1978-06-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
MPs SUED FOR CRITICIZING SYSTEM OF GRANTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that six members of parliament, namely, the members for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), Battle River (Mr. Malone), Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), Hastings (Mr. Ellis) and Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), are being sued for comments made while performing their duties, particularly in their attempt to make the government accountable and responsible for repulsive and outrageous Canada Council grants and inadequate financial documentation of the council, in view of the government's April decision to pay the libel fine for the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), and while I am not-nor do I intend to do so at this time-asking for financial assistance from the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River:
That the government state its policy on payment of fines for MPs convicted of slander, libel and the like while in the performance of their duties.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. In view of the fact that last Friday the minister of the environment, in a meeting with officials of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, refused to provide any of the $250,000 required for the federal-provincial program on endangered species, and since the Canadian Wildlife Federation is prepared to provide
matching dollars, as are the provinces, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this government take immediate steps to resolve this confrontation, since there is a fear that they, too, are on the list of endangered species.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, according to a report made public today by Statistics Canada, the housewives of this nation by their work earn approximately $80 billion a year and are responsible for about 40 per cent of the gross national product. It seems to me that it is time we did something about this, but I suppose if 1 suggested that the bill be paid, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) would have a heart attack. We could start, however, by establishing pension equality for women. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls on the government to recognize the contribution that women in their homes make to our economy and, as a minimum, to recognize this contribution by establishing pension equality, including the equivalent of the Canada Pension Plan for women whose work is in their homes, equal pension rights for all women between the ages of 60 and 65 regardless of marital status, increasing the pensions paid to widows under various government plans to at least 75 per cent, and the continuing payment of pensions granted to widows regardless of any subsequent change in marital status.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 27, 1978


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 may I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That all members of this House join me in extending sympathy to the members of families bereaved as a result of the plane crash at Toronto international airport yesterday, and that all members also join me in commending the fast and co-ordinated action taken by the airport staff, the Peel regional police, the medical staff of the surrounding hospitals and the many ambulance and fire department personnel whose effective action served to reduce the serious consequences of the accident.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Millhaven penitentiary authorities recently decided that as of June 19 last all visits in a common hall for inmates in special units, that is inmates escorted by guards, would be reduced from seven days a week to a single day-Tuesday. The authorities of that establishment did not state the true reasons for those changes. Considering that this decision is unfair for the inmates and does not help improve the climate in that penitentiary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House deeply regret the decision of Millhaven authorities and enjoin them to reconsider that decision to improve the climate in our penitentiaries, as requested in the report of the sub-committee on justice and legal affairs published last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, involving the National Capital Commission. Since Mr. Robert Campeau has been very strident in his demands that the proper procedures of the NCC be circumvented and short-circuited in order to expedite and facilitate his real estate developments in Hull, and since he has been calling the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and sending copies of letters to him, such as his letter to Pierre Juneau on February 20 of this year which complained about an alleged breach of agreement with the NCC, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Minister of Justice inquire into the circumstances as to why the Justice Department was informed from the office of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs that a lawyer from Buckingham, Mr. Pierre Joanisse, would act over the heads of Justice officials to expedite the matter of Mr. Campeau's convenience in pursuing his private interests, and that the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs indicate the expected cost of bowing to Mr. Campeau's demands.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, in conformity with Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance: it centres on the mounting debt load that this government has imposed on the Canadian public. Is the minister aware that the average worker in Canada today has to spend Vh weeks of solid work to earn enough to pay his share of the federal interest charges alone, compared to \ '/i weeks ten years ago?
If the minister is aware that the average worker now has to spend one extra week earning enough money to pay his share of the extra load imposed upon him, would he indicate if he sees this trend continuing? If it does, it will mean that for every succeeding year the federal debt mounts at the rate it has been mounting, a worker will have to spend one clear day earning enough to pay for it.
June 27, 1978


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly because I am aware of the burden on taxpayers because of the deficit we have to run in order to stimulate the economy that I have rejected the plan of the opposition to run a deficit of $2 billion more this year.


Mr. Gillies:: Another lie.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of his answer, would the minister indicate why the Canadian budget now takes 14 per cent of its total spending to pay for the debts of last year and other years, compared to 9 per cent of the United States budget? Could he indicate why we are taking 14 per cent , compared to the United States only taking 9 per cent of their budget, and would he indicate why we have got so out of whack considering the competitive disadvantage in which this puts Canadians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 just said a moment ago that I am fully aware of the fact that we have a very heavy burden as regards the repayment of our debt, but it is not however out of proportion with the average debt of western countries. I reviewed the situation a few weeks ago and among all western countries the per capita debt load in Canada, in relation to the gross national product, is about equal to the average level of that debt in developed countries. That is an acceptable average at this time, keeping in mind the stimulus we want to give to the Canadian economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister had compared recent increases in debt load, he would find that the figures he has just related to the House would not stand up. The minister has represented that the debt is due to the stimulus he is putting into the economy, while ignoring the massive borrowing the government has been entering into to shore up the Canadian dollar.
Would he tell us whether the government is now attempting to defend the dollar at 89 cents, it having fallen to 88.70 cents yesterday, bearing in mind the government spent another $90 million yesterday in its attempt to defend the Canadian dollar, which will mean an added debt load for Canadians to bear?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 explained to this House and to the committee that we are borrowing to supplement the reserves. This is not adding to the deficit. When we borrow abroad, it supplements the borrowing we undertake in Canada. It is not adding to the taxpayer's burden, as the hon. member is trying to suggest at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You owe the money.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have tried to explain that to members many, many times and it is impossible for me to make them understand that very simple proposition.
Oral Questions


