to join umbrella organizations representing each side of the question, the freedoms of expression and association of these same people are necessarily reduced and restricted. One can even suppose that, since only two unbrella groups are recognized, some people could be excluded from the referendum debate because they would be rejected, for political reasons by one or the other option or umbrella group. That has indeed happened in other countries. We have seen this in Norway, in particular, during the referendum debate concerning the country's entry into the common market. There have indeed been cases where two major organizations were created-they were not established by law-for and against the proposal, and for purely political reasons, certain groups could not join either one of these organizations, which believed that politically it would not serve their purpose to have some small group, considered marginal for example, join them lest it would discredit the opinion of the majority. We have therefore concluded that this requirement set out in the Quebec legislation to have all citizens join either one of the two umbrella organizations is a serious infringement on the freedom of association and even on the freedom of expression. That is why we have rejected that alternative, but only after due consideration, we have studied it with a great deal of interest and attention. We have examined foreign experiences in this respect and we must note that that philosophy, though it may be inspired by apparently defensible motivations prompting toward control over expenditures made by the two opposing groups, results in an undue and unecessary limitation of the freedom of association and the freedom of expression which must be the two basic freedoms in any self-respecting democratic system.
So what did we do? Barring, an over-all financial control over the two groups in question we found another solution. And the solution we found is that which is contained in the bill which we think is an acceptable way of dealing with the problem of financial control by limiting the expenditures and contributions of individuals and legal persons, as opposed to the "yes" and "no" campaigns; in other words, what we are going to control is the contribution from each individual or legal person. Thus, there will be a maximum contribution so that no one will be able in the referendum debate to exert undue pressure as a result of his wealth as his contribution will be subject to a maximum set out in the legislation, but we are not preventing anyone from contributing and particularly not from joining one of the tens of hundreds of groups that can form in a debate like that.
In short, this procedure avoids the situation where citizens are simply forced to join either one of the two camps and being practically prevented from particm-ting freely in the referendum debate outside those two camps. Modern democratic
Referenda
views require that the public be informed of the provenance and object of political funds and that there be limits on the use of these funds. The Canada Elections Act limits the amount which individual parties and candidates can spend, but does not limit the size of contributions. And that is rather easy because there is a limited number of political parties. There are now four parties in the House and at election time there are always a few more, some that do not even manage to have one member elected to this House, but one must admit that the number of political parties is relatively limited. But if we are talking about a referendum debate for example on constitutional matters, obviously the question will have to be answered by a yes or no, but each political party, each group, each association, might want to decide pro or against such or such thesis, for entirely different reasons; some groups, I repeat, might prefer not to be associated with others in such a political debate or democratic debate.
Because we were not prepared to force the creation of "yes" and "no" groups which would be subject to total expenditure limits, we chose to put a limit of $5,000 on the amount that an individual or legal person can spend or contribute. No person, no corporation, no union could make a contribution exceeding $5,000 during the referendum campaign. That sum seems sufficient to permit anyone a natural extension of one's freedom of expression while it also ensures that no one or no group can have an unfair advantage because of private wealth or because of a special position which they might have, as corporations, unions, non-profit associations of any kind which would have access to special funds.
Mr. Speaker, the procedures in this bill recognize federal and provincial parties as basic actors in our political process, but they facilitate the creation of groups or even unbrella groups, should parties or individuals want this. But they do not make it compulsory, this must be emphasized. They also permit individuals to act alone, should they so wish, with absolutely no need to register or report on their activities. Thus, they preserve freedom of expression, subject only to the limit of $5,000 which applies to contributions or expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken some time to elaborate on the first two principles that guide us in this bill, and that is that first and above all we should respect freedom of expression and freedom of association in the referendum debate; and, second, there should be some financial control on the powers that may be exercised by those who are contributing financially.
There are two other principles I should like to talk about which we find in this bill. The third principle is that the procedures should ensure the probity of the referendum process at the same high level as the probity of the electoral process. The fourth principle is that procedures should be as simple and as familiar as possible. Thus, the bill before us uses the procedures of the Canada Elections Act wherever possible. When adaptation has been necessary because it is impossible
8006 7 -S 7'/z

December 12, 1978
Referenda
just to prescribe the Canada Elections Act, we have tried to make it as consistent as possible with electoral practice.
One example is the introduction of representatives of provincial parties or of referendum committees into the revision of electoral lists and scrutiny of the vote. Another example is in basing the allocation of television time to parties on the procedures established for elections.
This practice for the allocation of television time involves a difficult choice because there is a counter principle whereby time would be allocated equally to the yes and no groups. We decided against this partly because we could not devise a satisfactory procedure for the equal allocation of broadcasting time without forcing the creation of umbrella groups and violating the freedom of association and the freedom of expression about which I spoke earlier.
More fundamentally, we believe that broadcasting time should be allocated to recognized spokesmen for the population in relation to their established support in reference to provincial and federal political parties. If those parties wish to reallocate their time to outside groups, to divide it with other supporters, they would be free to do so, but the total allowable broadcasting time would be divided between federal and provincial political parties. Adopting the procedure from elections and from the elections act seems to do this perfectly.
The final and fifth underlying principle is that the procedures should respect the federal nature of Canada and not favour parties or groups active at the federal level over those active at the provincial level. I have already touched on this principle in discussing the implications of referenda for our federal system. Again, the government's bill is a marked contrast in this regard with the referenda act approved earlier this year by the Quebec National Assembly. While the federal bill gives full rights to provincial parties to participate in a federal referendum, the Quebec bill gives absolutely no rights whatever to federal parties to participate in a Quebec referendum. At best members of the federal parties, and I mean here members of this House, will only be able to participate as a privilege, if they are accepted by the referenda committees, the umbrella committees, set up by members of the National Assembly.
In any event, this bill would ensure that any referendum question was given a full and fair debate by all federal and provincial parties and any other interested groups. It ensures that there will be no bias in favour of the so-called "Ottawa point of view" against that found in provincial capitals.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, to conclude let me say that this bill seems to me necessary and important, that it is a positive addition to our federal system and is fully consistent with our parliamentary system. It is based on democratic principles which are largely endorsed both in this House and beyond, particularly by provincial legislatures. Therefore, I invite opposition members to approach this bill in a positive spirit of critical examination, so that together we may try to improve its provisions and prepare Canada for the decisive phase of its constitutional development. I would like to thank hon. members from this side of the House as well as the other side who in recent months have expressed their views and thoughts on that very important issue. Once again, as I said early in my speech, not only has the federal parliament a right to get an instrument as proposed in this legislation, but in the present circumstances I think the government would be irresponsible if it failed to propose to parliament a legislation such as the one before the House today and which, I am sure, will be discussed positively by all parties.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Marc Lalonde: Certainly.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister tell the House whether in this bill-and I have read Bill C-9 through very carefully- there is any provision which provides, after the referendum has been completed, for any option to be taken? Or is it that the opinion secured by the referendum is purely advisory, and it would still be left to parliament and legislatures to exercise the same jurisdictions they now have?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation in the latter part of the hon. member's question is the proper one. The referenda under this bill will be purely consultative, and there is no action required by parliament or by any legislature following any particular result of any referendum.


Walter David Baker: Or by the government.


Marc Lalonde: Or by the government; obviously by the government. If there is, for instance, an overwhelmingly positive answer to a positive question in a particular referendum and the government does not proceed to do anything about it, surely the people of Canada would ask themselves why they had to go through that exercise in the first place. That would be the responsibility of the government of the day, vis-a-vis the citizens of Canada after having expressed their views.
I reiterate that it is clearly a consultative process. There is nothing in the Constitution of Canada at the present time that could make the result of a referendum binding on the government, parliament or any particular legislature. I can assure the hon. member that the rights of parliament, the legislatures and particularly our responsibilities as parliamentarians vis-a-vis the amendment of the Canadian constitution continue to lie completely and wholly within the legislatures and the federal parliament.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to take part in debate on this bill on behalf of my party. Bill C-9 is:
An act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada.
[Mr. Lalonde. 1
December 12, 1978

I note that the bill stands in the name of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid). I can only presume that he is not speaking in this debate. He is not even in the House, though he was earlier.


Marc Lalonde: He will be.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Perhaps he was not quite prepared due to the speed with which the government brought in this particular piece of legislation, and therefore is not leading off on a bill in his name. However, we shall be glad to welcome his participation at any time during the debate, and we will ask of course who is responsible for this piece of legislation. Is it the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations or is it the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde)?


Marc Lalonde: Jointly and severally.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Perhaps at some point we will have that matter clarified.
This is one of the most important, one of the most major, bills ever to come before the Canadian parliament, because by its very nature it has tremendous bearing on our established political process. This bill gives to the governor in council, the cabinet, the executive, power to initiate referenda on constitutional matters. Nothing could be more substantive or more serious. It is serious not just because of its constitutional aspects, with which I shall deal in a few minutes, but it is doubly serious because a referendum of any kind at the national level is a serious matter in itself.
We have not had much experience with national referenda in this country, one reason being that the whole concept is alien to the spirit of the Canadian parliamentary system; but the experience that we have had has shown that, far from being a mechanism of unity for Canada, the referendum has had the opposite effect. I say that sorrowfully, Mr. Speaker. The referendum of 1898 on prohibition and the referendum of 1942 on conscription were divisive and left their mark on this country.
In both cases the province of Quebec voted one way and the rest of the country voted the other. No one who knows even a fragment of Canadian history can be unaware of the incredibly divisive effects of the conscription referendum of 1942. The wound has not healed to this day and is, in fact, one of the major historical events which underlies much of the current disunity. Whatever reasons one can cite for favouring referenda, the healing of wounds is not one of them. Referenda serve to set neighbour against neighbour, family member against family member, and the cleavage remains long after the content of the referendum has been forgotten. We must bear this fact in mind if we are looking to national unity as a factor in this bill.
The last thing we want at this time is to further rend the fragile fabric of confederation at a time when it is being subjected to greater strain than ever before in our history. Being aware of its potential for divisiveness we must, if we are
Referenda
to consider referenda as an integral part of the political system, arrive at that decision only after careful thought, only after thorough examination of its effects on our parliamentary system; and, above all, we must arrive at it with the utmost honesty.
I do not find this legislation before us today to be in that spirit of honesty and forthrightness which this difficult subject demands. I see this legislation as being devious, dangerous and even deceptive. It purports to be an act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada. It is, instead, a blatant attempt to subvert and undermine the responsibilities and duties of the Canadian system of responsible government.


Marc Lalonde: You must be kidding!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The minister laughs.


Marc Lalonde: You have got to be kidding!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: If this bill were merely dangerous, our course would be clear. We would simply vote against this nonsense and have nothing more to do with it.


Marc Lalonde: But devious?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is devious, as the minister has said, and deceptive as well. The government has undertaken to dress up this bill in attractive and worthy clothing of direct democracy, constitutional change and even national unity. We must not let this disguise deceive us for it conceals a fraud, the chief result of which would be to bring about not simply constitutional change-because we are all interested in that-but a constitutional revolution by stealth.
Of course, it would be done in the name of simply giving the Government of Canada powers equal to those which the Parti Quebecois government has given itself. That is not fighting fire with fire, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have it and as the Minister of Justice would have it. That is trying to fight fire with gasoline, with the result of burning down your own house and of spreading the fire much further-to fires of disunity.
I want to discuss the real significance of this bill because it demonstrates once again that this government either does not know what it is doing, where it is heading, or it does not want the rest of the country to find out. The bill has many defects and there are a number of ways in which we might deal with these.
Some time ago the separatist government of the province of Quebec began preparations for a referendum on the future of the status of that province in Canada's confederation. All of us watched with considerable concern as the arrangements were announced, piece by piece, by which the separatists would try to take our country apart, piece by piece. We watched that process with concern and alarm. We know that the people of Quebec will be called upon to express their wishes on this country's future. On this side of the House we are confident, even if the government is not, that the people of Quebec will

December 12, 1978
Referenda
reject any attempt to trick their country away from them by a misleading plebiscite or any other illegitimate means.
Our greatest concern is not that the people of Quebec will fail to see through the propaganda of the separatists, but that the government opposite will continue in its blind, wilful and divisive ways to the point where it discredits the federal system in the eyes of all Canadians.
Sir, the government says that it needs this legislation, that it must have as much power to consult the people of Quebec as have the Pequistes. On the surface that appears to be a very reasonable argument. If that were what this bill meant and all that it meant, we on this side could accept it fairly willingly. We would have no problem with that kind of legislation if that is what it were. All of us are concerned that the Quebec referendum be conducted in a fair way. But already it is quite clear that the Pequistes are loading the dice as well as stacking the decks.
The existence at the federal level of a clear set of rules to assure the utmost freedom of speech and the utmost in full debate prior to holding any referendum in the province of Quebec is very important. If nothing else, it will constitute a clear warning to the Pequiste government that it must play more fairly than it intends at that time.
Establishing these rules well in advance of the actual asking of such a question by either Quebec or the federal government is also important, for then parliament can concentrate its attention on the precise questions to be asked and the circumstances in which they will be asked without being distracted by debate over procedures. That is also good. We do not argue those points because, as I say, they are good.
However, what is not good, what is devious and deceptive, is the scope of this legislation. What is not acceptable is the attempt once more to sneak into the hands of this most untrustworthy government, and to seek to do it unilaterally, even more power to manipulate and abuse this parliament and the people of Canada than it already has.
Hon. members will recall that last Tuesday, on the initiative of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), this House engaged in a debate which demonstrated the extent to which the government has gone in undermining the Canadian parliamentary system of responsible government. That debate showed how this government had rejected and refused to put into play those rules and practices which would enable us in the House to have real parliamentary democracy. This government persistently rejects the basic constitutional principles of holding itself responsible to and properly accountable to members of the House of Commons.
If this bill should pass in its present form, it would give the present government even more opportunity and more incentives through abuse of the referendum process to evade proper accountability in this House. Today, under the pretence of meeting the Pequistes' power with equal power, the government opposite proposes a constitutional revolution. That is what this bill is all about.
We on this side are always willing to discuss and advocate, long before the government was prepared to do anything about it, discussion on constitutional evolution. However, revolution of this scope? Where on earth is this government leading us?


An hon. Member:: Perdition.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The terms of this bill are far too wide. Let me read that part of clause 2, the interpretation section, where the scope of this bill is effectively defined. It sets out what the government would see as falling within its power at the national level. In dealing with referendums on the constitution, it defines the constitution, that area where the government could conduct referenda. It states that the Constitution of Canada includes, and I quote:
-without limiting the meaning of that expression,
(a)	the customs, conventions and enactments that comprise the Constitution of
Canada, and
(b)	the political and judicial institutions and processes of Canada;
If the bill had stopped after (a), despite my reservations on the "without limiting" phrase, that might have been acceptable. However, the inclusion of (b) opens up the question almost to the four winds. Canada has a great many political institutions, political processes, judicial institutions and judicial processes. A great many of those political institutions, political processes, judicial institutions and judicial processes are not now, ought not now or ought ever to be, under the authority and jurisdiction of the central government. They are under the jurisdiction of the provinces and rightly so.
That is what our constitution asked for. That is why we have a federal system. That is why we have a federal constitution, despite this government's constant attempts to subvert and centralize all power in Ottawa as far as it can. This is another indication of that tendency toward centralization which this government has exhibited year after year. We can see that tendency coming to the fore.
Clause 3, dealing with proclamation of a referendum, reads as follows:
Where it appears to the governor in council that any question relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a proposed or possible change in the Constitution of Canada is of sufficient importance to warrant obtaining the opinion of electors on that question, the governor in council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained on that question by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.
That is a referendum called on any constitutional question by the Government of Canada. That wording in clause 3 encompasses any constitutional question that the Government of Canada might want to ask. That is how wide the scope of this bill is.
In his remarks the minister said that questions put on a referendum are restricted to matters of a contitu.ional nature. What kind of a restriction is that, given the scope of constitutional matters in our federal system?
A myriad of concerns come to the fore, concerns which all of us as parliamentarians, representatives of the people, feel deeply about. Who is going to determine whether or not an

December 12, 1978

issue is constitutional? Can the federal government call a referendum on constitutional issues that might or would have a bearing on provincial or concurrent jurisdictions without the approval of the provinces? What about a referendum on controversial constitutional matters that have not yet been assigned to either provincial or federal jurisdictions, such as offshore resources?
If it wishes, a majority government could use its majority power to see that referendum results would be carried into law. The minister said this would only be a consultative mechanism. However, in the explanation that accompanied the Canada referendum bill, the section on page 5 dealing with the legal character states: "Referenda would be advisory or consultative in nature. Such referenda may, of course, be morally binding if the government indicates its intention to be so bound."
What would happen if a majority government decided to use its majority power to push a referendum through? In the case of offshore resources, for example, could the government effect a decision of this issue by means of a referendum, using the results as a directive to the government and thus do an end run around the courts? Is that the kind of thing the government has in mind with this legislation?
A general provision for referenda on constitutional matters is in itself a constitutional change of some magnitude. Some it is a constitutional innovation. Since it is something new that is coming before us, a matter of great magnitude with regard to constitutional change, should it not be included as part of an over-all package of constitutional reform? Is that not where this bill belongs? Is that not where this suggestion or innovation belongs?
If that kind of general power is what the government wants, then let it deal with it in the proper place and at the proper time. In the meantime, however, there is nothing to prevent the government holding a plebiscite on a particular subject as it did with conscription, or as the United Kingdom did in the case of the common market or on Northern Ireland. Contrary to the impression the minister tried to leave before the House, those matters were dealt with as specific bills coming before the parliament at Westminster in order to deal with a specific question at a specific time. That has been done before in this House, and it can be done at any time.
My greatest concern is that the present government is moving away from past experience where a referendum or plebiscite was held on a specific matter arising at a given point in time. They are moving away from that practice. They are now arrogating unto themselves a general power to hold referenda on constitutional matters. They are now using the Quebec situation to create a new and formidable weapon for the Government of Canada.
Now, sir, it could be argued that it would be appropriate for us to introduce the general concept of referenda into our political system. That is a legitimate argument. There might be arguments in favour of such a course but there are no
Referenda
arguments for doing it this way, trying to slip it in through an underhand method, nor can there be. The method being used by way of this bill is an extension of the government's penchant for attempting to change our federal system unilaterally, something which we have seen so much evidence of in recent months. It is before us once again.
I wish to draw attention to what has gone on in recent months. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that last spring the House and the country were given a white paper on constitutional change. It was called "A Time for Change". That white paper was designed to encourage public discussion and input into the whole process of constitutional change. But no sooner was the ink dry on that white paper than we were handed a finalized formula in the form of Bill C-60, the constitutional amendment bill. Before the people could even receive copies of the white paper we were presented with that bill.