DECLINE IN BUDGETARY REVENUES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the minister. I would point out to him that budgetary revenues are down 8.2 per cent from April, 1977, to April, 1978. Given the fact that the minister has indicated budgetary revenues for 1979 will be 10.1 per cent over 1978, we can see once again that the minister's forecasting is dismal and we can see the downward trend.
Can the minister advise this House what is happening with respect to the revenues, given the fact that he thinks in 1979 we will have something like a 10.1 per cent increase in budgetary revenues over 1978?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the question because the hon. member was looking to the other side of the House. I was not aware that he was talking to me. I must tell him that 1 do not have to change the estimates we made this year. We presented a budget two months ago, and I have not yet decided to change any of the estimates we made, including those concerning government revenue.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister is not only incompetent at times, but is sleeping during the question period, I will repeat the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Apparently, budgetary revenues-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark:: Don't you know the rules, Jean?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will understand that a minister has only one opportunity to answer a question and, similarly, an hon. member has only one opportunity to put a question. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, he should put it forthwith and not repeat the same question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. 1 will now ignore the Minister of Finance and direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the fact that budgetary revenues are now down 8.2 per cent from April, 1977, to April, 1978, and given the fact that the Minister of Finance has indicated budgetary revenues for 1979 will be 10.1 per cent over 1978, the minister must be aware that this will affect his budgetary estimates for 1979.
Concerning this downward trend in revenues, can the minister give us some indication of what his budgetary estimates will be for 1979? Will they be zero, 5 per cent or, keeping in mind that revenues cannot keep up with spending, what are the minister's thoughts in this regard?

June 27, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to the House our commitment to keep the rate of growth of government expenditures to something less than the rate of growth of the economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not good enough.


Robert Knight Andras: That is the principle we would adhere to and meet in 1979-80, as we did in 1978-79, 1977-78 and 1976-77.


MEASURES TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Prime Minister. On May 11, for some mysterious reason, the Prime Minister suddenly discovered problems with the economy. In announcing on that date that the election had been called off, he assured the House that measures would be brought forward soon to deal with the serious economic situation: he said that was what parliament should be doing.
Considering that all we have had so far from the government is the motion on the order paper yesterday announcing an adjournment of 100 days-presumably 100 days of indecision-and since unemployment is over one million, inflation is at 9 per cent and the gross national product is only 2.8 per cent, when can we expect the new economic measures which the Prime Minister promised?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had followed the scene, he would know that we passed a budget bill, we announced a package for small business not long ago, we announced a new policy for the textile industry in Canada, and dealt with some employment programs in the country. We have done a lot of work in the last month. I do not think the hon. member has followed the scene. The House of Commons has been extremely busy in the last month and a half, so much so that everyone feels we have to take a holiday at the end of the week.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Finance might say that. In the House on May 11, the Prime Minister specifically said measures in addition to the budget bills. The textile reference the minister has made came prior to May 11, not after. Is he trying to tell us that the small business measure which he introduced will produce jobs for the one million unemployed? The minister will be meeting with his provincial counterparts next week in Winnipeg: will he be taking to that meeting specific proposals aimed at improving the deplorable state of the Canadian economy and seeking their co-operation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have announced many programs. Next week I will review the situation with my provincial counterparts-something that is very useful. I do not propose to put forward any new programs at this time. Of course we are having some economic problems. However, it was said at the OECD ministers' meeting in Paris last week

that all economies except for Japan are performing less well than the Canadian economy. Of course, we always aim for as much growth as possible. However, we have to take into account that Canada is doing better than most nations of the world.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the OECD meeting of last week. He, of all people, should know that the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs was very busy at that meeting, urging other countries to take expansionary measures, saying that the industrial countries had to do something in addition to what had been done in order to create jobs.
Is the government going to practice at home what it preaches abroad? More specifically, will it consider adopting in Canada the direct job creation programs which have been so successful in the United States where, on a comparative basis, they are spending twice as much as the Canadian government on direct job creation programs in recognition of the fact that it makes more sense to put people to work than to give them hand-outs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the OECD meeting the Canadian economy was praised for being more stimulating than that of most nations of the western world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As usual, the opposition will not recognize what is the reality. A few minutes ago I was blamed by the other opposition party because our policies were so stimulating that we were running up big deficits.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT OF FRENCH MINISTER CONCERNING QUEBEC POLITICS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, I shall direct my question to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations.
Mr. Speaker, in a new bulletin this morning, the French network of the CBC reported statements of the Quebec premier as well as those of the secretary-general of the Independent Republican Party of President Giscard d'Estaing to the effect that he was bringing the political support of the president of France for the sovereignty-association principle of the Quebec government. Can the minister tell the House whether he has been advised of the news bulletin concerning France's recreation and sports minister Jean-Pierre Soissons and, if so, whether he has any comments to make in this regard?
June 27, 1978


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of acquainting myself with the news mentioned by the hon. member. I shall certainly inquire about it without delay and the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada will surely have comments to make if the news, as reported by the hon. member, is confirmed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Further to the question I just put, can the minister tell the House whether he has been informed of the presence on Canadian soil of France's recreation and sports minister Sois-sons, and of the stand taken by him on behalf of the French government with regard to the problems which confront us here in Quebec in relation to the constitutional problem? If he has been informed of those remarks, what comments does he have to make about them?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised of some of the statements made by the visiting minister from France, but I have not had an opportunity to look into them in any detail or to obtain a final report on what was said. 1 assume the French government will continue to take the position it stated it would, namely, to refrain from any intervention or involvement in the purely domestic affairs of Canada. However, I will look into it and perhaps be in a position to say something more substantive later.