Marc Lalonde: Not at all.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: All the minister has to do is look at the dates on which those two documents were presented and he will find that this was the method which was used. Of course, the government was quick to tell us that the legislation itself was open to discussion, that none of it was immune to change. However, in its usual way of saying one thing and doing another, the government's subsequent actions put the lie to those dubious assurances. I say this because the Prime Minister in his most recent utterances has made it clear that his intent remains to meet his deadline for constitutional change regardless of opposition, regardless of the opposition of the provinces, regardless of the damage to the federal system.
A parliamentary committee, after much study, recommended the wholesale redrafting of Bill C-60, the government's proposals for constitutional change, but with the admonitions of that committee still ringing in his ears the Prime Minister met the provincial premiers to discuss the whole spectrum of constitutional questions at the first ministers' conference in the latter part of October.
The outcome of that conference, one which the Minister of Justice attended, was the establishment of a top level federal-provincial committee under the chairmanship, I believe, of the Minister of Justice to work in such areas as amending formulae, the division of powers, institutions, the whole field of constitutional change. That is why the committee was set up- to deal with matters such as the very one we are debating today. While that committee was working in this area thinking it would really have some influence on constitutional change, the government House leader introduced a major piece of legislation, one with great constitutional ramifications, which gives it and it alone the power to hold referenda on any question related to the constitution including, if the remarks of the Prime Minister are any indication, questions with which that federal-provincial committee is dealing at the present time.
I just want to quote, at this point, from the proceedings at a press conference given by the Prime Minister on October 21 of this year. He was asked what specific question or questions he

December 12, 1978
Referenda
would like to put to the Canadian people in a referendum. In response, the Prime Minister had this to say:
I indicated that the questions could have to do with as simple a thing as patriation of the constitution, or repatriation of the constitution; they could have to do with the will of the country to remain united, and they could have to do with anything in between.
"Anything in between"-anything of a constitutional nature. If there really is a reason for changing our system to accommodate referenda-and that may well be an arguable case-why is this concept not part of the federal-provincial discussions presently under way? How often is the government going to break faith in matters of federal-provincial relations? What is the minister going to say to his counterparts when he meets them on Thursday to explain why he is doing something unilaterally in the House of Commons which he will not discuss with them?


Marc Lalonde: I would say you are talking nonsense.


Mr. Grafftey:: Try to be more intelligent than that.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: How much longer does the government intend to continue its history of unilateral action on major constitutional matters without input from the provinces? What hon. gentlemen opposite must recognize is that the constitution does not belong to one particular government at one particular time. Nor do our institutions or the judicial processes. The government must give up the idea that it holds all the power and that it can impose its will upon Canadians for all time. I say this to the minister very seriously: it is not the prerogative of a dying government to extend its constitutional will long into the future.
We have heard a lot of talk recently from ministers and from the Prime Minister himself about direct democracy. Does the government really believe in direct democracy? I have the impression that it does not. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) have spoken about ways in which direct democracy might be practised and the idea has been put forward by any number of people in the Liberal Party. They have persisted in talking about consulting the people on every important or emotional issue that comes up. They talk about it, but when this legislation comes before us we find they have not dealt with the essence of what they were seeking to convey to the public.
This bill is not about direct democracy in the manner in which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have spoken about it. This bill uses that broad concept, but it is applied only to constitutional matters. Either we should be speaking about specific legislation tied to a specific object, the Quebec referendum question, or we should be talking about the introduction of direct democracy on a grand scale.
Either one of those is a legitimate issue to be discussing, but we on this side would be willing to discuss the specific legislation to which I have just referred which would address itself to the Quebec referendum question. If that is what the government judges to be necessary, we want to make it perfectly
clear that we would be willing to discuss that kind of legislation. What we object to is the potential to have any and all fundamental changes to our constitution brought about in this fashion, and that is what this bill would do.
As it stands, this bill would constitute very significant constitutional change. We on this side have always said that in the debate about constitutional change other participants from all levels must be brought into the discussion. I am talking about the other partners in confederation as well as the people of Canada. They must be brought into the discussion of any proposals for constitutional change, of which this bill is a very major one.
Evidently the government does not plan to do that. It does not plan to consult any of the other legitimate expressions of Canadian thought and feeling on this major constitutional change.


Marc Lalonde: It has been out for six months.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: This legislation may or may not be wholly within the power of parliament to pass. I am not sure of that, especially when I consider the way in which provincial powers would likely be trampled on if this government were given the wide ranging power it is asking for through this bill. With this bill in the hands of an unscrupulous government, that government is given greater potential for seizing power than it is given by the Emergency Powers Act or any other piece of legislation presently on the statute books. That is what this bill does.
Of course, the government-and I know the way it approaches these things-will probably say this bill is within its legal power, and well it might be because that is the course the government took with its previous constitutional bill. Bill C-60. We know the objections to that approach which were raised by constitutional experts, by the provinces and by people all across the country. We know that that line of unilateral action which this government has always put forward has been rejected time and again.
The government should try to decide what it wants to do with this bill. If it wants fundamental constitutional change of the kind envisaged in this bill, it must bring the whole debate out into the open and into a much wider sphere of discussion. It must consult the premiers, the provinces, the public and other constitutional specialists outside government. If, however, the government is serious in its intent about wanting only to deal adequately with the Quebec referendum question, then this bill should be amended to do that job-


Marc Lalonde: You have not been doing your homework.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: -and to do it without giving the government even more wide ranging and arbitrary powers than it already has. What the government should not be doing in any case is trying to do the first of these jobs under the guise of the second. That is what we have in this bill.
The government is trying to use the Quebec situation to delegate to itself much greater constitutional powers. What we

December 12, 1978

need in this case is a special committee on constitutional matters. We need that committee to be set up in this House and to look at this bill. The committee should be given this bill so that it can get the terms and the mechanics of referendum legislation and referendum questions settled to everyone's satisfaction as quickly as possible. Then the committee could get down to the business of establishing once and for all the proper scope of questions which might be asked of the people of Canada.
That is the nub of this bill: What is the scope of questions which one level of government can put to the people of Canada? What is the power that the federal government is seeking to usurp? Before a committee of this kind we could look at this question and hear witnesses who are able to advise not just the government but all members of parliament on constitutional matters. Then we could see precisely what devious objectives the government has in mind and deal appropriately with them.
Either we live in a federal system and respect the basic tenets of that federal system, or we do not. Either we work out our constitutional renewal jointly with the provinces, or we repudiate our system of government. Either we encourage both levels of government to work together to build this great country of ours, or we engage in an ever greater proliferation of legislation directed against all provincial governments-not just one-which could prove divisive and destructive not just to our political system but to our whole country. The broad scope and powers embodied in this bill could do just that.
In a situation like this, and in the escalating confrontation with the provinces which this government seems determined to bring about, who speaks for Canada?


Some hon. Members:: We do.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Who speaks for our beloved country? The answer to that question is "Not this government."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as both the minister and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) have already said, this bill is important, and it certainly is related to a fundamentally important part of the history of our country. There is no doubt in my mind-nor I am sure in the mind of any member of parliament-that we would not now be debating a measure to provide the Government of Canada with the right to have a referendum on constitutional matters if we were not already faced with the hypothetical possibility that one province, namely, Quebec, will take steps which could lead to the breaking up of our country and to the independence of that province.
In addressing ourselves to the question of a referendum we must consider not simply the general principles involved in parliamentary democracy and the general question of referenda, which are important in constitutional matters and in other matters, but it is very important that we consider, as always in
Referenda
politics, the historic context in which a particular proposal is being dealt with, whether at the federal level or any other level.
I say with all respect to the person who has just spoken that I have rarely heard a more contradictory speech in all my life-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -in terms of facing the political reality in Canada. It is certainly my view in general that in a parliamentary democracy, or in any other kind of democracy, the referenda idea is not a good one, as a general principle, to deal with all kinds of matters. I hope hon. members opposite will listen to the debate because I will support the bill in just a minute and give reasons for doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As a general proposition, men and women throughout history, whether you consider Greece at the time of Pericles, or England at the time of John Stuart Mill, or Canada and the rest of the modern world today, most responsible democrats, in my view, have argued that it is the role of elected people to make decisions, that it is our responsibility to face immensely complicated issues and to work out answers and compromises, because that is essential in a democracy, and normally referenda do not provide for compromise. Normally they divide a community on an issue, and frequently they are inappropriately used because they are used on matters which should be questions of personal morality. So in the view of my party, referenda on a whole range of questions are not something that a democracy should be concerned with. Democracy should be concerned with electing men and women to study issues seriously, to recognize the complexity of most problems and to work out a fair solution.
Now I want to come to the bill before us and to put it in its historical context. I wonder where the Conservative party is in its thinking, and I say that seriously. We will have a serious debate on this issue. The province of Quebec has elected a government honestly and democratically made up, from their perspective, of decent, honest and good citizens. I will not denigrate them because 1 happen to differ profoundly with them about the future of our country and indeed about the future of their province. But the historical reality is that, for the first time in the history of our country, we are confronted with a government which was elected in part, so they interpret it, on a mandate to divide the country. So it is not the present Government of Canada but they who were the first historically to present us with a bill that will provide in one province the right to decide.
I say frankly that if we recognize-be it in Canada, in Ireland, in Pakistan or in other parts of the world-two distinctly different cultural and linguistic entities like those we have in Canada, which have existed so far with some real tensions-and most of us hope we can work them out and
2044

December 12, 1978
Referenda
continue with a united Canada-or if a society is divided on religious grounds, as it is in other parts of the world, we will have to resolve the issues at some point by having a vote.
No one can pretend that a referendum will be a permanent solution or the only solution; but if you do not believe in violence, if you do not believe in oppression, then surely the people have to be given the right to decide if the possibility of the survival of the country is at stake. That is why I for one agree in principle with the means of the Parti Quebecois, which is a democratic means, of establishing a referendum, although I oppose the party with all the energy, intellectual, moral and physical, within the law, that I can muster on their objective.
I happen to agree with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands-although I was astounded to hear her say it in the context of her argument-when she said that, in general, the rules for the Quebec referendum have "stacked the deck and loaded the dice." She said it, I did not. I think that is the case. I do not think the rules as set out, when you think of freedom of association, freedom of opinion and so on, and a whole lot of details which I could go into, are reasonably drawn for the referendum framework in the province of Quebec.
If that is the reality, I ask the House: What is the Government of Canada to do?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Bring in the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: We have a bill. I say to the hon. member that she attacked it for what seemed to me to be palpably absurd grounds, comparing it with the War Measures Act, if 1 heard her argument correctly.
The government is bringing in a bill which seems to me to enable the people of Canada to decide, within the democratic context. We will come to some of the provisions in this bill, and if the circumstances require it to the question of a vote to be taken, whether in Quebec or somewhere else. But we are not in a fantasy world. We will be living within the framework of this bill for five years only. My understanding-I would be surprised if anyone sees it any differently-is that if it happens that the question in the province of Quebec is put unfairly-we have to leave that open as a possibility surely, because the Parti Quebecois is a partisan government, just as partisan as my party, as the Conservatives or as the Liberals, and I will not put it any more strongly than that-the question they will put to the electorate can be a loaded one. To use the hon. member's words, not only will they be loading the dice and stacking the deck in terms of the rules for the referendum, but they might even do it in terms of the way they phrase the question.
How are we to respond? Normally I am not in agreement with the basic principle of a bill coming from the government, but I and my caucus colleagues have thought through this question of a referendum on constitutional matters. This bill, for a limited period of time, will enable us as Canadians to do what the hon. member raises rhetorically, that is, to speak for Canada if the showdown comes, if we are confronted with an
unfair question in the Quebec referendum and an unfair interpretation of the results.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands spoke about our turning the parliamentary system upside down. I would remind her that her colleague, the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), has brought in Bill C-220 dealing with a referendum on capital punishment. There were Tory candidates all over this country in the by-elections who were saying we should have a referendum on capital punishment. Some of us have had the determination to say that is our responsibility if we are elected. I am saying that you cannot have it both ways. I do not know who speaks for the Conservative party. Is it the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham or the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands? They are taking very different positions. We take a consistent position on this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then get to it.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member is a little embarrassed perhaps because of the contradictory positions his party has taken. I want to remind the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that it was his leader who said that, on the basis of the result of a referendum in the province of Quebec, which will be conducted under rules which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands described as loading the dice and stacking the deck, if the results come out 60 per cent in favour of sovereignty association, he would be prepared to negotiate for such association.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Edward Broadbent: We would not be prepared to negotiate sovereignty association conducted under rules which the hon. member has just described as being loaded against the rest of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask, is it responsible for the Government of Canada and for all of us in this parliament to stand back in horror and, considering the possibility that we might not like the way the referendum is written, the way the campaign is conducted or the interpretation of the decision, not provide the enabling legislation to conduct what might perhaps be a fairer referendum? That is an absurd position. It is a position which abdicates responsibility to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask my Conservative colleagues on my right to speak that way not only in Quebec to federalists, but in the province of Saskatchewan and see what the people of Saskatchewan will say. I would like to see them speaking to the people of British Columbia, and above all to the people of the province of Quebec, and saying, "We in Ottawa believe

December 12, 1978

exclusively in the government of the province of Quebec." I am sure Quebeckers will be taking part in this debate. I am sure they will not stand by and allow a government committed to the independence of the province of Quebec to write all the rules of the game. We will not stand by. That is what I want to tell members of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask Conservative members to consider some of the-


Howard Earl Johnston: Deal with the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: I am dealing with five areas of concern. Conservative members are somewhat concerned, as they ought to be, with the duplicity of the level of debate they have engaged in so far. Why do we support the bill? It is restricted-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You support Liberals all the time.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the hon. member that Conservatives have supported the Liberals more in this parliament than we have. I will count the votes. However, when a matter of fundamental importance is under consideration, we will not play around with petty, partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We support the bill because it is restricted to matters of fundamental constitutional importance which in various countries, including parliamentary democracies such as Great Britain, Norway, Australia and New Zealand, not to mention the United States and Switzerland which are not parliamentary democracies, have been dealt with by referenda. Those countries have had referenda on fundamental questions. It is hardly anti-democratic, unless one says that some of the most democratic countries of the world are not democratic. The bill is restricted to constitutional matters.
The province affected, will be consulted about the wording of the proposed referendum, and that is reasonable. I remind Conservative members to consider what the results of passing this bill would be as they affect a resolution being brought before the House. If one reads the bill, one will discover that a resolution must be debated for at least 40 hours in the House, which is approximately eight days of debate; and at least 40 hours in the other House, which is another eight days of debate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is 20 days over there.


John Edward Broadbent: At least. If there is a particular referendum which we do not think is popular, the point is that we have the means in this House as an opposition to hold things up beyond the eight days. Indeed, if it happened that the government of the day, whether it be this government or any other, rammed
Adjournment Motion
through a referendum bill in the face of united opposition in the House of Commons, one does not have to guess what would happen. A referendum of that nature which did not have reasonable support and had to be rammed through would be defeated in advance. Any government would know that.
My crucial point is that there is opportunity within the legislation for a referendum resolution to be brought before us at any time. Personally I hope a resolution will not have to be brought forward. This is permissive legislation, not mandatory. There will be an opportunity to deal with the referendum.
Another point I like about the bill is that it puts federal and provincial parties on the same basis in taking part. There is no restrictive aspect to it.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has a horrified view of the government, and certainly on economic matters I share that concern. But if the government brought through a referendum which was so bad in terms of generating opposition on this side of the House, since most governments at the provincial level are Tories, it seems to me they should not worry because within the framework of this legislation they can participate. They have the same right as federal parties to participate. They can work on the resolution and generate opposition to it.
For that reason, I cannot understand why one would be opposed to this bill. Surely some details will be dealt with in committee, and as a result some changes will be effected; but on fundamental questions it is a responsible bill.
In conclusion, we support the principle of the bill. It restricts referenda to constitutional matters. It has a number of important safeguards built into it in terms of providing debating time in the House and enabling parties at provincial and federal levels to debate it. I cannot see how a democratic party in Canada, concerned with the survival of our country and faced with the hypothetical possibility of an unfair referendum, can do anything other than support this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands asked rhetorically who speaks for Canada. Certainly her party does not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. 80067 -S8V2

December 12, 1978
Marriage Breakdown
Corbin)-National Film Board-Reason for changes to French regionalization program; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs- Transfer of hospitals to jurisdiction of provinces-Effect on veterans; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)- External Affairs-Canadian peacekeeping forces.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


William Kenneth Robinson: that Bill C-207, to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to have an opportunity of bringing the topic of divorce before the House. This time my bill is Bill C-207, an act to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart). The explanatory notes read as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to reduce to 18 months the three to five-year waiting period required for a marriage that has broken down to be dissolved. It also eliminates the question of fault under this ground for divorce.
It was 11 years ago this month that members of the House of Commons were debating Bill C-187, an act respecting divorce. At that time the government felt it was time to reform Canada's archaic divorce laws and to bring them into line with the social climate of the 1960s.
Prior to 1968, the only effective ground for divorce in every province-save Nova Scotia-was adultery. Most provinces entered confederation without divorce laws or procedures, and it was not until after 1930 that they were granted the authority to establish provincial divorce courts. However, residents of Quebec and Newfoundland were required to apply for a parliamentary divorce because these two provinces had no divorce courts until 1968. In 1966, the question of divorce reform was referred to a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. Its report on divorce was presented to parliament in June, 1967, and in 1968 the Divorce Act became law.
The act retained many of the traditional marital offences as grounds for divorce, but it also included a modified concept of marriage breakdown as a new ground for divorce. One of the grounds established was a separation period of three to five years-three years separation if the petitioner is the non-deserting spouse, five years separation if he or she is the deserting spouse. This separation ground conferred on each married person significant powers of individual control as to whether he or she desired to remain married. Today, about 40 per cent of all divorces are based on this ground.
It is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that although the government was anxious to modernize our divorce laws, it was conscious of Canadians' interest in maintaining the sanctity of marriage and of the family unit. It is in this same light that I have put forward an amendment which will reduce to 18 months the three to five-year waiting period required for a marriage which has broken down to be dissolved. It also eliminated the question of fault under this ground for divorce.
Also, Mr. Speaker, some members may feel that my bill is tantamount to tinkering with the present divorce law because it is not consistent with the remaining marriage breakdown sections in section 4 of the Divorce Act. I would be prepared to put forward an amendment which reduces the waiting period in all circumstances to 18 months.
Let me take a moment to outline the divorce legislation of other countries with regard to the concept of marriage breakdown and the period of separation. Several countries differentiate between unopposed and opposed actions. For example, In England the waiting period is two years if the divorce is unopposed, and five years if it is opposed. Norway requires a one year separation if the action is unopposed, and two years if it is opposed. In Australia, the family law act of 1975 states that a ground for divorce is established if the parties separated and lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of filing for the dissolution of marriage. The separation need not be agreed upon by both parties.
Sweden, in 1973, introduced divorce on demand, which includes both unilateral and consensual dissolution of marriage. Either spouse is at any time entitled to have the marriage terminated on formal request, without having to show separation for a period of time, marital offence or irretrievable marriage breakdown. The state's function is to approve the request. The only qualification provided for in Swedish law is a "reconsideration" period of six months if the divorce is opposed or if the family contains children under the age of 16.
In the United States, some states, namely, California, Michigan, Georgia and Nebraska, have adopted divorce by consent. Divorce by consent subjects marriage to the joint will of the parties involved and limits the involvement of the court or state. In fact, in Canada it is argued that because 90 per cent of our divorce cases are uncontested, divorce by consent already prevails. Hence, it is often recommended that the government may as well legalize its present existence.
Since the enactment of the 1968 Divorce Act there have been a myriad of studies, reports and recommendations, all concerned with the divorce issue. The concepts of divorce on demand, divorce by consent, marriage breakdown and others are constantly being debated and reworked by various legal groups, people involved with the status of women and by religious affiliations. One of the foremost bodies engaged in
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
December 12, 1978

this examination of our divorce laws is the Law Reform Commission of Canada. The commission has published proposals in the form of studies, working papers and reports in an attempt to formulate a cohesive legal policy for the Canadian family.
The commission did examine the subject clause of my proposed bill and has advanced several arguments against the imposition of a designated period of separation as a prerequisite to divorce. It referred to the dilemma faced by an economically dependent spouse who may be forced to leave the matrimonial home, and also to the hardship faced by responsible spouses who encounter marriage breakdown yet must go through the loneliness of an enforced period of separation, being neither married or unmarried, in a coupled society.
Professor Herman R. Hahlo, who presented a research paper entitled "Reform of the Divorce Act, 1968 (Canada)" to the Law Reform Commission, also examined the three-year separation period and recommended that it be reduced to one year. He reasoned thus:
To take a large slice out a person's life by withholding a divorce long after the prospects of reconciliation have vanished can only be explained by a conscious or subconscious desire to punish a spouse for seeking a divorce. Many experienced marriage counsellors suggest that six months are normally sufficient to determine whether there is any hope of reconciliation-
Professor Hahlo also touched upon the five-year period imposed on the deserting spouse and recommend that in this case, too, the required period of separation be reduced to one year.
It was in May of 1976 that the Law Reform Commission promulgated its recommendations. Why has divorce legislation remained unchanged to date? That is my question.
Lirst of all, it was deemed important that divorce reform not proceed until such time as all the provinces had enacted matrimonial property laws which would effect an equitable division of property on dissolution of marriage and in a manner which would protect the spouses who are not financially self-sufficient. However, at this point in time, eight of the ten provinces either already have passed such a law or are in the process of drafting legislation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this rationale is no longer credible and that we should proceed now to provide the desired reforms.
Secondly, it has been proposed that some measure of jurisdiction over divorce may go to the provinces as part of constitutional reform, thus making it unnecessary to have the federal government introduce divorce reform. I am of the opinion that constitutional reform should not delay the implementation of new divorce legislation, and in fact it may be a long time before some consensus is reached on this point. The number of studies, reports, etc., which have been brought forth in recent years attest to the fact that now is the time for divorce reform.
A letter forwarded to me from a concerned citizen points this out, very well. This letter was actually received by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and it contained a request that a copy be forwarded to me. I should like to read one paragraph of the letter which refers to my previous bill on
Marriage Breakdown
this same topic, formerly Bill C-214 which was debated on second reading in December, 1977. The paragraph of the letter to which I refer reads as follows:
The object of this letter is to add at least one voice to the demand for revision along the lines recommended by the commission. Perhaps you would pass along a copy of this letter to Mr. Robinson and hope that he or some other member would see fit to reintroduce legislation to benefit those persons in our society who are hopelessly trapped in the present restrictive law when society generally would be in favour of giving them freedom.
When people are considering amendments to our current divorce laws, one fundamental question is considered paramount: How will this affect the institution of marriage and the family unit? Divorce statistics since 1968 do lend credibility to those opposed to divorce reform who argue that making divorce easier will hasten that decline of the family unit. However, I am sure that all hon. members agree that family strength is a matter of moral values combined with a personal commitment. Legislation cannot create marital bliss or preserve family unity, nor can divorce legislation lead to the breakdown of the family. As it was pointed out by the commission, "it is not divorce that destroys families but bad marriages."
I think everyone should bear in mind, however, that official divorce statistics merely tell us about the number of divorces. They tell us nothing about marital conflict and disruption. Not every marriage breakdown ends in divorce; a couple may choose to continue to live together in disharmony rather than participate in a divorce process which is often painful.
Therefore, the correlation between divorce rates and the collapse of the institution of marriage is indeed difficult to prove. How is the reduction of the length of required separation going to affect the stability of marriage? The Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Divorce in its report made note that, in establishing the period of separation, the prime consideration should be whether the period provides a fair test that the marriage in question has in fact broken down. As I see it, the time required must be sufficiently long enough to give the couple a chance to reconcile their differences, but not so long as to force individuals to remain in unsatisfactory and unhealthy relationships.
It is extremely important, especially where children are involved-for an unhappy marriage is a detriment to children-that the parties be able to dissolve their marriage as painlessly as possible in order that they may build a new life and provide a more healthy, positive environment for themselves as well as their children. To quote Professor Wolfgang Friedman:
People should be able to live out their lives as joyfully as possible under conditions which enable them to develop their personal capacities and potentialities. This means the right to correct errors, the right to cast off a burden that has become intolerable and may lead to the sapping of vital energies and the moral fibre of the affected parties.
Throughout my speech, Mr. Speaker, I have quoted statistics, briefs of the Law Reform Commission and professors to enhance my argument. However, I believe the most profound

December 12, 1978
Marriage Breakdown
testimony comes from a private citizen, and I would like to read his letter into the record:
I am writing to express my support for Bill C-207, an act to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart).
It appears to me that there can be no basis either in policy or in philosophy for any member of parliament to vote against this bill, as it does not change or add to present grounds of divorce, and has no effect on property, maintenance or custody provisions. In allowing a so-called deserting spouse to sue for divorce after 18 months, it recognizes what is most often an irreconcilable marital breakdown, and erases what is presently a two-year "sentence", that is the forcing of a deserting spouse to wait five years rather than three years (which is presently Canadian law). The present waiting period has resulted in a statutory conviction of the deserting spouse for his guilt in having made his decision to create a new life for himself. As anyone who has been married will most readily verify, guilt is almost never one-sided.
The proposed amendment does not, in any way, obliviate the requirement of the court to ask about the possibility of reconciliation, nor does it affect any awards of maintenance or custody, or division of property. It seems in keeping with the present thrust of the federal government in the area of human rights. It is of no value to society or to the family unit to force an unwanted and often harmful relationship to continue legally. The present law allows couples three years to build up deeper resentments, to threaten each other with litigation and to use emotional blackmail, often in the form of one spouse's refusal to give the other his or her freedom for reasons usually based in spite, malice, anger and resentment. Children are the unfortunate, innocent bystanders, and for three to five years are torn between their parents' court dates, lawyers and threats. No party can stabilize his or her position until the final decree absolute, and many lives may be held in hurtful, expensive and unnecessary suspense for years. As everyone realizes, the result of such situations is, all too often, contrived grounds and manipulations to get into court. Surely the very fact of such manipulations is sufficient to point out that the law is not in keeping with the needs of the Canadian public.
I can in no way believe that the fabric of society or of the family will be damaged or diminished by this amendment. A family held together in name only is not a healthy unit... a clean and quick break is most often the solution for the immediate problem and the most beneficial act for a quick recovery.
I most sincerely urge the support of this bill and hope that members do not so lose themselves in self-righteousness that they overcome their ability to sympathize with people who need the law and the legislators on their side.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that my bill is the magic solution. However, it does attempt to bring our divorce laws in line with current thinking and perhaps helps to pave the way for additional divorce reform and strengthening of the institution of marriage. 1 hope all members will support may amendment and refer my bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Thank you, I like a large applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1 would like to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for presenting a private member's bill on a matter which, I know, is of great interest to the public of Canada generally. The ground in the act which my good friend would like to amend is chapter D-8, section 4(l)(e) of the federal statutes dealing with divorce which became law in 1967 and 1968 by chapter 24. The section reads:
(e) the spouses have been living separate and apart
(i)	for any reason other than that described in subparagraph (ii), for a period
of not less than three years, or
(ii)	by reason of the petitioner's desertion of the respondent for a period of not
less than five years, immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
The very simple but complete amendment calls for:
(e) the spouses have been living separate and apart for a period of not less than eighteen months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
Basically the hon. member wishes to reduce the period in which spouses have been living separate and apart, either by agreement for three years or by desertion for five years, to 18 months. Within that time the petition providing that evidence would go before a court of a competent jurisdiction whereupon the judge would grant the petition for dissolution of a marriage, provided everything was in order.
It is true that the population of Canada is going up. It is interesting to note that in 1974 in Canada there were 45,019 divorces granted, in 1975 there were 50,611, in 1976 there were 54,207 and in 1977 there were 55,370 divorces granted. In other words, there has been an increase over the four years of approximately 10,000 divorces in Canada. One must look at the sociological changes in reference to why this has occurred.
I believe that one of the causes of tension in a marriage, which has come along with sociological change in Canada and, indeed, in all countries of the western world, is that today, in order to cope with the economic problems, both the man and wife must work. They are, in effect, fenced in as soon as they are married if they buy a home. The cheapest home which can be purchased in Calgary, a 900 square foot bungalow with two bedrooms, costs around $70,000 to $75,000. To meet the down payment couples, particularly young couples, usually have to purchase a first and a second mortgage, harnessing themselves to payments of $700 to $800 per month. This, combined with the high income tax rate in Canada, leaves little left over in their cheques to provide for food and other necessities, particularly if a family comes along. In light of these new economic and social changes which have come about in Canada, the hon. member believes that the law in this regard should be changed.
Parliament is a strange world. In the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs a brief was presented on the treatment of children in this nation and various groups from across the country will be appearing to speak to the proposed bill of rights for children.
I sympathize with the hon. member's position that once a marriage is broken down altogether, it is not much of a life for the people concerned if they have to wait three years or five years for a divorce, so this bill is probably a step in the right direction. If the evidence given before a judge in an undefended divorce case shows that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, then the imposition of any time limit would be a strain on the parties and particularly on children of nine or ten years of age who have to live in that atmosphere. I have had experience of many cases where people lived under such

December 12, 1978

emotional tension, where there was physical or mental cruelty involved, and it is no place for children.
I was impressed with the lady who presented the brief at committee today which pointed out that breakdown in adults was usually the result of what took place in their younger years in their homes or institutions where they lived.
I would be prepared to agree to removing the time provision in the bill and leaving that aspect to the discretion of the judge, or perhaps a time limit of 18 months might be imposed. Once it was obvious the marriage was on the rocks, none of the sanctions of the law would keep people together.
I read some statistics in a newspaper article lately to the effect that one-third of all marriages in Canada end in divorce. That is a rather frightening statistic. When heckling the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore I think the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said there must be a lot of bad marriages, and I guess that is the problem. Marriage has to be worked at. All of us who have been married know that if people worked as hard at marriage and home life as we do in our occupations, or in our idealistic drive to be in this House, people would stay together.
If the grounds for divorce were extended, that would raise one question for which 1 do not have an answer. It seems to me that people have forgotten their responsibilities toward the children, Mr. Speaker. There are many people in the western world today who did not have children of their own for one reason or another but who adopted children. Many children have found good homes that way and many successful people have come from such homes. I have always reminded adopted children that their parents chose them. They made application, their credentials were checked by people trained and skilled to some degree in child psychology, and they were classed as able to provide a fit home for a child. Unfortunately, many children come into homes where I would not go so far as to say they are not wanted, but they are treated as if they are not wanted.
I would oppose some extensions, Mr. Speaker, but 1 think this one is reasonable. If we have a divorce law, let it be one that works and is practical. People are not helped by having to stay together for a period of three or five years when not only for the spouses involved but for the family the conditions are, if I may put it in plain, ordinary English, hell on earth.
I had an old law partner once who said that lawyers made the worst husbands but they always managed marry very fine women. I feel that I fall into that category and that is a confession I have had to make even in front of my constituents.