Oral Questions
awarded to Canadian firms, thus ensuring Canadian content and giving such firms an edge when trying to break into the European market for this type of equipment?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member is really asking what we are attempting to do with the $1.7 million. The purpose is to inform Canadians that when Canadian manufactured goods are suitable and are priced as reasonably as imported goods, they should buy Canadian. We are not saying people should forgo doing something because the goods they require are not available in Canada. In this case, I believe Loto Canada advertised widely and accepted an offer to do the job it wanted done.


Mr. Dick:: The minister, unfortunately, does not know that Loto Canada did not advertise at all; it acted without even going to the Canadian industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Canadian industry is now mad. Both Ontario and Quebec are turning to Canadian industry and promoting it, the very thing the federal government is telling others to do but will not do itself. The President of the Treasury Board may have an interest in this because Consolidated Computer Inc. is owned by the government to the extent of 53 per cent. Has he proposed in cabinet that Canadian firms, particularly, one might think, Canadian firms owned or controlled by the government should be given a fair opportunity to bid on this important contract?


Robert Knight Andras: We are always biased in favour of Canadian content and Canadian operators. I will certainly note the hon. member's representations.


LOTO CANADA
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The hon. gentleman's department has just announced a $1.7 million program to encourage people to buy Canadian and the minister now has on his desk a letter from Mr. Sellmeyer, president of Consolidated Computer Inc., stating that his firm in conjunction with another Canadian firm can do the job which both the minister of fitness and amateur sport and the president of Loto Canada said no Canadian firm could do, and do it with more than 80 per cent Canadian content.
Will the minister explore ways to prevent Loto Canada exporting high technology and experience to foreign firms, a process which can only widen our trade deficit in manufactured goods? Will he press for this $23 million contract to be
* *
*


MANPOWER
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that the government appears to be urging everybody else to buy Canadian but does not want to do so itself, I wonder if the minister, who has a very important stake in this because it would create 500 jobs in Canada, will be applying pressure in an effort to convince his colleagues that the Canadian government should also buy Canadian for the Loto Canada computer and gaming terminals.
6772

June 27, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has refused to comment on the splendid answer given by the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) indicating in some detail the action which is being taken by Loto Canada in this instance.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister has said that he never offered a 75 per cent subsidy for the building of a Ford parts plant near Windsor. How can he reconcile that statement with a statement from a working paper prepared by his officials which was presented to the Ontario government and which contained the following statement:
Cabinet approved 75 per cent federal, 25 per cent provincial sharing in the Ford case. Officials will have discussed cost-sharing with Ontario prior to this paper being presented-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well-


An hon. Member:: Well!


Mr. Hees:: This had better be good, Jack.


An hon. Member:: Take your foot out of your mouth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the House that I am disappointed in the Ontario government, but I am still attempting to negotiate a successful landing of the Ford engine plant. What I offered some months ago-I think back in February-was a similar deal to the one Quebec was getting. We made a similar offer to the province of Quebec with regard to a General Motors plant, but less money was involved. However, I was turned down flat by the Ontario government. The Ontario government said it would not contribute a five-cent piece to the landing of a Ford plant.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have made it clear in both instances that we would prefer to have the plant go to a DREE area. Ford came back in the intervening period and specifically outlined to myself and the Minister of Finance the reasons it would feel justified in asking for a contribution from both levels of government for the building of a Ford engine plant in Canada because the costs were going to be "X" million dollars more than the cost for the enlargement of their existing plant in Ohio. Ford then indicated a considerable sum of money to the Minister of Finance and I.


Charles Joseph Clark: "Me," Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There are a lot of jokers over there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was then informed by Ford that it would be seeing the Ontario government. Ford saw the Minister of Finance and myself on a Wednesday and the Ontario government on a Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I thought this was the minister who once said that a man's word is a man's word. I ask the minister whether he will tell the House with honesty that the offer which was made by Ford and which was under discussion between the Ontario and federal governments involved Ford building a parts plant anywhere other than Windsor. Did Ford ever consider any spot other than Windsor, Ontario?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Ford considered any spot other than Windsor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You are as phony as a three-dollar bill, Jack.


An hon. Member:: Stop shouting.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 1 think, however, that in the minds of people in many areas of Ontario it was thought that Ford was considering their areas. Certainly, the government of Quebec thought Ford was considering the province of Quebec. But on a specific matter Ford came to this government wanting S75 million for the building of a plant at Windsor. That was far greater than I had obtained permission from the cabinet to offer anybody. 1 went to cabinet, and we were prepared to go into a non-DREE area in a substantial way.
As 1 said earlier, I was disappointed that the Ontario government did not feel that the auto industry was important to Ontario, and that the Ontario government was not prepared to assist us in landing a plant in the province of Ontario. 1 believe we are still going to attempt to negotiate because of the secondary effects of a Ford plant: the spin-off effects would be of tremendous benefit to whatever province a plant is built in, and I think Ontario should reconsider.


LOCATION IN WINDSOR, ONT., OF FORD MOTOR PLANT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. While recognizing the very heavy provincial responsibility in this matter, I would like the minister to assure us that the federal government is taking all reasonable steps open to it to ensure that Canada will have its fair share of new automotive plant production employment, bearing in mind that certain automotive centres in Ontario have had unemployment rates above the national average.
In addition, if reports that the Ford Motor Company is interested in establishing a major engine plant in the Windsor area are true, and if the alternative to having that plant in the Windsor area is that it be built in the United States, I ask the minister to ensure that the government will take every possible step to have that plant in Canada and in the Windsor area in particular.
June 27, 1978

Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the offer made by the federal government to Ford and to the province of Ontario is substantially higher than Ontario has agreed to put forward so far.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and I hope I will get more of a response than I did on the nineteenth of this month. With respect to the involvement of Mr. Campeau in various organizations in Hull, I would like to ask the minister whether it is a fact that the Campeau organization has recently consistently threatened to delay the construction of the hotel part of les Terrasses de la Chaudiere and whether the minister acknowledges this, in view of the fact that on February 7 a letter was written to Pierre Juneau urging him to direct his staff to address themselves to the program, "we agree to, without wasting further time". There is also further correspondence. I would like to find out how much further we are going to go in this country wasting taxpayers' money to accommodate Mr. Campeau.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that the hon. member is asking a question concerning a letter of which a copy is in his possession. I cannot understand why he is asking that question since he already has the answer. Furthermore, I strongly object to the conclusion he draws from his own remarks since they are groundless and have no relation to the activities of the National Capital Commission in Hull. I think the hon. member, faithful as ever to his old habits, is once again making absolutely unfounded allegations.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the only way to get an answer from this minister is to know it before asking the question. However, 1 want to ask him if he can tell the House and the country why a solicitor, one Pierre Joanisse, has been retained, over the heads of justice officials in the ministry, to facilitate Mr. Campeau's request to have the Brewery Creek development accelerated at a cost of over $3 million. Why has the advice of the proper departmental officials been ignored again and why has this outside solicitor been brought in?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of a solicitor by the National Capital Commission is an exclusive prerogative of that commission. It is an independent organization which has the right to hire consultants whenever it wishes to. Furthermore, the development of that park in Hull was decided
Oral Questions
many years ago. It has nothing to do with Mr. Campeau's interests or activities. Obviously, the fact that the park will be in the vicinity of les Terrasses de la Chaudiere is quite likely to embellish the surroundings of these buildings. But this park is not being developed in Mr. Campeau's interests, but for the enjoyment of Canadians who will come to visit the national capital and who want to have a national capital which is beautiful on both sides of the river and not only on this side.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. It is based upon a news report to the effect that the president of the Brampton Women's Centre has stated that her organization had to sign a statement that it will take no part in political activities, in order to qualify for charitable status under the Income Tax Act.
In view of the fact that the bulletin in that connection was suspended by the Prime Minister and we were told that it was for information only and not a demand or a directive, can the minister tell us why people in the Department of National Revenue would require a signed pledge from an organization such as the Brampton Women's Centre?


Hon. Monique Begin (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the procedure was that officials in the department would study the charter of any organization applying for the tax exemption registration number for charitable donations. I have never heard of the procedure outlined by the hon. member. With great pleasure I will make inquiries and refer the question to the minister.


PLEDGE THAT ACTIVITIES NOT OF A POLITICAL NATURE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The organization in question, the Brampton Women's Centre, was asked to sign a distinct pledge including the following words:
The Brampton Women's Centre hereby pledges that its endeavours will not include activities of a political nature.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Is this the first time this has been carried out? Why was a pledge requested from this particular organization? Will it continue to be the direction of the government to ask for such pledges during a time when the Minister of National Revenue assured us that the entire question of definition of political activities as they relate to charitable institu-
8004S-6U/2

June 27, 1978
Oral Questions
tions is under review in co-operation with charitable organizations?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, i clearly understood the problem as put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This is a repetition of the same question. I have said that I will inquire into the details, starting of course with the date, if that is prior to the circular or after the withdrawal, and so on. 1 will report as soon as possible.


PETRO-CANADA TAKEOVER OF HUSKY OIL-ROLE OF EX-CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to what appear to be further developments in the conflict of interest situation involving Mr. Marshall Crowe, past chairman of the National Energy Board. As the minister knows, Mr. Crowe is a member of the board of directors of Petro-Canada; also, he is a member of the Board of Energy Ventures Ltd. of Boston, which reportedly is acting as an agent for Alberta Gas Trunk Line which is now bidding for control of Husky.
What action is the minister taking to end the situation where one of the members of the board of Petro-Can continues to sit on the board, while another company of which he is a director competes in a takeover bid against Petro-Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe 1 heard the hon. member allege that Mr. Crowe was a director of Petro-Canada. He is not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will check out the relationship between Mr. Crowe and Petro-Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: You can check it out.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In view of the substantial government involvement in the development, does the minister condone Mr. Crowe taking a position of consultant with Dominion Securities, which is a financial adviser to Alcan Pipelines, only one month after he resigned as chairman of the National Energy Board?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 think those questions were put yesterday to the Prime Minister and he dealt with them very adequately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have received no answer at all.