William Kenneth Robinson: Me too!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says "me too". It is sad to see a home break up but it is worse to see the results of emotional strain on the spouses and on the children.
I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, and if it goes to committee I will ask for a slight amendment to the effect that the period should be within the discretion of the judge. I would be prepared to delete the time clause providing the evidence is such that there is no chance of the couple getting together or
Marriage Breakdown
living together. When things come to that state, if we are to have a divorce law it might as well be one that serves society and humanity.
That is my position and I congratulate the hon. member once again for bringing this matter to the floor of the House.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


William Kenneth Robinson: Do I understand that it is the hon. member's suggestion that the limitation be 18 months or less at the discretion of the judge?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be a step in the right direction. I would go further. It could be at the judge's discretion, but that would certainly be the time limit on it. When the Divorce Act was introduced, the three and five-year limit was included because legislators and parliamentarians sincerely hoped people would become reconciled within that time. This could only be to the good of families and society. In my view a nation is only as good as the homes it produces. It is from those homes that future generations flow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot agree entirely with the two members of the legal fraternity who preceded me. As a matter of fact, I do not know that I could even say "me three" to the confession of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the mover of this motion.
I share some of the concerns of those hon. members but I have more difficulty getting over the concept that accessibility of divorce will have little or no effect on the longevity of marriage. I suppose if all of us had the opportunity of legislating good marriage, we would be disposed to legislate what people should do in order to get married rather than how to dispose of marriages once they have gone sour. That is probably what we should be working on.
Given that we have a Divorce Act and given that I was a practitioner of law, as I suppose my friends may have been, when this law came forward, when it was amended and when it took out of existence the "shady lady" divorce we have all heard about, we must bear in mind that at that time there was substantial deliberation on what kind of evidence should be required to demonstrate that a marriage had come to an end. I do not have the law statute as it exists in front of me. However, it seems that what we are saying is that this section of the law states that demonstrable marriage breakdown is evidenced by separation for three years or five years if it is the petitioner petitioning on the basis of his own desertion. If we go to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), if I understood him correctly, time of separation would not be any evidence upon which the court would rely. It would be looking for something else in terms of demonstrating marriage breakdown.

December 12, 1978
Marriage Breakdown
I think that the law which now exists has other categories which set up that kind of indicia of marriage breakdown. In effect, what we were trying to do was to accommodate these people in this section which this bill would amend. We would accommodate those who had nothing in law to put before a court except the fact that the two spouses in a marriage were living separate and apart. That is pretty slim indicia if that is all we are going to give to a judge to administer.
I ask hon. members to consider what happens in a divorce action. I have brought my share before the bar, as I am sure other lawyers here have done. There has been the parade of the parties before the judge, with the judge asking the compulsory questions: Is there a chance for reconciliation? No. How long have you been living apart? Three years. That is fine, and away we go. I have had judges tell me prior to my coming here that if I bring a divorce before that court that is going to take more than three minutes, I obviously have problems with that divorce and it should not be there.
Those would be the same judges upon whose discretion the hon. member for Calgary North would rely to determine, without the indicia of even the three or five years, that in fact there has been a marriage breakdown which would disrupt that very principle to which we are now paying lip service and upon which we say the whole country is founded. That would not satisfy me.
The then minister of justice stated in the House of Commons on October 25, 1976, as reported at page 420 of Hansard', referring to the government:
We will go forward in the immediate future on three aspects relating to family law. The first is negotiations with the provinces toward the establishment in the provinces of unified family courts. The second is changes in the law relating to matrimonial property to better take account of the economic needs and rights of both parties. The third is formal consultation with those in the community across Canada regarding the other recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's report on family law.
These steps were viewed as integral parts of a comprehensive reform of divorce legislation, and in fact steps one and two have now been completed. The establishment in the provinces of unified family courts enables the widest possible number of family law issues attendant on marriage breakdown to be resolved, under our current constitutional framework, in a single court.
As you know, the Law Reform Commission in its 1976 report on family law recommended the establishment of unified family courts. However, the Department of Justice, in response to recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in its 1974 working paper on "The Family Court", established a fund to assist interested provinces in developing unified family court pilot projects. Terms and conditions for the department's funding program were approved by Treasury Board in May, 1976. Pursuant to the terms and conditions, a unified family court pilot project is "a project that relates to the development of a unified family court having jurisdiction over a wide range of family matters and including some or all of the following support services:

information and intake services, legal services, investigative services, diagnostic services and enforcement services."
To date the Department of Justice and the attorney general's department in British Columbia are cost sharing the evaluation of a unified family court pilot project that was conducted in the Richmond-Surrey-Delta area of British Columbia. The project was initiated by the provincial government in 1974, and the evaluation report for this project is due shortly.
There is also agreement with the province of Ontario covering the operation of a unified family court pilot project in the city of Hamilton. This project, which will run for three years, was commenced on July 1, 1977, pursuant to provincial legislation establishing this court at the county court level. Negotiations between the federal government and numerous other provinces concerning the establishment of a unified family court pilot project are well advanced, and it is expected that other projects will begin in the near future.
Obviously the federal government cannot establish the courts it wishes in each province as the administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction and including procedure in civil matters in those courts, is within exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces.
However, this joint federal-provincial approach has resulted in a court which is quite a new concept. The major attribute of these courts is, of course, the unified jurisdiction. Perhaps in no other single area of the law is fragmentation of jurisdiction felt more keenly than in family law. It is for this reason that the unified family courts are presided over by a judge who has not only the jurisdiction traditionally exercised by the provincial family court judge but also the jurisdiction in respect of divorce.
As well as the unified jurisdiction, these courts offer a broad spectrum of dispute resolution techniques. There is a social component complementing the strictly judicial side which seeks to achieve settlement in a non-adversarial fashion to reduce the areas of contention requiring adjudication. Furthermore, these counselling and conciliation services, as they are called, are available not only to spouses in the process of marriage breakdown but also to those who seek to reconcile. Support services aim at preserving and strengthening the family where possible and, where not, attempting to establish a decent workable basis for interspousal transactions such as child custody, property and financial matters.
The Department of Justice continues to maintain the position that the grounds for divorce cannot be isolated from the economic consequences of divorce. Under the existing Divorce Act, economic and custodial bargaining leverage is provided by the requirement of proof of fault, and the availability of fault defences and bars which, if asserted, would preclude the deserting petitioner from obtaining a divorce for a minimum five years. This bargaining leverage helps in many cases to compensate for the laws which may be unfair to the non-wage earning spouse.
December 12, 1978

A transition from fault to no fault divorce grounds and, in particular, a transition that will allow divorce at the request of either spouse after a short waiting period, will render the non-wage earning spouse liable to divorce against his or her will with perhaps unfair financial consequences, at least unless all the traditional common law property systems are adjusted to recognize that the role of homemaker and child rearer is "partnership activity".
I note with some concern that although the proposer of this bill acknowledges this is a problem, he states that since there now appears to be an acceptance of that principle and the adoption of laws in eight of the provinces of Canada, that is adequate and we should be proceeding. If there is one province which has not adopted that kind of law, I say the time is not yet for us to move unilaterally by amendment of this kind to change the kind of leverage I just described. It is for this reason that the Law Reform Commission's recommendations are based on the premise that the concept of fault must be completely eliminated from the whole marriage dissolution process, for example, from grounds, economic consequences and child custody determinations except to the extent that conduct affects reasonable needs or the parent's capacity as a custodian.
Bill C-207 proposes to eliminate the concept of fault from only one ground of divorce by reducing the required three to five-year waiting period to 18 months regardless of the conduct of either spouse. This merely replaces one arbitrary period of time with another. Furthermore it appears to leave the remaining marriage breakdown provisions in section 4 of the Divorce Act intact. Accordingly, somewhat inconsistently, the intention seems to be that a couple could obtain a divorce under section 4(l)(e) by living separate and apart for only 18 months, whereas under section 4(1 )(b), for example, a spouse living separate and apart due to his partner's alcohol or narcotic addiction would be required to wait the full three years. I should add, I suppose, that the hon. member has indicated that he would entertain an amendment that would reduce the requirement to 18 months in all cases. But again, I have serious doubt whether an 18-month period would be long enough. Take a look, for instance, at alcoholism.
Do we despair so much in this society that alcoholism, to use an example, is so irretrievable that a period of 18 months would demonstrate conclusively that it would not be stopped, that it would not be changed, that persons could not change themselves and thus remove themselves from the possibility of divorce purely on that ground? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Time has a way of curing and helping situations like that and should not be a abridged as a result of a bill like this.
It can be suggested that the amendment is not comprehensive and that any divorce reform should await a full reform package which deals with all the grounds. It is regrettable that when a member honestly believes, as I think the hon. member does honestly believe, that the law should be amended as he has indicated, that all hon. members cannot be carried along
Marriage Breakdown
with that same conviction. I have indicated just few of the concerns I have to express with regard to this bill or in terms, even, of any comprehensive change of legislation concerning family breakdown and divorce.
I happen to be completely convinced that the family unit is the basis of the western world's civilization, that it is the basis and the model upon which all hon. members should be patterning and examining laws that we wish to pass in order to determine whether or not they are likely to lead to a better or more just society. I am satisfied that even if inadvertently we make changes that tear apart the fabric of the family unit, directly or indirectly, we will somehow have done a disservice to the nation while attempting to do a service to a few unfortunate individuals who haven't taken the time before entering marriage to consider how permanent and how important an institution they were getting into.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking to this bill. It so happens that today is my duty day and I did not even realize that the measure before us was to be discussed. I happened to be in the same position last year when the bill came up and I counted it a privilege to speak on the bill at that time because I think, as the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) has said, that marriage is the cornerstone of our society. It is the most fundamental institution we have, and one on which our country is built. Thus, I count it a fortuitous thing for me-perhaps all members will not agree with me but I count it fortuitous- that I was here when the bill came before us.
During the discussion of this bill, which would reduce the waiting period for divorce from three years to 18 months, we have heard from three lawyers in succession. It reminds me of something someone said to me a number of weeks ago. He said that if there was one lawyer living in town he would starve to death, but that if there were two they would both drive Cadillacs. That is the result of the adversary system, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex mentioned the experiment with the family court system which took place in British Columbia. It so happens that the first family court system in British Columbia was set up in my riding of Surrey-White Rock. Obviously, it is under provincial jurisdiction, and includes the municipality of Delta. I want to put on record here that it has been a very successful experiment. I was not speaking entirely in jest when I said that if there was confrontation with two lawyers they would both be driving Cadillacs, because so much of the problem in divorce proceedings is directly related to the adversary system where lawyers are fighting against each other and each is committed to looking after the interest of his client as he sees it. That is how the system is built.
To a large extent the family court system breaks down the adversary system in divorce proceedings. This does not mean all family conflicts will be resolved, but it does mean that one of the elements of conflict is taken out of the process.

December 12, 1978
Marriage Breakdown
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) who introduced this measure has been interested in this subject for a long time by reason of his being a lawyer and because he had to deal with these things, and because he is a family man and is concerned about the family unit. He gave me a lot of support in the promotion of my private member's bill with respect to parental abduction of children, and I will always remember that. But I think it is wrong to try to solve these problems legally or by reducing the waiting period. He was anxious to reduce the waiting period from three years to 18 months and then, after discussion with my colleague from Calgary North, suggested it would not have to be even 18 months, that it could be less-12months-or maybe a shorter period still at the discretion of the judge. It makes one wonder how much this period can be reduced. How far are we willing to go to negotiate the waiting period?
I could not help but think of the days when I was in university taking a course in Russian history. Right after the Russian revolution the leaders in Russia did not believe in the bourgeoise institution of marriage, so they brought in measures for "postcard marriage" and divorce. It was not long, however, before they had to get rid of that system; it became too much for even the bureaucrats to handle. In my view there ought to be ample time for reflection and reminiscence. I remember listening to a marriage counsellor-I hasten to tell hon. members that he was speaking to an audience and not to me personally-Dr. Ticton of Portland, Oregon, a very fine marriage counsellor. He said that all relationships require maintenance. That is a profound statement and one which we tend to overlook.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And very original, too.


Benno Friesen: The hon. members from Saskatchewan can speak flippantly if he likes, but this is a very important subject.
When these starry-eyed young couples come to the altar or to the courtroom and say, "For better or for worse", how long is the "worse" supposed to last? The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore negotiated with the hon. member for Calgary North and, as he did so, I wondered whether the period was being reduced from three years to 18 months, and then to 12 months, and then still further at the discretion of a judge.
How deep are our interpersonal commitments to each other to be? I believe reducing a waiting period which should serve as a time for analysis, reflection and so forth would be destructive.
The hon. member read into the record a statement from a letter-if I copied it inaccurately, the hon. member can correct me. But this person wrote "when society would be in favour of giving them freedom." What are we talking about-freedom in marriage? Whenever you bring two personalities together you give up some freedom.
It has been said that through divorce there is freedom. When people get married, they bring their personalities into their marriages, but when they go into divorce, they take their

failures with them. There is no such thing as freedom through divorce. That failure haunts people for the rest of their lives.
I am not suggesting that there should not be divorce or that some marriages are not irretrievable. All I saying is that all relationships require maintenance. Perhaps one way to provide the maintenance to which I refer would be to make sure, legally, that a couple contemplating divorce proceedings has adequate time to reflect or to get counselling before taking this action.
I might add that the measure being brought forward seems to run counter to most sociological, criminal, and juvenile trends today. The feeling at the present time is that young people ought to face the consequences of their decisions. This measure implies that we should not have to face up to the consequences of our decisions.
In introducing this bill the hon. member who introduced it called it a matter of divorce reform. I do not think we should use the word "reform" with such ease. When something is referred to as a reform, the implication is that we should agree to it automatically and spontaneously. I am not so sure that a measure like this reform. If we were to adopt this measure, I wonder whether in a few years we would not think it was a retrograde step rather than a reform.
I understand thoroughly the hon. member's motivation for bringing this measure forward. I appreciate the fact that people who have faced the anguish of divorce have come to his office, and he wants to help them. However, I am not convinced that reducing the waiting period from three years to 18 months and ultimately, as the hon. member indicated, having the matter decided judicially, is the proper course so I cannot support this measure.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-207 as introduced by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), it seems to me one must not overlook the tremendous work performed by the Law Reform Commission with regard to family law, work on which 1 should like to dwell a few moments. As we know, the Law Reform Commission spent over four years studying family law, which enabled it to make recommendations on how to improve, modernize and reform it. Between 1974 and 1976, it published four working papers, the first of which was entitled Family Court, the second, Family Property, the third, Maintenance on Divorce and, finally, the fourth, with which we are concerned today, Divorce.
The reaction to those four working papers, which were published and widely distributed, was generally favourable. The commission subsequently incorporated their basic principles and recommendations in what became known as the Report on Family Law which was tabled in the House on Tuesday, May 4, 1976. The then minister of justice sent copies of that report to all the provincial attorneys general and to the coordinator of family law designated for each province.
December 12, 1978

The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission create in fact an overlapping on the federal legislative authority and their implementation requires a lot of co-ordination and co-operation between both levels of government. Since the tabling of the commission report, the justice ministers and the provincial attorneys discussed at great length the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and the problems deriving from their implementation.
I shall venture to sum up here the main recommendations contained in the Report on Family Law and the causes of divorce and its economic consequences applying in fact to Bill C-207 which is before us. In the first place, the commission recommended to have a law based on the principle of equality of sexes instead of the present law on divorce. Then, it recommended to eliminate the concept of fault in the process of the dissolution of marriage, namely as far as causes, economic consequences and child custody are concerned, except if that measure would affect the reasonable needs or the capacity of the parents to act as guardians.
You will also remember that the commission recommended the concept of "marriage breakdown", defined as the failure of the personal relationship between husband and wife, which constitutes the only reason of divorce and which is proved conclusively by the evidence of only one of the spouses. The commission also recommended to establish a waiting period of at least six months between the beginning of the process of divorce and the application for a hearing. According to that recommendation, it would not be necessary for the parties to be separated in fact for a minimum period of time before the beginning of the process or the hearing of the petition. In fact, the federal parliament is presently the only legislative authority as far as marriage and divorce are concerned. Only provincial legislative bodies can legislate as far as property and civil rights are concerned. There is not yet unanimity on whether-


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe Your Honour will find that there is unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of reports from standing and special committees to enable me to present a bill adopted unanimously this afternoon by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Some haste is required because there are tax implications.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) have the unanimous consent he requests?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Referenda



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde (for the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations) that Bill C-9, respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak on the bill first, but it is impossible to stand in my place and not make some response to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
First and foremost I want to compliment the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for his step by step answers to the contradictory presentation of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I remain indebted to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for his sincere concern for the problems which face Canada. He and his party are prepared to put aside partisanship, and they enjoin the entire House to bring all minds together to consider this important tool of parliamentary democracy. I look forward to the contributions of the hon. member and of others like him when the bill comes to committee.
I hope that the members of the official opposition will not take the same tack as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. While recognizing the real danger of the Parti Quebe-cois referendum, the hon. member for Kingston and the

December 12, 1978
Referenda
Islands practises distortion of the most dangerous kind while saying that the bill is dangerous. Her tactics will more likely divide us than unite us, while she calls the bill devious. She leads us down the labyrinth of confusion, which in itself strains her credibility, offering us a choice of divisive paths in future, while she calls the bill divisive. It is she and others with her who are dangerous, who are devious, and who are divisive.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am not sure whether I heard the hon. member properly, but I would ask him to be very careful in the remarks he addresses to hon. members.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I did not use words of my own choice. I used words which were mentioned by the hon. member in her own speech, namely, "dangerous", "devious", and "divisive".


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, sir. I distinctly heard, even if the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) did not hear, that when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was using the words to which he has just referred, she was addressing her remarks to the intent and purpose of the bill. What makes the remarks of the hon. gentleman questionable is that he said he was addressing those words to members of the House. I think that as a gentleman he should withdraw them.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. As I said a while ago, I may not have heard the hon. member's words correctly, but the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is asking the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) to withdraw the remarks he had made. Perhaps it would be wise to await until tomorrow when we see Hansard before deciding on whether there is a case for asking for withdrawal.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Certainly I would not want my remarks to reflect in any way on members of the House or even the individual member personally. I used the word ''distortion". I said that indeed there was a distortion by the utilization of the words "dangerous", "devious", and "divisive". I thought there was a distortion there. I thought the distortion was that while the words applied to us, it was that kind of an act. If I have been unparliamentary in any way, certainly I will withdraw it now, or at a later date. If the member held the bill up to a mirror, she would have a much more optimistic point of view, rather than seeing all the thoughts she presented to us in the mirror, which would be a mirror of herself.
When the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands referred to the question of privilege in the House, she forgot that the question was disposed of to the satisfaction of the majority of the House. The hon. member jumped from this point eagerly to use the name of the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) because she deceived herself into believing his was a just cause, and that the majority who did not support him must be evil. Therefore she drew upon his name as support in this cause. I find that rather odd because the hon. member conveniently forgot that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham introduced his own bill, Bill C-220, on a referendum. His was an exception because it dealt with capital punishment, which both the hon. member and I would find repugnant. Yet she drew upon this member's name as support for her opposition to even the introduction of this bill. The objective seems to be that one should be against anything which comes forward from this side of the House. I hope some members opposite will address themselves to the bill and not indulge in character assassination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Let us not talk of this bill in terms of distrust. Let us get on to the reason we want the tool presented for use in this parliament, for this parliament and for this country.
Every time I am about to move into the very calm, controlled, ordered and pleasant speech I was going to give, I think of something else said by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands which throws me off course. She mentioned conscription as being the most divisive, heinous, and horrible of things which occurred. I wonder if she analysed the number of yes and no votes. I wonder if she looked at them. Did it occur to her that some of those people who said "yes" were in positions which were exempt from conscription and therefore voted for those who were not to go? Did she look at those who said no? Did she not understand that some of those who said no were people who were conscientious objectors and for other reasons would not have wanted anyone to go? Did she live through that period herself and have the same family experience as I?
My father was totally disabled from Passchendale and Vimy Ridge. My brother joined the Royal Canadian Signal Corps. My sister joined the Royal Canadian Navy. I volunteered for the Royal Canadian Air Force. My mother voted no to conscription. Was this divisive within our family? Why did my father think as an old veteran, when we did not have the status of women in legislation-that it was quite proper for his wife, my mother, to express her opinion? Her opinion was, "My children may have gone of their own free will, but personally I would not want anyone's children taken from them to go." Was this divisive? Many things came out of that referendum which were very good for the country. It was a tool which took us around very difficult circumstances. It was a referendum which allowed us to recognize our differences without completely having to come to combat about them. Yet, every time it is mentioned, it is mentioned as if it was terribly divisive. In those days it was not a divisive force in my family.
We were proud that our mother stood up and had her say in the manner she wanted, as my father had a different say, as some of us had our own say while in the services. I did not see

December 12, 1978

it as divisive. I saw it as a recognition of our differences. I saw it as a great tool for us at that time, and still believe it to have been so.
After hearing the rhetoric from the other side, I would call them fickle Tories. They rejoice when the opinion polls go up because the public has chosen them. They look toward a majority election, but they do not want to receive the majority opinion in a referendum. They do not want to hear it. They want the problem shoved under the rug, out of the way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: They recognize the complications which exists in our neighbouring province. Yet, when they look at the problem they say they will do all right. They can handle it. Leave it to them. "We English people can leave it to Mr. Ryan. He will handle the whole thing." We cannot leave something to someone else. This is Canada. We are responsible. If they have acquired, by means of their parliament, a tool which can be used for their moment, as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby said, we must arm ourselves appropriately so that we will act properly. All of us in this parliament will have the right to say how we will act in a referendum, how we will write it, and what we will do.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) restricted himself in his speech to dealing with the need for the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) on a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Will the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) permit a question?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: When I have concluded my remarks.
The Minister of Justice restricted himself in his speech to dealing with the need for the bill, its implications for parliamentary democracy and federal-provincial relations, and the principles underlying it as the framework for democratic procedure. In my short intervention I should like to draw from reality in showing that in referenda held in other countries we may learn from their experience.
As a parliament, we must lay heavy emphasis on the protection of freedom of individual expression and freedom of association. These two associations are at the centre of parliamentary democracy.
I could go on at great length to prove my point by making reference to the referendum bill of the Parti Quebecois and its defects. Instead, I have chosen to draw from but one example, that of Norway. This quick flashback in history may serve us well in avoiding pitfalls which could befall us. It is my hope this background will prove valuable to all members of the House and the other place. It is true that all of us here are members of parliament, but we represent different political philosophies-Conservative, New Democratic, Social Credit, Liberal, and some of Independent persuasion. But each of us, as a member of parliament, is dedicated to a united Canada. For this reason we have the responsibility of ensuring that Bill
Referenda
C-9 serves as a useful tool of government, that it respects the rights of individual expression and the rights of freedom of association.
Norway had its referendum on entrance to the common market in 1972. The Norwegian referendum was extremely bitter. It divided friends and families. It became sort of an obsession with everyone for months, and it had major lasting political consequences beyond the issue of the referendum itself. In Norway we find that there were umbrella organizations. As in Britain, these umbrella organizations received limited financial support from the government. These yes and no organizations were important, but they did not embrace all political parties or groups.
The "no" campaign in Norway was a true grassroots movement. Independent of the political parties, it developed its own membership of 130,000 active workers in a country of 4 million. In many ways it was composed of the little people, the fishermen, the farmers and workers, who opposed the designs of the elite in Oslo, in the press, and in the political parties. It became bigger than any political party in the country and refused to be taken over by them. The political parties which worked with this movement recognized that the movement was stronger than they were.
Ask yourself, would this bill guarantee the rights of such a grassroots movement? The answer is yes, and that is most important. Would it guarantee its right to operate free from any interference from the political parties? The answer is yes again. These things must be looked at carefully in committee to make sure we do have these kinds of protections in the bill.
We can learn another lesson by looking at the Norwegian example, this time at the "yes" campaign. This was not a grassroots movement like the "no" campaign, but was an umbrella group embracing organized parties, unions, co-operatives and so on. But here we find that the umbrella group had a steering committee which drew mainly from the Labour party and excluded the Conservative party altogether, even though the Conservatives were very strongly in favour of entry. The people running the Norwegian "yes" campaign concluded that it would damage their cause if they were seen to be co-operating too closely with the Conservatives, because the "yes" campaign was mostly concerned with winning supporters of the Labour and Liberal parties who were basically hostile to the Conservatives.
Therefore, on both sides of the coin, it is obvious that without dividing the people into two groups, such as the bill in Quebec might suggest, by not giving the political parties which have different philosophies and different members, an opportunity of representation on their own, we are taking the chance of dealing a terrible blow to the rights of associations, parties, and also of individuals.
We can understand that political parties which agree on a referendum question may still wish to maintain totally separate relations in a referendum campaign. They may agree on the need to vote yes or no, but have very different reasons

December 12, 1978
Referenda
which they wish to advance. The parties may even by extremely hostile to one another on everything but the referendum question.
How does the federal referendum bill approach freedom of association? The answer is simple, and it is the answer you would expect from a Liberal government. Our bill guarantees absolute freedom of association. No party or group would be obliged to cooperate in any way with any other party or group. Every party and group would be able to register independently, to have full rights to collect its own funds, hold its own meetings, and produce its own literature and campaign material.
What is more, our bill recognizes the equal interest of federal and provincial parties in a referendum on constitutional questions and gives them exactly the same rights. We even guarantee that provincial parties will have equal broadcast time with federal parties. Every effort has been taken to ensure that our bill does not favour federal parties over other political groups.
It had been my intention to present a short background which might whet the appetite of hon. members of parliament to participate in committee so that this very useful tool, Bill C-9, an act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, may be a landmark in our legislative history.
If, in my opening statement, I in any way made any remarks which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would consider unparliamentary, she can rest assured that I will review the context and will be very willing to withdraw them. If I have been prompted to say what I have said, it is because, in concluding, I want to bring your attention to the principles of the bill. This is what second reading is all about.
The principles are the following: the procedures governing a referendum should be fully consistent with all those political rights normally respected in Canada, especially freedom of expression and freedom of association; the procedure should impose financial controls which encourage a fair and open debate; the procedure should ensure the probity of the referendum process at the same high level as the probity of the electoral process; the procedure should respect the federal nature of Canada and not favour parties or groups active at the federal level over those active at the provincial level; and, the procedure should be as simple and as familiar as possible.
I look forward to active debate, constructive criticism, and some conflict in committee. I encourage all members of this House to participate fully. We may once again prove that "it is in the heat of conflict that the spark of truth is blown."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) would now entertain a question? I noted with interest the enthusiasm and gusto with which the hon. member supported the legislation, saying that the 1942 conscription referendum was a good thing for the country and opened the door to free expression. I would point

out that at page 1004 of Hansard for November 15, 1976 the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) said in respect of the referendum:
And what happens over the years?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I understood the hon. member had sought the floor to pose a question. Perhaps he should get to the question.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have to put the question in the context of this quotation:
In the case of the province of Quebec, this creates dissensions, factions, and the province can no longer operate with factions. And if factions are created in Canada on the basis of the results of such a referendum, or of one option, or another-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member is addressing himself mainly to a statement.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I think I should answer that by saying that it may seem very odd to the hon. member-


Benno Friesen: On a point of order, sir, I did not get to ask my question. How can he answer it?


An hon. Member:: Don't you want an answer?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Although perhaps not answering the question, I should just remind the hon. member that the great division occurred in 1918 when there was no referendum, not when there was a referendum.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lachance) on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that my colleague, whom I respect very much and with whom I have had the pleasure of working in the past, would quote me without giving any context and pick only one sentence out of a speech which lasted almost 20 minutes in the debate on a private member's bill and I reserve the right to read his words and see whether they constitute a breach of my privileges.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is precisely why he has not been recognized.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has the floor.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) knows, I listened very carefully to what he had to say. When I came into the House at eight o'clock I came anticipating that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) would make a speech
December 12, 1978

the likes of which he made one evening in my company to my Kiwanis club, at my invitation. He will recall that well. I introduced him and listened with great anticipation on that occasion. My anticipation on that occasion was rewarded by not only the quality of the speech but by the way in which it was delivered and the sincerity of its message. I listened for that tonight expecting to hear it from the hon. member. I did not hear it.
Unfortunately, what we heard from the hon. member, who happens to be my friend, was a speech containing references to hon. members of this House which, if not contrary to the rules regarding proper parliamentary practice, certainly bordered on the wrong side. I am glad the hon. member is going to review those matters in relation to the charges he levelled at hon. members in this House of Commons.
One interesting thing about this House of Commons is that I have not come up against a member of the House, regardless of the side on which he or she may sit, who takes a devious or dangerous attitude to the country, or an attitude in respect of the country that is wrong. We may have some differences about leadership, but I am getting sick and tired, quite frankly, of sitting in this House hearing from members on the other side that the country's only salvation is a return of that derelict group which passes itself off as good government. I think that is a matter of truth, spoken in a proper parliamentary fashion. The truth is it has become apparent not just to members of this House, but to people across the country, including those in the riding of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
There are two tragedies in the speech of the hon. member. The first tragedy is that he made the speech at all, and the second tragedy is that he made it after a two-hour adjournment break for dinner when he had time to think about it. I do not know how we can advance the cause of this debate if that is to be the level at which it is to be conducted.
We are dealing with something which is extremely important to the country, as the Minister of Justice himself has said. We are dealing with something which is important and fundamental to the parliamentary process, as the Minister of Justice also mentioned in his speech. Although 1 may disagree in some respects with the Minister of Justice and I may suspect some of the motives of this government, at least the Minister of Justice addressed the question of the role of parliament and its relations to this bill on referenda seriously. 1 do not agree with everything he said, but certainly the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain made a speech which was not worthy to follow the speech of the Minister of Justice.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain in his speech made reference to a bill put on the order paper by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) dealing with capital punishment. As I recollect, that bill calls for a referendum on capital punishment. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is a private member in this House and has the right to put forth whatever bill he wishes. Members can decide to support it or talk it out, as they see fit. The
Referenda
important thing about that bill in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is that it, like every other referendum bill in Canadian history, is directed to a specific point and was not designed, as this bill is capable of being used, to deal with a much broader question.
As I read and listened with great care to the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), this was one of the problems she had with the bill, not that it dealt with referenda but that if dealt with the subject in a broad way and that in so dealing with it in that sense it could change, if used improperly, the course of parliamentary government as we understand it and as we know it. One of the members of the press gallery commented as I was leaving for dinner hour that it was a good speech. The hon. member said that that question, its effect upon the parliamentary system and where it will lead us in terms of the constitutional position of Canada, should be very carefully considered by this House of Commons and by the committee to which the bill will be eventually referred.
Another concern expressed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was that she did not believe that the process of constitutional reform in Canada was such a trivial matter that it ought to be dealt with piecemeal, that there ought to be a bill on referenda, a bill on the power of the Senate, the courts, etcetera, or a bill on how we distribute power. This whole process into which we have entered does not have the complete support of some elements of this country. I do not have to tell members of the government how Senator Eugene Forsey feels, how Senator Daniel Lang feels, or how Senator George Mcllraith feels about this approach to constitutional reform.


Mr. Boulanger:: Tell us about it.


Walter David Baker: My namesake in the other official language on the other side of the House asks how they feel. They are terribly concerned that that approach is wrong. If the Minister of Justice says that that is not so, I would ask him to speak to those gentlemen and discuss it with them. I know that members on this side of the House join with members on the other side in hoping that this process of constitutional change will resolve to a constitutional position that will be acceptable in every province and every region of this country.
I listened with dismay today to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), when he drew himself up to his full five and a half feet, and said that he would "stand at the gateway and protect our confederation". I thought those were marvellous words. Over the dinner hour I went up to my office and searched in my papers to find a document that would tell me how the NDP felt about constitutional reform. In those papers I consulted I found, printed at great party expense, Resolutions Book No. 2, New Democratic Party Seventh Federal Convention at Vancouver.


Prosper Boulanger: You are spying on that party.

December 12, 1978
Referenda


Walter David Baker: No, I happen to be on the
mailing list. As a matter of fact the New Democratic Party has made requests to me for funding from time to time.
I wanted to find out what was the position of this party which held itself up with such nobility at five o'clock as the guardians of the sanctity of the nation. In this book of resolutions I found under the heading of federal-provincial affairs-confederation, resolution No. 40, which reads:
Whereas the NDP is inspired by the most sacred democratic principles .. . That is just wonderful. It goes on to say:
-and whereas the NDP is determined to preserve Canadian national unity-
So far that is not too bad. It goes on:
-be it resolved that the NDP refrain from openly encouraging the disintegration of Canada-
If I read this correctly, they do not want openly to encourage the dissolution of Canada. I do not know how else they will do it. It goes on to say:
-but that it recognize the right of Quebec to separate from the Canadian Confederation, should that be the expressed desire of a majority of the citizens in that province.


Mr. Roberts:: Was that adopted?


Walter David Baker: I am not privy to all the
secrets of the NDP. However, that is what it says and I would like to read it again so everyone will understand where this "guardian of the gateway of confederation" stands:
-be it resolved that the NDP refrain from openly encouraging the disintegration of Canada, but that it recognize the right of Quebec to separate from the Canadian Confederation, should that be the expressed desire of a majority of the citizens in that province.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would be honest with hon. members and inform the House that that resolution did not pass at that convention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I must bring it to the attention of hon. members again that this is neither a question of privilege nor a point of order.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) on a point of order.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, on that particular point of order,
I would draw to your attention that it is a matter of privilege that this House not be misled with misinformation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am sure the House leader for the Conservative party would not want to mislead this House deliberately by suggesting that the New Democratic Party at open convention had passed that resolution. Would the hon. member be honest with the House and tell us if that did pass?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Again, I do not see any question of privilege. We are certainly debating

something that was said earlier. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the question of whether they passed it is very important, and what is equally important is the majority by which it was passed.
I listened quietly to the Leader of the New Democratic Party defame the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) this afternoon, and I did not interrupt on questions of privilege. I think those overly sensitive people in that party could convince the House and the public a great deal more if they would produce a resolution tonight that says something to the contrary. They will have ample opportunity to do that. It is particularly important that they do it because that party has always prided itself on having the parliamentary wing and the leadership of the party follow the dictates of the annual meeting. However, I remember they did that in Ontario. Stephen Lewis raised the minimum wage after his party had done so and he suffered for it.
It is a well known fact that the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party has for a long time wanted separate status for the province of Quebec. That is common knowledge. I say that the leader of that party ought not to draw himself up to his full five and one half feet and call himself one of the bastions of confederation. The Minister of Justice and others ought not to look upon this party as particularly good allies in the fight to save Canada, in view of that resolution. I think it is very important to say that, and I say it because this afternoon I heard the leader of that party, who should know better, stand up and misquote, and repeat a misquote of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to his position on national unity. He said that the Leader of the Opposition had indicated that he was prepared to negotiate with respect to the province of Quebec in the sense of the division of this country.