George Harris Hees: He said that you would answer today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On June 13, 1978, the United States treasury department announced that it was not going to impose countervailing duties on Canadian groundfish, at least up to January 4 of next year. In the statement issued, they indicated, although they found that certain actions were subsidies, that Canada had agreed by October 1 to "almost entirely eliminate" the subsidies. They listed the subsidies as being cash payments to Canadian fishermen and fish processors from the federal and provincial governments; cash payments to fishermen for financing the construction of fishing vessels; grants for facilities required in the fishing industry; and loans for vessel construction and processing facilities, presumably regional development grants and loans. Has the Canadian government agreed to eliminate all or any of those in addition to the two cents a pound which the government has agreed to drop by October 1 ?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not. The negotiations, which 1 am very grateful to the United States for having carried on so effectively from our point of view in Canada, dealt exclusively with assistance to fishermen and to vessels for catching. We have not had any negotiations-1, personally, have not-on the direct matter of vessel subsidies and the like, which we maintain indeed are part of regional development effort and do not constitute anything by way of particular assistance to Canadian fish products entering the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, St. John's West. There are two members from St. John's. The statement issued by the American government refers to grants other than those which the minister has mentioned as loans. The minister will remember that in the case of Michelin, this was DREE assistance in a regionally disadvantaged area. It did not prevent them from imposing countervailing duties. In addition, the release indicates that Canada will have a 92 per cent reduction by October 1. Is the minister quite confident that we have to do nothing further to retain this status in any of these matters, in view of the statements by the American treasury board?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can now stop doing anything. However, I emphasize that the most important single problem had to do with the two-cent a pound payments with regard to fish, which was a direct subsidy. Therefore, that was the matter on which we concentrated. These other questions have been under discussion for many years. In fact, the hon. member referred to Michelin as a case in point, which has been part of the irritant for as long as that plant has been in existence.
June 27, 1978

I would hope that the final solution to these matters will come about through the GATT negotiations in Geneva, where such matters as non-tariff barriers and related questions will be dealt with on a permanent basis. We have never tried to conceal the fact that there is uncertainty about the American reaction to these forms which I am sure the hon. member will agree are essential and valued assistance. It is a difficulty for us. We would like to get it resolved permanently.


MANPOWER
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the very helpful Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank A. Philbrook: Last week I asked the minister about cases where immigration was held up even though immigrants were needed for certain jobs that we could not seem to fill with Canadians within a reasonable period of time. I understand that since April it has been increasingly difficult to bring in American and other maintenance men to do necessary maintenance service work in Canada, even though that service cannot be obtained within Canada, even perhaps to the point of an interruption of production and possible lay-offs.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question, will he put it forthwith.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Frank A. Philbrook: Would the minister be good enough to look into that question with the same flexible look as he offered to look into the previous problem?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was doing very well at the beginning of his question.


An hon. Member:: But he blew it at the end.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1 would say yes, Mr. Speaker. We have a specific situation from time to time where pieces of machinery are bought from the United States and have to be installed by technicians from a particular plant. We do what we can to facilitate the entry of these people to work on them, installation work or maintenance work. Recently, we had a case in Fort Erie where we were able to accommodate the people. Hundreds of Canadian jobs will result from the impact of these people who have particular skills for a particular job.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There was an earlier reference to the Ford Company. I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he can report to us now on the negotiations with General Motors about the establishment of an automobile parts plant on Canadian soil. I wonder whether the minister can report any progress on the negotiations in this regard to the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, General Motors have expressed an interest in building a plant in Quebec and have asked us whether such a plant would qualify for DREE assistance. We informed the company that it would. The company has expressed an interest in building an aluminum foundry in which it could assemble a lot of aluminum parts for its auto industry. As far as I know, negotiations are still going on and General Motors have not yet determined what engineering projects it will undertake in that new plant, or whether in fact it will go ahead and build it.


Roch La Salle: Can the minister tell us, on the assumption that that industry would be set up on Canadian soil, what will be the financial contribution rate by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I suppose?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think the question would be better directed to the minister in charge of DREE, rather than me. 1 can say that General Motors is anticipating the expenditure of some $600 million on the plant, which could mean something like 3,300 jobs. Therefore, I think it would be a fairly substantial asset to the industry in Canada and, more particularly, to the industry in Quebec.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or the distinguished parliamentary secretary. Reports are currently circulating in respect of plans by the Ministry of Transport to close the tower at Halifax international airport. My question basically is, can the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary confirm this? I would then simply put my supplementary question. If that is so, will the minister

June 27, 1978
Oral Questions
institute a review, if from no other point of view than the safety of international air traffic coming into the North American continent over that very heavily-travelled route, with a view to ensuring that the safety factor on this transatlantic route will be maintained?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been aware of any report in this regard, but 1 think the hon. member will allow me to look a little more thoroughly into the matter and get directly in touch with him to give him more details.
* *
*