Mr. Pinard:: That is what he said.


Walter David Baker: I want this House to know, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case. The quotation was in La Presse; a recording is available for any hon. member who wants it. This is what he said. The Leader of the Opposition said that the mandate of a Canadian prime minister is to preserve national unity. The Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to negotiate separation. I do not think that other party over there is prepared to negotiate it, nor are we. A referendum in Quebec might affect the mandate of a provincial premier but it could not affect the mandate of a federal prime minister.
There is no way, as the law exists today, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the next prime minister who will take office after the election, or any prime minister of this country has a mandate to negotiate the separation of this country. That is a bottom line of Canadian truism.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is the essence of federalism to negotiate with any premier when there is a mutually agreed upon agenda. In this case negotiation would simply emphasize two totally opposite points of view. That is what the Leader of
December 12, 1978

the Opposition said in Quebec. I want to lay to rest once and for all the quote, misquote, and repetition of it which is a malignant statement and contrary to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is time this was said. I thought more of the Leader of the New Democratic Party than that he would stand up in this House and make that dreadful statement. I hope he will see fit to set the record straight.
As far as 1 am concerned, Mr. Speaker, there are no second class Canadians if they honestly believe in this country. There is no parliamentarian in this House who ought not to be concerned about this referendum bill and with respect to the principle of the right of the people to be involved in the fundamental question affecting their country.
The committee will have to deal with this bill as it dealt with Bill C-60, and discuss the propriety of it in the context of the time in which they deal with it and with parliamentary practice. It is not our intention to attempt to deny the committee that power and that right. This bill is as important as Bill C-60 which dealt with a certain aspect of the confederation debate. The government saw fit in those circumstances to send that bill to a special joint committee of this House. I was not a member of the committee, but during the summer I watched the proceedings. It was a fairly constructive committee and it recognized the folly of Bill C-60 in the context of the time- that it was just a bit of a confrontation between the provinces and the other institutions. As a result of pressure from the committee the question of the Senate has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada because the government felt it had to back off. I think it did so quite appropriately.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands suggested that we should deal cautiously with something that it so fundamental to our parliamentary government, and I support her in that. I think it is regrettable that in matters of this kind the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and certain other members on that side of the House should try to distort the attitude in the country with respect to referenda. His speech is very unfortunate, in view of the seriousness of the proposal, and I hope that as time goes on he will reconsider his remarks. Those remarks were probably prepared for him by the research office of the government. If that is the case, I forgive him, but this debate is so important it demands more consideration than has been given to it by that hon. member.
I listened carefully to what the Minister of Justice said, and I know his intentions as he expressed it.
This parliament has run its course. We are into the fourth session of an elongated parliament. The government has long since run out its moral mandate and has nearly run out its legal mandate. Therefore this is not the government, whatever its stripe, to trust with the tools for recreating confederation, with regard to this bill. That is my position. I make no apology for it. I hope that will be examined during the course of the debate.
One can imagine the position of this government and the turmoil it is in. The leader of the government faces invidious
Referenda
alternatives. Imagine the effect that has on the leadership. He is faced with being deposed from office by the Leader of the Opposition on the one hand, or by John Turner of Toronto on the other. That is an invidious position.
I do not think we can trust nor should we trust a major departure in a parliamentary sense to a government that is so led and so preoccupied with its own position rather than with those matters which should concern it. I am therefore very concerned about this bill in the hands of the government. When the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands spoke of her concern about this bill and the parliamentary practice, she spoke for a lot of people both inside and outside this House of Commons.
There is one other aspect I want to deal with from a parliamentary point of view. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain used to be the Liberal party whip. He is now a parliamentary secretary. When he occupied the position of whip, he and I worked together. He took some part in the operation of this House of Commons. I am surprised that he did not at least question the amount of time that will be allowed to debate this bill in the House of Commons.
I do not know whether 40 hours will be sufficient. I do not know how the government can say that 40 hours are sufficient in terms of debate on such an important matter as the question that may face us with regard to the constitution of this country. I do not think we should be fettered in terms of time in dealing with the questions of form and structure. We are not merely talking about an amendment to the family allowances, business corporations act, or even second reading on a bill with regard to referenda. What we are talking about is the opportunity for members of parliament, each of whom represents 125,000 to perhaps 200,000 people, to debate the kind of questions that will be put across this country, not just in one province or even a group of provinces. I hope the government will agree that we not be fettered with regard to time.


Marc Lalonde: The people of Canada will talk.


Walter David Baker: The minister is quite right. I repeat, there should not be any fetter with regard to time limitations. There may be two members or a dozen members of this House who will not be able to deal with the bill. I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain will want to speak on a bill like that. I will want to, as 1 am sure other members will. When the bill goes to committee, I want the government to consider that very carefully.
There are certain remedies which the government has, although I do not believe they should be used on such a bill. I would not want to see the remedy of allocation of time. There was a free vote on the issue of capital punishment, and properly so, and every member was permitted to speak his mind on that moral issue. Whether we agreed with one another is not important. What was important was that every member was given time.
A matter that may affect the preservation of this country and the position the federal government should take on certain matters is worthy of the same kind of consideration as the

December 12, 1978
Referenda
capital punishment issue. I ask the Minister of Justice to consider that. We should not move hastily on this matter. We should move properly and with certainty, and with the knowledge that the people of Canada will understand precisely this whole issue.
Those are my concerns with regard to this bill. I have said in other places that I am not personally opposed and that I have no strong feelings against the principles of the referendum. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands indicated in her speech today that she was not opposed to the idea of referenda. However, she is concerned about the scope of this one because of its importance to the preservation of confederation as we understand it, or the confederation which it might evolve.
All members are concerned about this in terms of our country. I am sure there is not one member of parliament who is prepared to give one inch in connection with the maintenance of confederation in Canada. I wish that debate would end in this House of Commons. 1 worry when it continues. I worry about attacks and misquoting of political leaders. An attack was made today on the Leader of the Opposition. I have never attacked the Prime Minister on anything he has said about the preservation of this country. I have done that as a matter of principle. I hope that is the kind of atmosphere that will prevail when this bill goes to committee.
In conclusion, I am not at all opposed to new parliamentary forms. All I want is for those forms to be considered. I am not opposed to strong government in this country. The parliamentary system demands strong government. On the other hand, I want this parliament to be place where that strong government and its servants must account. After these important issues have been discussed, I would like the bill to go to committee where it can be discussed completely.
I would rather this matter were considered as part of a constitutional package. I do not have that luxury, except to say that is what I would like. However, the government has decided that is not going to happen. When something involves not only this parliament but the federal and provincial institutions, it should be considered as part of an over-all constitutional package.
I hope that in the last few moments I have indicated the spirit with which I and my party view this bill. It would be better to discuss the merits of this bill rather than the merits of each other, because this is an important piece of legislation.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would answer a question about an important part of his speech.


Walter David Baker: I will try.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) answer a question?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauther) made it quite clear in the House on two occasions and in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition that the latter had indicated that he would negotiate a form of sovereignty-association, if 60 per cent of Quebeckers voted yes in referendum to a question about sovereignty-association.
This statement was therefore made on two occasions in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to know why it is not the Leader of the Opposition, but the House leader of the Progressive Conservative party who this evening denies this statement which is reported to have been made by his leader in Riviere-du-Loup, and why his leader, when this statement was made in his presence in the House, was not brave enough to deny it, either rising on a question of privilege or on a point of order to say: "The statements made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier are serious and I never said in Riviere-du-Loup or elsewhere that I would negotiate sovereignty-association." Why did his leader not deny that in the House when those allegations were made twice in his presence, once in a motion under Standing Order 43 and another time in a question directed to the Prime Minister, in both cases the issue being raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier?
I would like the House leader of the opposition to answer honestly that question and tell us why this evening he is taking the responsibilities of his leader.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the question matter was raised on two occasion in the House, on one occasion by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Quite frankly at the time I heard him I thought he was being mischievous, and nobody really pays very much attention to what the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier says.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: The second occasion concerned a question put to the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: That did it!


Walter David Baker: I say to you quite honestly that it exercised the Leader of the Opposition because it was obviously a planted question. I don't know whether the Prime Minister had his music with him or not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: But whatever the Prime Minister said was not correct. And on that very same day- and the Leader of the Opposition is not a cry-baby but he wants the record to be straight-the Leader of the Opposition went outside the House and made statements which were widely reported, with respect to it. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition should stoop to answer every accusation directed to him by the Liberal party.
December 12, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Mr. Elnatyshyn:: We've got those cry-babies going now.


Mr. Johnston (Westmount):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) permit a question? I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one in the House with a fresher mandate than mine. The question I would like to ask relates to the hon. member's support of the principle of referenda. Unfortunately I was not here to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), but I gather that it is the position of the official opposition that the principle of the bill is acceptable, but that the scope of the questions which can be asked under the bill is too great. That is my interpretation of what I understood this evening and, if I may, I would like to have the hon. member's response to that. Having read clause 3(1) it struck me that the scope was really quite narrow.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are new around here!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deprive other members of their right to speak, but the hon. member who put a question has a right to an answer. The position put by my hon. friepd from Kingston and the Islands, as I understood her, was put very precisely. She said that the existence at the federal level of a clear set of rules, which ensures the utmost freedom of speech and fullness of debate prior to the holding of any referendum on Quebec, is important. There are four or five areas within the speech she made which indicate that the principle of referenda is not repellent to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, nor does it repel me. 1 hope that answers the question of the hon. member. I am quite prepared to answer any questions, but I presume this bill will go to committee and will be dealt with quite fully.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on a point of order.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Two or three times in his speech, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) referred to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent)-

-as the five foot six member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would like to hear the hon. member's question of privilege.


Irénée Pelletier: I think it improper to use these words. We do not refer to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) or the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) as the five foot two members-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Tiny perfect!
Referenda


Irénée Pelletier: -and I do not think it should be used as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton used it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for York-Simcoe on a point of order.


Mr. Stevens:: It is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As everybody can see, it is clear that I am not five-foot two.


An hon. Member:: Five-foot one!
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the sheer size of a man is a true measure of his greatness but rather the kind of head he has on his shoulders. In the regard Mr. Speaker, I wonder what is the policy of the Progressive Conservative party on the subject matter of Bill C-9. Indeed, it is extremely difficult of anyone who listened to the speeches made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), to know what is the position of that party on the issue of the Referendum Act. What is extremely difficult to explain, Mr. Speaker, is the inability of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to defend his leader after it was twice suggested here in the House of Commons that he would negotiate his country if 60 per cent of people voted yes in a Quebec referendum.
Some people bury their heads in the sand, and when they come to the province of Quebec-it is extremely important in this country-they know that people outside of Quebec do not listen to them as much because they use French, and therefore they feel they can say any silly things. They may try to make the people of Quebec believe something. The next day they fly to another part of the country where they say exactly the opposite. They are certain that nobody will contradict them. They believe there are in Canada people who do not understand both languages. There are others, Mr. Speaker, who, in their wishful thinking, believe they live in a unilingual country. They think because they speak in some way in Quebec they will not be understood elsewhere, and because they speak in some other way in the provinces they will not be understood in Quebec. They are understood just the same, Mr. Speaker; furthermore, they will always be understood. I think the important thing-Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, and it does not seem a long time for some members or perhaps too long for a few, but the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has made the worst speech 1 have ever heard in the House. I do not claim to be the official critic of a party but I can say at least, Mr. Speaker, that I can recognize when somebody has the future of his country at heart, because the bill before us is extremely important for the future of our country.

December 12, 1978
Referenda
We have not introduced this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, solely to while away the time in the House, we introduced to guarantee the very foundations of our democratic society in Canada. What we want to do with Bill C-9, Mr. Speaker, is to guarantee to the Canadian people as a whole that no government will be able to usurp or to break this country unfairly. When we say unfairly, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that those who were elected in Quebec through the democratic process do not break this country in a way which would clearly be antidemocratic. I will explain this way. What I mean, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be extremely easy for a party which forms the government to try to deceive the population on the terms of the question. 1 believe it would be evidence of political immaturity for the federal government to evade its responsibilities by not introducing a legislation such as Bill C-9.
Mr. Speaker, we are not introducing a bill on referenda strictly for the fun of it. We introduce this bill to make sure that if ever the group of bourgeois who are in power in Quebec decide to fool around with the meaning of the referendum question we could redress the wrong that would have been done and we could know, clearly and accurately, whether Quebeckers want to remain within Canada or not. 1 believe there are hon. members in this House who have yet to understand that the future of Canada is at stake right now, in 1978, and not in six years or ten years from now. Too many members on the other side of this House are prepared to endanger their own country for the sake of power. 1 do not understand them, Mr. Speaker. It is maddening to see how these people refuse to understand the problem which now exists in Canada. It is shocking to note how these people prefer to destroy the will of the House of Commons that wants to try to keep Canada united through the present government which represents people from all parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to understand how come these people, after what we heard tonight and after so many years in the opposition, have not learned anything yet. I think they are now a permanent opposition party. They have not learned yet to listen to the grass roots. That is what is important. These people, Mr. Speaker, have not realized what a Quebecker wants at all costs to stay within Canada. They do not take the trouble.
Mr. Speaker, they should take the trouble to look into the underlying principles of Bill C-9, particularly on the matter of referendum procedures. These were dealt with in a very superficial way. With all the experience of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I would have expected from him a much better worked out speech on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind there is no serious awareness of the real urgency of having a referendum act in this country, an act that would enable us to ensure that democracy is safeguarded in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I hear voices on the other side. Unfortunately they know nothing about the way the party in power in Quebec communicates. If they think as some do, that Quebeckers can be bought off when they cannot speak
the way Quebeckers want to be spoken to, well, they will miss the boat, Mr. Speaker. And in the House of Commons they will have, many will be missing, namely the representatives of Quebec. Then they will wonder whether the House of Commons can survive after that. There might even be a House of American representatives in our area.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that those people become aware, once and for all, that all the Quebec people want is simply that their problems not be made light of, that they be solved. Quebeckers want nothing more. They also want something that is basic. I feel that, humanly speaking, if French Canadians are truly respected, then, it should be understood that the French language should be respected throughout the country. When we can finally tell Quebeckers that you, on the other side, have a deep respect for them, then there will be no more problems in Canada. But Quebeckers are not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that people on the other side want them in Canada. On the contrary, a good number of them wonder if people like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would not simply want them to opt out. Unfortunately, they already see themselves in power. Were it not for us in Quebec, they might be in power. Those guys are ready to negotiate their country for power. Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on them any longer. I would rather speak of the bill, which is more important and more sensible.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize the bill which to me is extremely important. The Quebec premier, Mr. Levesque, incidentally is my MLA, I did not vote for him, but he won his election anyway. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec premier said that our referendum legislation was "full of holes", nothing but holes. I will show him, Mr. Speaker, what has more holes.
I would like to make 19 points, 19 comparisons between the Quebec legislation and the bill before us this evening. After that, let him try and find holes! Anyway we are going to find some.
Mr. Speaker, according to Bill C-9, referenda should only deal with constitutional matters. The Quebec legislation says that referenda may deal with any matter, but there could not be more than one referendum on the same subject during the same legislature. They are ready to do anything to gain power. They said that they had a taste for Quebec, but now they have a taste for power, Mr. Speaker.
Second point. We are making quite clear, Mr. Speaker, after the answer given this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), that the referendum would be held for consultation purposes only. In their legislation they say that a referendum might be held for consultation purposes or to submit to the people a bill passed by the National Assembly before its final approval. So they pass a legislation but they consult the people before giving it their final approval. They are putting the cart before the horse.

December 12, 1978

Third point, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that the Quebec Premier said that our bill was full of holes. We say that the questions asked in a referendum could only be worded by a government member, at least by the entire cabinet. If you look at the legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is characteristic of the bourgeois clique that runs the show in Quebec; only the premier could word the questions put in a referendum. When the leader says jump everybody agrees and the others have nothing to say.
Such is the basic democracy they talk about in Quebec.
The next point-I go on with the bill full of holes, according to the Quebec Premier. The questions should be worded so as to allow the voters to answer yes or no, which does not exclude the possibility to ask several questions, including alternative questions. He forgets this himself!
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to sound like a Social Crediter, as I have much more respect for them than for those people, but if I went further, they have been bothering us for a long time with their famous question. That is dangerous. Mr. Speaker, there is a way to ask the question which I think is very, very important. I have nothing against people who have spent years at the university, who have studied for a long time and who have been teachers. We find a lot of those people as in the Parti Quebecois but all things considered, they should put more trust in Quebeckers. I get fed up that in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, only academics dominate people who are working hard, when the others spend their time deciding and governing. Therefore the question which will be put will be very important, and skilful as they are at manipulating crowds they believe that Quebeckers are stupid people. That will be their biggest mistake.
Recently there was a public opinion poll held in Laval, a prosperous city with a dynamic mayor. He had decided once and for all that he would not be ruled by fascists because if you do not think as the government party does you are a bad but you are okay if you share their views.
Mr. Speaker, to come back to what I have to say, housewives from Laval have clearly indicated according to the last poll they are sick and tired, and that is only a few Quebeckers who are tired of being manipulated by a sort of question which will result in a "yes" or a "no". They want to know clearly what the question will be.
And if you try to manipulate the people by presenting them with a leading question, they will come out with a loud and clear "no" as an answer to the question whether or not they want Quebec to separate.
I now would like, Mr. Speaker, to point out the shortcomings in our legislation by comparison to that of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, we are ready to grant forty hours for the consultation process to take place and when a referendum is held, they will grant thirty hours. We will not press the point for the sake of ten hours and I guess that democracy is all the more respected when more people can have more time to express their views.
Secondly, what we are saying is that after the wording of the question has been approved, the government will only have
Referenda
45 days to issue writs for the referendum. Pursuant to its act, the government of Quebec will not be able to issue any writs until the twentieth day following the day when the phrasing of a question has been approved but it could also delay the issuing of that writ indefinitely. That is their way of understanding democracy, Mr. Speaker. The Quebec government will not be able to issue a brief during the yearly census period or the two following weeks. That is the Parti Quebecois' idea of democracy, Mr. Speaker! We can also see it at work, Mr. Speaker, in its occupational safety program. They are taking away all the benefits workers have enjoyed up to now, as far as the safety is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few additional remarks but first I would like to make a very important point. I did not seek legal advice nor do I pretend to be a lawyer, far from it, but I am seriously wondering whether I or any of my hon. friends opposite, from the left to the right, will be allowed to write to our constituents during the referendum campaign to let them know our position and feelings on that matter or whether we will have to and I do mean "have to" become part of an umbrella organization before expressing our views.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is extremely important and if you have time one day you might study this bill in order to determine if it does not violate our privileges as members. If we examine the Quebec referendum legislation we notice that any organization wanting to contribute during the referendum campaign must either be in the "yes" or "no" umbrella group. If we stick to the text, this means that the member for Longueuil is not authorized to write to his electors and advise them to vote no. And also that during the whole referendum campaign members of this House will not have the right to go and speak to people in Quebec in order to convince them to stay in Canada if they are not in the umbrella group. That is what the legislation means in Quebec now.
Mr. Speaker, I find this extremely dangerous. What is sure in my mind is that I have been elected to represent people who believe in that kind of country and that the government party will not prevent me from holding public meetings in which I can express my point of view and explain why I want to keep my country as it is. If they think I am doing something illegal, Mr. Speaker, they can send me their thugs if they want to.
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely dangerous for a society which calls itself democratic to start invading rights and privileges of some members of parliament. And that is when you really see what the federal system is all about when whatever level of government unilaterally decides to attempt reducing the rights of some individuals, the other level can interfere to stand for them while if we had a separation such as the one provided for by the Parti Quebecois group, we would refer to one single government in Quebec, under a presidency, how do I know, such as they have in France with their communes or whatever, and all the frills around it, when one looks at it it is beyond understanding.
Mr. Speaker, it is both extremely dangerous and important to point out the reasons for Bill C-9 now before us. If members

December 12, 1978
Referenda
in this House, and I would invite them to listen closely, if members are to be restricted in their right to speak or hold public meetings in support of Canada in the province of Quebec during the referendum campaign, without being a member of the yes group or the no group, it is extremely dangerous for our Canadian society and our Canadian democracy to let this go unchallenged. Things are happening in Canada where one part does not give a damn about the other. What is happening in Canada? Some people believe that because a dreamer or a saviour has come, the other side's problems are solved. Mr. Speaker, the problem is much deeper. If ten, twelve or fifteen members of all sides decided during the pre-referendum campaign or the referendum campaign in Quebec to hold public meetings for a united Canada, it would be interesting to find out whether we would have the right to do so.
Mr. Speaker, under the legislation that was passed in the province of Quebec, members would not have the right to do so. They would have that right if they were to join the yes umbrella, and we know what it means to join the yes umbrella. I am quite ready to associate myself with the provincial Liberal party, but let us not forget that the communist party also supports them. It is against separation. Therefore, I would have to associate with the communists.
Well, I would not suggest for a moment that the New Democratic Party are communists. In my view, they are socialists, albeit bourgeois socialists. They are intellectuals controlling workers and taking their funds for electioneering. This is what they are doing. A great leader once said they were Liberals in a hurry, but as far as I am concerned I feel they are backwards on a number of things. When we look at the principles and the main provisions in the legislation before us, the clear realization is that we have a responsible government.
I should like to mention some provisions of Bill C-9 which I feel are the most important, although I have already mentioned a number of others. First of all, referenda should deal only with constitutional issues. They could be part of an advisory process. The answers to the questions would be an unequivocal yes or no. The referendum legislation would expire at the end of a five-year period, unless parliament decided otherwise. Our referenda could be held either in a designated area or at the same time in a few designated areas or everywhere in Canada. As I indicated earlier, the consultation process on a definite question would last 40 hours. As to the writs, 45 days would be required. The bill provides also for a judicial recount in cases where the results are very important and the number of "yes" and "no" votes are too close. Mr. Speaker, the reason I fully support the underlying principle of this bill-something hon. members opposite will or can not understand-is that its purpose is to safeguard the democratic process in Canada. And I have a lot of respect for those who do not think that way, Mr. Speaker, but I say one thing, they did not consider at length the problem that exists in Canada.
If the separatist party in power in Quebec said clearly our question is going to be so clear that people are going to be able
[Mr. Olivier.)
to answer yes or no, that our question is going to be: Do you want to remain in Canada, yes or no, there would probably be no need to introduce this bill immediately. That is what is important. There are fundamental reasons why the Parti Quebecois keeps postponing its proposed referendum. First of all, everyone knows that they are scared to death of the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). They know that on his own ground which is the province of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque is going to go down to defeat. And they know also that when the people of Quebec are going to be called upon to make a choice between Rene Levesque and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the answer is going to be 70 per cent for Mr. Trudeau. They know that. Twenty per cent will be undecided and 10 per cent will be for Mr. Levesque-and I am being generous.
Mr. Speaker, I will never draw enough the attention of this House to the problem of our democracy that is at issue in Quebec and in Canada because of the umbrella organizations because members of the House will probably not have the right to speak during the referendum process if they are not members of the umbrella organizations. That is extremely important. Although I seldom share the opinions of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I think she has the right to say what she has to say in my riding, in my province, in my city or in her city-everywhere. I think it is normal, even if I do not think like her. But 1 say one thing, I believe she has not yet understood that she will not be able to do so during the referendum period in Quebec unless she is part of the umbrella organization. I find that extremely odd, Mr. Speaker.
There are some who seem to say that the Liberal party is in trouble. I challenge them to come and see what is happening in Quebec. Because we stand for the people of Quebec, because Liberal members elected to Ottawa stand for the interests of Quebec and always do so energetically, they imagine that we cannot understand the other problems that exist in this country. But the important thing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to help all hon. members from the province of Quebec and the members of all parties in the House and place them in a position where they can take part in an honest debate on the desire of a population to remain part of the country. There are too many people in the House, Mr. Speaker, who figure the future of the country is a matter of dollars and cents. This country will never make it as a united country if people, be they in the Liberal party, in the Progressive Conservative party, in the Social Credit party or in the New Democratic Party, believe that we will make friends with those who oppose the idea of a united Canada by pretending it is strictly a matter of economic problems. It is not so. We will never solve Canada's problems by talking about dollars and cents. Never! The problem will disappear when people start respecting those who come from Quebec, be they French-speaking or English-speaking. There is a French-speaking majority in Quebec. There is an important minority in Canada which demands to be respected like other Canadians living outside Quebec. And as long as people fail to understand this problem, Mr. Speaker, it will not be
December 12, 1978

solved in Canada. On the contrary, they will still manage to split and divide this country. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that with Bill C-9 we cannot be certain of winning the referendum, because we are sure that the party in power in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, will lose the referendum. I tell you one thing; be careful, you are dreaming in colour. A growing majority of Quebeckers think that the other provinces do not want them anymore. I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, to believe that the referendum will automatically be rejected in Quebec is to dream in colour. I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, if there were a referendum in the Longueuil riding tomorrow morning, if we asked the question yes or no, do you want to stay in Canada, I am not sure Canada would win. The population in Longueuil, Mr. Speaker, is 93 per cent Frenchspeaking, 8 per cent English-speaking, and 4 per cent immigrants. Mr. Speaker, this is really significant. People on the other side think it is easy to be a member of parliament in Ottawa. If you believe it is easy to be a member of parliament in Ottawa when you are from Quebec you are mistaken. You should come in our ridings where we are always defending ourselves, where one keeps repeating that the Parti Quebecois is not telling the truth, that it is not true that English-speaking people are out to get us, that it is not true that they want to destroy us, that it is not true they are this and that. When you come to do this work for us, I will begin to have some respect for you.
[DOT]	(2132)


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves that no particular side of the House has all the answers with regard to some very difficult questions relating to matters of national unity. I think it sometimes is easy for us to inflate rhetoric and to take a parochial view, looking at these particular issues with our own immediate concerns in mind.
[DOT]	(2142)
Let me be certain to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that, as far as I am concerned personally, in respect of the province of Quebec its continuation within confederation is essential. 1 feel as strongly about that as the hon. member for Longueuil, and as strongly as any member across the floor of this House, as any member in the NDP or the Social Credit party, or an independent in the House.
When I address myself to this particular legislation, and if I do not find it to be completely perfect, I do not want anyone in any part of this House to suggest I am not being patriotic, or not attempting to bring to this parliament the best possible legislation in relation to the problems we are now facing in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Let's hear the rest.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are going to hear the rest. The fact of the matter is I am going to make some observations in respect of the legislation, and I will address myself to some provisions of the bill which I very seriously think are counterproductive to the task we in this House have regarding the issues concerning
Referenda
national unity with which we are faced today. I want to deal with the productive side of things, and with those things particularly and specifically.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), has pointed out, we are not looking at this particular situation and this bill in the context of a vehicle for constitutional change in the broad spectrum of that concept, but rather we look at the obligation of this government to bring forward legislation that will deal specifically with the problems we face today. That is the matter to which we should address ourselves. We should be considering how to attack problems by legislation brought before this House that will have the general support of members on all sides, rather than the type of legislation that in fact may only have limited support.
I hesitated a bit before getting up, sir, as you may have noticed. I am concerned about this debate. The Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) was in the House earlier today, and, although he is newly appointed, I had hoped he would address himself to this particular bill, giving us some idea of the direction of the action he proposes to take. He has not been here all day. I must say, quite candidly, that it disappoints me that he should not be in the House during this very important debate on a matter so relevant to his portfolio. I do not know the reason, and there may be a very legitimate one. No one has yet said why that minister has not participated in the debate and has not been in the House. I know the minister is busy, but if any bill involves a very substantial part of his responsibility, this one does. I think it demands his attendance in this House at all times and full participation in the debate. Otherwise we can only draw a conclusion about this bill that I do not want to draw.
I was a member of the joint committee on the constitution studying Bill C-60.


An hon. Member:: You were not there too often.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was in attendance, although I was away for a couple of weeks with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) and others considering the constitutional situation in Germany. We wanted to come back with a proper perspective in respect of this matter.
When I went to that committee studying Bill C-60 I was advised that there was unanimity on the part of members of the government party, and that it was a matter of government policy that members on that side of the House should give it full support.


An hon. Member:: That's not true; that's not true.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now we hear that that is not true, and that tells the lie. The hon. member has indicated that Bill C-60 did not have the full support of the government majority. In view of the fact that he is prepared to be so candid now about that bill, I should like to know what kind of support we can expect in respect of this bill on the part of members of the government party.


An hon. Member:: We didn't vote on Bill C-60.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We did not vote on it because as the hon. member points out, Liberals at that committee complained

December 12, 1978
Referenda
about the lack of consultation and the fact that the matter had never been discussed at any time in their caucus. They said it had never been presented to the caucus.


An hon. Member:: I never said that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We hear them talking now, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Germany.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let me remind hon. members opposite, and some of them were members of that committee, including the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), the hon. member from Quebec city, and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), that they were very quiet while Senator Lang addressed himself very eloquently to this matter, pointing out in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely no consultation.
We often hear that small coterie of people surrounding the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advising him in respect of constitutional matters, but there was no discussion of this matter in the caucus of that party on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was listening to the radio tonight and heard something quite startling. 1 wondered why hon. members were in such a hurry in respect of this bill. 1 heard on the radio that it has been suggested the Prime Minister will resign this Friday. I wonder if hon. members opposite are able to stand and confirm or deny that, because I think it is important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 think there should be consultation in respect of this bill with all of those who may be in the position of the Prime Minister between now and the next election. For example, has this particular legislation been discussed with Mr. John Turner? I do not know if there is anybody here who can answer that question. Possibly the person who will be the acting prime minister when the Prime Minister steps down on Friday is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). Perhaps he will finish up his career in that position. Does anyone on that side want to tell me whether he has been consulted about this bill? Perhaps we should go down to the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), as I understand he is a contender for the position of prime minister.
I do not know really whether there is any support on that side of this bill. Perhaps the Minister of Justice has brought it in without even consulting the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. Why do we not get answers from the other side in respect of this matter of consultation? If there had been consultation in respect of this particular legislation with the parties involved, we might now have legislation to deal with the problem we face in Canada, in a more appropriate form. We know, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, there are a number of devices that one has to resort to, and one of the devices is a hammer, and I hear one at the door.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-25, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31 March, 1979.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
December 13, 1978 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 12th day of December, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-10, an act to amend the Income Tax to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973-Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-25, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1979-Chapter No. 6.
December 12, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the French regionalization program of the National Film Board was established in 1974. There are four regions under this program: Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, which already has the head office of the NFB, and the region of Acadia. English regionalization has existed longer and is supported by stronger budgetary considerations and better equipment.
In the French sector, in four years, 78 films have been produced. At the head office, since the establishment of the NFB in 1939, only about 30 films we produced outside Quebec which concerned more or less directly French-Canadian realities. This makes .75 films a year for the central operation while regionalization produced 19.5 films a year. This proves the value of the French regional program and the enormous human and technical potential which has not yet been developed. Must I remind the House that, under its terms of reference, the NFB must undertake and promote the production and distribution of films in the national interest, and especially make Canadians more familiar with Canada in addition to promoting knowledge of Canada abroad?
I should also like to tell the minister that French regionalization has generated funds outside the budget of the NFB. I would like to note especially that provincial governments, social clubs, municipal governments and French-Canadian organizations throughout the country have shown an interest in these films. They succeeded in interesting and involving the citizens of the regions and their representatives in local productions. Nor is there any price put on the contribution of volunteer workers who may at times be in short supply in Montreal but certainly not in the regions. It is difficult to measure the impact of a so-called regional film on the rest of the country, but one cannot question its spontaneousness, its originality, its openness and its intrinsic value. A regional film is also less costly to produce in the field in my region than in Montreal or by Montreal based NFB producers.
Adjournment Debate
The suppression of western and Ontario regionalization programs is not a saving but an unfortunate and incalculable loss. Yet regionalizations follow more closely the mandate which is to make Canada known to Canadians. Besides striking a foul blow to French: speaking minorities of the country, the NFB will contribute to further weaken them by taking away from them tools of expression and communication. It is a denial of the most significant part of the NFB mandate in the political context now prevailing in the country. And yet the June 26, 1976 issue of Quebec city's Le Soleil mentioned the comments of NFB commissioner Andre Lamy. Speaking on regionalization, he said, and I quote:
We want to avoid forcing people to work with groups of strangers from Montreal, or uprooting them by forcing them to come to Montreal to produce their films.
And he added:
I want to know what a Canadian from Vancouver thinks, and I want the federal government to give him the means to produce a cultural work that can be made known in Quebec.
And I add, in New Brunswick, Ontario and everywhere else in Canada. Those fine words, those noble feelings, that generous condescension are no longer valid today.
The country is moving openly towards the right and seems ready to sacrifice minorities and this in the midst of a national crisis. Principles and fine speeches are easily forgotten. For the sake of budget restrictions, a very nasty discrimination is practised, Mr. Speaker. If we do not take care, such discrimination will give rise to a more radical militancy than what we have seen up to now among minorities. I did say discrimination and I will give evidence based on figures and facts. The following are the cuts made by the NFB in the regionalization item of the 1979-80 budget. For English production, including the Pacific coast, the prairies, Ontario and the Atlantic region, no section has been abolished and the budget has been reduced by only $50,000. On the other hand, for the French production, the western and Ontario centres have been closed. They are merely abolished and the cut is $340,000.
There is a "proportional"-between quotation marks, not mine, they originate from the official source-reduction of $45,000 in the budget of French regionalization in Quebec. It is obvious that the French regionalizations have hit unduly hard.
This evening I urge the minister or his spokesman to give immediate instructions and put an end to that disgrace. Surely there are other cuts which could be made at the NFB. The hopes of French Canadians living outside Quebec should no longer be frustrated. There should be no more response to the cry-babies of the right. They should stop bleeding minorities drop after drop. The matter I raise goes much further than a mere dollar sign. On behalf of the government and in the face of his commitments towards language minorities, the Secretary of State cannot and should not let the National Film
2068