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations and relates to the federal project for the decentralization in the city of Sherbrooke of the mapping branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa. Considering that slow progress in this case might lead us to the conclusion that the population of the eastern townships, and more particularly the residents of Sherbrooke, bear the cost of a political conflict between the federal and the provincial governments, can the minister report progress, if any, on this matter?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the delay is not caused by a so-called political conflict between the federal and provincial governments. All we have asked in all cases and in all provinces is that, when the federal government establishes new agencies in various provinces, the provinces concerned should guarantee to the minorities of either official languages the right to send their children to a school giving education in the language of this minority. We stated this requirement to all provinces, and it is the same for Quebec as for Ontario, Manitoba or New Brunswick. We are simply waiting for the answer of the government of Quebec, which would guarantee English-speaking civil servants moving to Sherbrooke under this project, the right to send their children to an English school, to a school which gives education in the language of those children. As soon as we receive this assurance from the government of Quebec, we shall proceed further, of course.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us when he asked that question to the minister responsible for the administration of bill 101?


Marc Lalonde: There were discussions, not between myself and a Quebec government minister, but between the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for this project, and the Quebec minister who is also responsible for this matter. The last contacts were made a few months ago and there have not been any new developments since then.
* *
*


TERMINATION OF GATT NEGOTIATIONS AT GENEVA
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he tell the House when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations at Geneva will be terminated, and when we can expect an announcement on the results of those negotiations?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think negotiations will continue pretty nearly throughout the full year 1978, but we hope to see some conclusive results, or some direction in respect of those results, prior to or perhaps at the Bonn economic council discussions in the middle of July.
 *
*


INDUSTRY
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's obvious interest in developing Canadian industry, 1 would ask what progress he has been making in contacting the de Havilland Aircraft Company with a view to having that company participate in the international air show at Abbotsford, British Columbia, considering the opportunity this presents for development of the Canadian aircraft industry?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I conveyed the hon. member's representations to de Havilland which indicated it will look at them. I have not yet received a yes or no reply, but I will convey the reply to the hon. member as soon as I get it.

June 27, 1978


CANADA COUNCIL
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that in the original legislation for the Canada Council drawn by the St. Laurent government and amended with provisions for accountability by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, particularly the Hon. Howard Green, which called for a parliamentary review, in view of the fact that over 20 years have passed without such a review, bearing in mind the internal investigation by the department and the Canada Council itself, and the court case, will the minister finally agree to providing for such a legislative review by referring the annual report of the Canada Council to a parliamentary committee for detailed consideration, as directed by the legislation?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have absolutely no objection to such a course of action, if the members of the committee express the desire to meet through the chairman, and that such should take place.
* *
*
Order Paper Questions


PRIVILEGE
Hon. James Richardson (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of personal privilege of which I have given you notice. I understand that this afternoon this House will consider a government motion in relation to the Constitution of Canada. In recent days I have studied and carefully examined the government's proposals as set out in the white paper called "A Time for Action", and in the constitutional amendment bill, Bill C-60, which was given first reading in the House last week.
I am convinced from studying those documents that this government legislation cannot possibly achieve unity in this country. In fact I find myself in such fundamental disagreement with the government's proposals that I can no longer, in good conscience, sit on the government side of the House.
It is my belief and my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the government's two-phase plan to amend the Canadian Constitution is in fact a blueprint for permanent national division, and for that reason I intend, after this brief statement, to cross the floor of the House and to sit as an independent member of parliament in opposition to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it arises from the news that the Canadian dollar is starting another decline. While I would not expect the minister to be able to retrieve a great deal from the situation the Minister of Finance has brought the country to, nevertheless 1 would ask whether she can report on negotiations with Great Britain in respect of the portability of old age security pensions between that country and ours, negotiations that should be simplified as the Canadian dollar weakens and the pound grows stronger.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry for the depressing mood of the hon. member. I think he will not even vote for himself in the next election. At this time, I can inform the House that we are continuing to press for a reciprocity agreement on pensions with Great Britain. 1 wrote again a few weeks ago to the right hon. David Ennals and reminded him as diplomatically as possible that their economy was a sunny one and Canadian and British citizens here should benefit from it.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask you if you will assign me a seat on the opposition side.
I have not at this time, and I do not at this time seek membership in any of the parties in opposition, but I do want to make it clear that I wish to join all hon. members who are in opposition to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I would like to confirm that, for my part, I wish to continue and I will continue to represent my constituents in Winnipeg South, and to serve my constituents as an independent member of parliament.
To conclude-and 1 realize that this is a trite expression but I believe it is truthful and appropriate for me to say at this time-I leave this side of the House, and I leave friends on this side of the House, much more in sorrow than in anger. That sentiment applies most particularly to my former colleagues and, of course, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who are on my right on the front bench. My deep sorrow, and my only sorrow, is that together we were not able to do more for the unity of this country.
Finally, I hope that members on both sides of the House will understand that my decision to cross the floor is motivated by my belief in what Canada is and what Canada can be. For me, the cause is Canada; for me the ultimate cause is the equality and the well-being of all Canadians.

June 27, 1978
Order Paper Questions
I now cross the floor, Mr. Speaker, in the cause of a Canada which I believe in, the cause of a united Canada.