December 12, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Board decide unilaterally who will live in French in Canada and where his or her culture will survive.
The regions are fed up with the professionals in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal who dictate their conditions to the regions as far as their cultural life is concerned. The French regionalizations in western Canada, Ontario and Acadia are cinemato-graphically and culturally viable provided they are not tripped when they begin to walk. The National Film Board has no right to deal so abruptly with the matter of the very existence of the minorities. Furthermore, the regions refuse to see film makers from Montreal come and try to interpret regional realities. Montreal and everything that swarms and scribbles there has never interpreted or has at least misinterpreted Canadian reality in the past. Let us leave that task to the people in the regions. They have begun to do so at CBC, in spite of some weaknesses; let us also do it at the National Film Board. This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having brought to the attention of the House, and particularly my minister, the problem he brings before us again this evening. He has indicated there have been budget cuts and that there is no department, and no agency under departments that has not been touched by these reductions.
What has been made clear, and 1 will repeat it again this evening, is that the same percentage of funds which has been available for French language productions will continue to be available. The reductions which have taken place are applied to administration costs throughout the country to be sure that the amount of money available for productions will not be reduced by the budget cuts, which had to be applied to this particular area within the department, along with the others.
The French language regionalization program will continue to exist, and its objective will continue to be to show through film the way of life of Francophone minorities outside Quebec. The closing of the Toronto and St. Boniface operations will result in a saving of the administrative and training costs involved, and the resources remaining will be concentrated in order that professional French-speaking film-makers in regions outside Quebec may continue to produce films under this program. While I am not downplaying the seriousness of these cuts and the concerns of those groups affected, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the National Film Board is attempting to ensure that with limited resources the French regionalization program will be maintained.
However, as a result of the comments and projections which have been made by hon. members when bringing this matter to the attention of the minister, he wishes me to convey his assurances that he will continue to consider the program. In addition, he will continue to review what is being done to ensure that the undertakings he has given with respect to the continuance of these programs will be carried out and will not

be drastically affected. Only administrative cuts will result from the budget reductions.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-TRANSFER OF HOSPITALS TO JURISDICTION OF PROVINCES-EFFECT ON VETERANS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I questioned the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) with respect to complaints I had received concerning veterans gaining entry to former veterans hospitals which have been transferred to the jurisdiction of the provinces. There have been several news articles recently dealing with this subject.
Two recent cases are causing concern, Mr. Speaker. One concerns the Sunnybrook Hospital, and the other is the Memorial Pavilion, Victoria, British Columbia where veterans were refused access. By the time the respective patients gained entry into another hospital the opportunity for possible effective care had passed and they died shortly afterward. The minister explained there were extenuating circumstances with respect to the Memorial Hospital in Victoria and that the widow had not made proper application. But he said that he knew nothing of the Sunnybrook Hospital situation where veterans have been unable to gain entry. I find it very strange to hear him say that he knows nothing of the Sunnybrook incident.
As official opposition critic for veterans affairs, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the minister to launch an immediate investigation into the problems experienced by veterans in gaining admission to transferred hospitals and to report back to the House as soon as possible.
This afternoon the minister assured us that things were working very well. Well, there is certainly some doubt here, and there is obviously a breakdown in communication when it comes to explaining to veterans how they may gain admission to these hospitals.
I am sure the minister is just as concerned as we are. We want all veterans' needs to be properly met. There have been some very disturbing newspaper articles regarding veterans experiencing difficulties gaining entry into veterans hospitals. A recent article in the Toronto Sun carried the headline "Dying man shuttled by hospitals". The article appeared in the Sun on November 24, and it read in part as follows:
A dying man was shuttled back and forth between three Metro hospitals with no free beds, for eight hours the day before he died, a coroner's jury was told yesterday.
The jury was investigating the Aug. 25 death of Douglas Phillips, 61, of Unionville. He died of a stroke suffered Aug. 24.
"You wouldn't treat a dog like this," his widow Patricia said, describing her horrified reaction Aug. 24 when Sunnybrook Hospital attendants ignored her pleas to help her sick husband-then returned him untreated to Scarborough Centenary Hospital.
In another article on this inquest, printed in the Toronto Star of December 6, we find the following:
December 12, 1978

The jury was investigating the case of Douglas Phillips, 61, who died of a stroke Aug. 25 after two Metro hospitals, Scarborough Centenary and Sunny-brook Medical Centre, refused to admit him. Hospital officials had said there were no beds available.
There definitely is a problem, and the minister's assurances this afternoon that there are no problems and that everything is working fine are completely false.
In the Toronto Star of November 25 we read the following:
There were 108 empty beds at Sunnybrook Medical Centre the night that fatally ill stroke victim Douglas Phillips was refused admittance, his inquest heard yesterday, but not one was in a part of the hospital that could have given him adequate care.
Testimony that concluded yesterday showed Phillips was turned away from Sunnybrook because Dr. John Edmeads, head of neurology, found that every bed in neurology, neurosurgery and internal medicine was booked.
The 61-year-old veteran had wanted to go to Sunnybrook, which Edmeads said has an international reputation and the only stroke unit in Canada-
But still he was shuttled from hospital to hospital. Another headline in the Toronto Star of November 27 states: " 'Shoot me', begged dying man hospitals rejected". What must veterans, who are entitled to entry into veterans hospitals, and their families be thinking when they read headlines like that?
The story reads in part as follows:
A stroke victim-bounced from hospital to hospital due to a bed shortage- pleaded with his wife, "Shoot me. I'm dying," an inquest was told yesterday.
Contrary to the statements made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs this afternoon, all is not well for veterans who try to obtain entry to veterans hospitals. We have a very serious problem on our hands. The inquest was further told that Mr. Phillips died of massive bleeding within the brain. It was termed the "worst kind of stroke." The inquest was told that an ambulance had taken him from his home to Scarborough Centenary where he was assessed as stable, and transferred, at his request, to Sunnybrook Hospital. But Sunnybrook, which had no available beds, refused to accept him. He was left on a stretcher in the emergency ward for more than three hours, and then sent back to Centenary Hospital. That certainly must not be very comforting news for our veterans and their families.
With regard to the hospital on Vancouver Island, problems were identified there over two years ago by the Veterans' Rights Association of British Columbia. Briefly, that association stated:
On behalf of our membership we would like to make you aware of the problems created for veterans on Vancouver Island through the operation and administration of the former Veterans Hospital in Victoria.
That was in a letter sent to all members of parliament. I read this into the record in the House over two years ago and in committee, and I was told that there was no problem at all. Apparently the problem still exists today.
In an article which appeared in the Daily Colonist dated December 8, it is stated:
The Trudeau government failed a Victoria veteran of the two world wars in his hour of greatest need, his sorrowing widow says-
Mrs. Hancox-
Adjournment Debate
That is the wife of the victim,
-said she and her husband had believed beds would always be available for veterans at the hospital. "He believed until almost the end that veterans would be looked after by their country."
We all expected and thought that would happen, Mr. Speaker, so I am asking the parliamentary secretary to give us a firm commitment tonight that there will be immediate investigation and they will report back to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) concerning hospital treatment for veterans. He has referred specifically to two recent cases, one occurring at Sunnybrook Medical Centre in Toronto and one at the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria. The hon. member has asked that we give him assurances that these cases will be investigated.
The information regarding the case at Sunnybrook is incomplete at this time, but I will be pleased to inform the hon. member when I have more information. The minister has already spoken briefly about the case in Victoria and I want to reaffirm that, to our knowledge, no refusal of service occurred.
The hon. member made reference to the time a few years ago when there were some complaints at the Victoria Hospital. I can tell him that I personally, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, visited the Royal Jubilee Hospital at Victoria, was shown around the premises, and had extensive discussions with many of the doctors and nurses. It is obvious to me from the information I received when I was there that the problems, which were seemingly prevalent a few years ago when the letter which the hon. member read into Hansard was written, have now been resolved.
The government recognizes and accepts its moral responsibility to provide the best possible care for our veterans. Over the years, the number of veterans requiring acute and active care has steadily declined, for obvious reasons. Most of the patients in veterans hospitals required chronic or domiciliary care, and this led to difficulties in maintaining and attracting the type of highly qualified medical and support personnel to which we had become accustomed. To overcome this situation it was decided that services could be kept at a high level by integrating our facilities and patients into the total community medical hospital complex. This can best be accomplished when the facilities come under provincial jurisdiction.
Transferring a facility to a province does not represent the end of our responsibility for the care of the veteran patient. Guarantees are provided by the province in each case that a specified number of beds is to be made available for the sole use or priority use of veterans. The provinces have consistently honoured these commitments. I can assure the hon. member of this particular aspect.
Further, in each region of the country a departmental medical officer is employed to assist in assessing the veterans'
80067-S9'/2

December 12, 1978
Adjournment Debate
needs and in ensuring that a veteran who requires admission actually obtains a bed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind hon. members that the final decision as to the admission of a patient for active care is, in the last analysis, a medical decision.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CANADIAN PEACEKEEPING FORCES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question, and then a supplementary question, about the possible commitment of our troops to Namibia. My question was fairly simple, and the supplementary equally simple. Perhaps I could quote parts of both of them. My question ended as follows:
-will the government now undertake to bring a resolution before the House for debate before a final decision is made to send troops on a new and major UN commitment?
My supplementary question ended as follows:
Can the Prime Minister assure the House that we will have an opportunity to debate a resolution in this House on this important matter?
As the Prime Minister likes to do when faced with a question which he does not enjoy answering, he shifted the premise. In his first answer he indicated that he thought they had the support of the opposition in peacekeeping operations, where Canada is indeed in the forefront of all countries. He shifted over to talking about peacekeeping, instead of indicating whether we had a commitment. In answer to the supplementary question, he shifted over to whether there was a commitment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).
Was there a commitment or was there not? The Prime Minister denied it twice. He said:
All the Secretary of State for External Affairs said was that if the United Nations asked us for further troops, we would naturally consider the request.
Further on he said:
To my knowledge, there is no commitment. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made no commitment.
On November 28, 1978, as reported in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the following:
I have said before this committee on a previous occasion, and repeated, that if a force is established, if the circumstances are satisfactory in so far as we are concerned we would certainly be prepared to participate because, of course, we have been one of the architects of this effort and it would be quite inconsistent with that approach not to go on to the next logical step.
Whether there was a commitment is not the main reason I raised this question tonight. Will the government make a commitment to bring this matter before the House of Commons before it sends troops overseas, or before it takes final steps to agree to send our troops to Southwest Africa?
There are a number of precedents for this, but I should like to refer to only four. One was in 1956, at the time of the Suez crisis, when Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Pearson agreed to the

sending of troops and agreed to bringing it before the House of Commons. In 1960, at the time of the Congo matter, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was the prime minister. He brought it before the House of Commons in the form of a resolution before sending troops to the Congo. In 1964, at the time of the Cyprus matter, Mr. Pearson was the prime minister and Mr. Martin was the secretary of state for external affairs. They brought it before the House of Commons.
It is interesting that in the debate on February 19, 1964, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the present hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), asked a question very similar to the one I directed to the Prime Minister the other day. In those days the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was the prime minister, and he said the following:
Finally, if a request is made involving the use of substantial numbers of Canadians abroad, we would bring the matter before parliament before any final decision is taken.
It was quite simple. They knew the role of parliament. They were all willing to bring it before parliament, although at the time of the Suez crisis it was post factum by some six days. But the Liberal government of that day had to recall parliament to do it, which was the reason for the six-day delay. It recalled parliament to have it approve the dispatch of troops to the Suez.
Right up until the present Prime Minister it had always been considered the role of parliament to have a veto over such a decision, and that the government by itself could not commit our troops abroad in any major new undertaking. I do not know whether we should consider this matter as peacekeeping. I did not use the word "peacekeeping". The Prime Minister, looking for a fresh subject and not liking the one I brought up, mentioned peacekeeping. This is quite a different role than the ordinary role of peacekeeping.
An interesting article appeared in the London Times on November 30, 1978. It must have been one of the final editions of that newspaper. It dealt with an Independent Television News team which was back after spending 110 days in Angola. They went down there trying to locate Dr. Jonas Savimbi's Unita movement. As I understand from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, our troops will be positioned along the Namibia-South Angola border. What is happening just over that border surely will be of interest to the troops. Dr. Savimbi's Unita movement is in there fighting a guerrilla war against the Cuban and Russian-backed Angolan government forces.
This team was ambushed at the start of the offensive against Unita in which, the report says, the MPLA forces used French built Puma troop-carrying helicopters piloted by East Germans. The Angola ground troops were also being commanded by East Germans at platoon level, and between 30 and 50 Cuban tanks were also used in the operation. When you realize that SWAPO troops were also sequestered just over that border we can realize the situation that Canadian and other
December 12, 1978

UN forces will be in when they occupy that position, for whatever reason.
I am certain this is not a peacekeeping operation as outlined by Mitchell Sharp when he gave his famous eight criteria for peacekeeping operations. If I had a minute I should like to read them so that we may find out how they differ from the situation we find in Namibia. They are as follows:
There must be a threat to international peace and security that requires the establishment of a peacekeeping force.
The peacekeeping endeavour should be linked to an agreement for a political settlement, or at least a reasonable expectation of a negotiated settlement.
They are not even close to a political settlement there, and I expect it will be years before there is a political settlement.
To continue with the criteria:
The peacekeeping force should be responsible to a political authority, preferably the United Nations.
The sponsoring authority should receive reports and have adequate powers to supervise the mandate of the force.
The parties to the conflict must accept the peacekeeping force.
Canadian participation in force must be acceptable to all concerned.
We may be acceptable to SWAPO, we may be acceptable to South Africa, but i doubt very much that we are acceptable to all forces involved there.
The criteria continue as follows:
The peacekeeping force must have a clear mandate, including provision for freedom of movement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's allotted time has expired. I am afraid he cannot record everything he has in his notes.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has disputed the peacekeeping nature of this particular force. Perhaps it might be of some benefit to report briefly some of the facts.
Canada has been an active member of the group of five western countries attempting to arrange a peaceful resolution of the Namibia problem. The basic feature of the proposal made by Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. for an internationally acceptable settlement in Namibia concerns the holding of fair and free elections in the territory, under the supervision and control of the United Nations.
Adjournment Debate
After acceptance by South Africa and the Southwest Africa People's Organization of the western proposal, the Secretary General of the United Nations prepared a plan which sets out how the United Nations would fulfil its responsibilities for supervision and control of the elections. The Security Council has approved this plan, and to give effect to its provisions has authorized the establishment of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group, UNTAG.
UNTAG will have a military component up to an authorized limit of 7,500 personnel, as well as a civilian unit of approximately 1,900 persons. It is the responsibility of the UN Secretary General to consult with all parties concerned on the composition of the UN force, on the date for its deployment to Namibia, and on the mandate that will govern its operation.
As one of the authors of the western proposal on Namibia, as an active participant in the negotiations that led up to its acceptance by South Africa and SWAPO, and as a nation that has traditionally played an active role in promoting peaceful settlement of international disputes, Canada has a strong interest in a successful resolution to the Namibia problem under the aegis of the United Nations.
One of our continuing objectives has been to help strengthen the capacity and the authority of the United Nations in its role as a peacekeeping agency. Canada has consistently responded to UN requests to provide personnel for peacekeeping duties. As a result of this lengthy and intensive experience Canada has become recognized for its excellence in this field, both for its objectivity and the professional competence of its troops. Our experience has also provided us with a good degree of insight into the successes and failures of present and past peacekeeping operations.
With respect to Namibia, when the conditions and terms of reference are established, should a request come from the UN Secretary General for a contribution to UNTAG, the government would give serious consideration to it to determine whether the operation holds promise of success and whether Canada can play a useful role in it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.36 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, December 13, 1978