Some hon. Member:: Elear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 139, 774, 775, 1,074, 1,140 and 1,226.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
| Text]


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the government considering the construction of port facilities to handle general cargo at Gros Cacouna and, if so, has the project been approved in principal?
2.	What specific commodities is it anticipated will be handled at the facility?
3.	What commitments from users or operators have been obtained?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the facility?
5.	What revenue is anticipated during each of the first two years of operation?
6.	What is the return on investment or loss anticipated by the government during each of the first two years of operation when all costs including depreciation and interest have been considered?
7.	Could the cargo be handled in containers at existing ports such as Quebec, Montreal, Halifax or Saint John?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. The construction of a general cargo terminal at Gros Cacouna is underway. The terminal will include a 600-foot marginal wharf, related dredging, a 25,000 square foot transit shed and a backup area of approximately 18 acres.
2.	Forest products, newsprint, corrugated cardboard, lumber, general cargo, petroleum products.
3.	Seven local and regional companies have been identified as potential users and have expressed positive interest in the proposal. One company is committed to a long-term agreement with Transport Canada regarding storage and shipment of their product through Gros Cacouna.
4.	The estimated cost of the facility is $12.5 million.
5.	It is anticipated that the revenue in each of the first two years of operation will be in the range of $80,000 to $100,000. In addition, certain savings will be realized on operation and maintenance of other public wharves in the area.
6.	As a regional economic development project, this terminal is not expected to earn more than its operation, maintenance and depreciation costs during the first two years.
7.	The commodities involved are not generally shipped via container. The markets for the commodities are along the
north and south shore of the St. Lawrence River, in the U.S.A. and overseas. The potential users would realize substantial savings in transportation costs shipping via Gros Cacouna. It would be possible to ship some of the commodities by container through established ports but this is not practical given the nature of the commodities and the fact that they are produced in the Riviere-du-Loup area.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada import pork meat between September 1, 1976 and September 1, 1977 and, if so (a) of what category (b) in what quantities (c) from which countries (d) at what cost per pound (e) were transportation costs over and above the price and, if so, what were the transportation costs per hundred weight?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: (a), (b), (c) and (d) Statistics on imports of pork in the period September, 1976, to August, 1977, inclusive appear below in terms of quantity, value and unit value, by category and country, (e) The valuation used is that established for customs duty purposes according to the provisions of the Customs Act and import documents are required to show values which exclude all transportation charges. Some imports from the United States are however purchased on a "delivered" basis and their prices therefore reflect an allowance for transportation costs. Separate statistics on transportation costs by commodities are not compiled.
Statistics Canada-External Trade Division Imports of Pork by Country Quantities in Hundredweights Values in Canadian Dollars September, 1976 to August, 1977 Inclusive December 30, 1977
Price Per
Quantity	Value Hundredweight
Class5 : 01122Pork Bellies, Fresh or Frozen	57
990 United States	184,292	12,636,084	68.57Total	184,292	12,636,084	68.57Class5 : 01124Hams, not Cured or Cooked 57	990 United States	373,163	28,414,999	76.15Total	373,163	28,414,999	76.15Class5 : 01125Pork	Shoulders Picnics Butt, Fresh or Frozen	57990 United States	206,599	13,228,971	64.03Total	206,599	13,228,971	64.03Class5 : 01128 Pork	Spare Ribs, Fresh i	Dr Frozen 57	001 United Kingdom	368	30,768	83.61990 United States	89,985	7,386,609	82.09Total	90,353	7,417,377	82.09Class5 : 01129Pork,	Fresh or Frozen N	ES 57	001 United Kingdom	1,472	124,035	84.26990 United States	1,179,379	90,426,540	76.67Total	1,180,851	90,550,575	76.68Class5 : 01320Pork	Backs, Cured	57	990 United States	16,975	1,085,699	63.96Total	16,975	1,085,699	63.96

June 27, 1978

Price Per
Quantity	Value	HundredweightClass5 : 01323Bacon,	Cured	57	001 United Kingdom	-	-	-017 Ireland	1,377	191,320	138.94073 Netherlands	-	-	-990 United States	9,440	902,231	95.58Total	10,817	1,093,551	101.10Class5 : 01325Pork Shoulders Picnics Butts, Cured 57	990 United States	21,219	1,282,434	60.44Total	21,219	1,282,434	60.44Class5 : 01329Pork, Cured N E S	57	017 Ireland	-	-	-990 United States	53,807	4,093,402	76.08Total	53,807	4,093,402	76.08Class5 : 01724Hams,	Canned	53	049 Denmark	073 Netherlands	982	140,293	142.86277 Poland	17,621	1,488,495	84.47279 Romania	250	34,846	139.38990 United States	102	14,286	140.06Total	18,955	1,677,920	88.52
Grand Total
001 United Kingdom	1,840	154,803	84.13017 Ireland	1,377	191,320	138.94049 Denmark	-	-	-073 Netherlands	982	140,293	142.86277 Poland	17,621	1,488,495	84.47279 Romania	250	34,846	139.38990 United States	2,134,961	159,471,255	74.70Total	2,157,031	161,481,012	74.86


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada import beef meat between September 1, 1976 and September 1, 1977 and, if so (a) of what category (b) in what quantities (c) from which countries (d) at what cost per pound (e) were transportation costs over and above the price and, if so, what were the transportation costs per hundred weight?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada reports the following: (a), (b), (c) and (d) Statistics on imports of beef in the period September, 1976, to August, 1977, inclusive appear below, in terms of quantity, value and unit value, by category and country, (e) The valuation used is that established for customs duty purposes according to the provisions of the Customs Act and import documents are required to show values which exclude all transportation charges. Some imports from the United States are, however, purchased on a "delivered" basis and their prices therefore reflect an allowance for transportation costs. Separate statistics on transportation costs by commodities are not compiled.
Order Paper Questions
Statistics Canada-External Trade Division Imports of Beef by Country Quantities in Hundredweights Values in Canadian Dollars September, 1976 to August, 1977 Inclusive January 2,1978
			Price Per
	Quantity	Value	Hundredweight
Class5 : 01101 Beef, Fresh or Chilled, Boneless 57			
614 Australia	3,207	298,424	93.05622 New Zealand	5,336	347,113	65.05990 United States	67,152	13,750,034	204.76Total	75,695	14,395,571	190.18Class5 : 01103Beef, Frozen, Boneless	57	001 United Kingdom	-	-	-614 Australia	741,040	43,965,984	59.33622 New Zealand	543,608	30,373,077	55.87990 United States	12,728	1,069,450	84.02Total	1,297,376	75,408,511	58.12Class5 : 01105Beef, Fresh or Frozen N E S 57	001 United Kingdom	-	-	-614 Australia	5,896	497,322	84.35622 New Zealand	4,337	253,878	58.54990 United States	59,162	6,128,531	103.59Total	69,395	6,879,731	99.14Class5 : 01108 Veal, Fresh or Frozen	57	614 Australia	28,807	1,949,388	67.67622 New Zealand	-	-	-990 United States	9,043	588,482	65.08Total	37,850	2,537,870	67.05Class5 : 01309Beef, Cured	57	744 Argentina	312	24,620	78.91990 United States	3,540	526,962	148.86Total	3,852	551,582	143.19Class5 : 01703Corned Beef, Canned	53	614 Australia	27,163	2,611,983	96.16744 Argentina	36,228	3,114,573	85.97752 Brazil	54,012	4,205,296	77.86769 Paraguay	4,586	375,428	81.86Total	121,989	10,307,280	84.49Class5 : 01709Beef and Veal, Canned N E S 53	001 United Kingdom	9,446	459,738	48.67055 Germany West	-	-	-067 Italy	4,126	538,065	130.41614 Australia	1,768	181,273	102.53744 Argentina	450	32,781	72.85990 United States	277	12,071	43.58Total	16,067	1,223,928	76.18Grand Total	001 United Kingdom	9,446	459,738	48.67055 Germany West	-	-	-067 Italy	4,126	538,065	130.41614 Australia	807,881	49,504,374	61.28622 New Zealand	553,281	30,974,068	55.98744 Argentina	36,990	3,171,974	85.75752 Brazil	54,012	4,205,296	77.86769 Paraguay	4,586	375,428	81.68990 United States	151,902	22,075,530	145.33Total	1,622,224	111,304,473	68.61
6780

June 27, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Was the operation and maintenance of the Resolute Bay Airport contracted out and, if so, on what date?
2.	What was the total cost for the operation and maintenance of the Airport in the year prior to contracting out?
3.	What was the total annual operation and maintenance cost for each year since contracting out?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The operation and maintenance of Resolute Bay has been contracted out since 1964. The latest contract, awarded after a public tender call, was effected on November 1, 1974 for a period of five years.
2.	Figures for the operations and maintenance costs prior to 1964 are not available.
3.	1964/65, $965,437; 1965/66, $1,247,359; 1966/67, $1,164,343; 1967/68, $1,455,065; 1968/69, $1,266,544; 1969/ 70, $1,283,317; 1970/71, $2,204,511; 1971/72, $2,239,681; 1972/73, $2,156,650; 1973/74, $2,366,098; 1974/75, $2,624,539; 1975/76, $3,042,024; 1976/77, $3,172,278.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many pounds of butter were imported in each of the past five years and from which countries?
2.	What was the (a) lowest (b) highest (c) average price paid in each year?
Average
Country Quantity	Value	Price	Lowest	Highest
(lb)	(S)			
1974				
Ireland 289,300	148,229	0.51	0.50	0.60Finland 1,572,200	770,132	0.49	0.49	0.49Sweden 6,613,700	3,539,589	0.54	0.48	0.59Australia 21,492,000	12,580,739	0.59	0.53	0.82New Zealand 23,171,400	13,853,799	0.60	0.52	0.66United States 627,200	344,414	0.55	0.44	0.88Grand Total 53,765,800	31,236,902	0.58	1975	United Kingdom 500	488	0.98	0.56	1.61Australia 5,618,800	3,305,943	0.59	0.58	2.94New Zealand 4,444,400	2,590,386	0.58	0.57	0.60United States 200	128	0.64	0.64	0.64Grand Total 10,063,900	5,896,945	0.59	1976	United Kingdom 172	102	0.59	0.59	0.59Netherlands 23,799	12,110	0.51	0.51	0.51Australia 2,192	1,316	0.60	0.60	0.60United States 8,768	5,207	0.59	0.59	0.60Grand Total 34,931	18,735	0.54	1977	Denmark 3,000	2,369	0.79	0.79	0.79Australia 21,092	62,909	2.98	0.67	3.04New Zealand 11,200	7,963	0.71	0.71	0.71United States 2,472	2,030	0.82	0.60	0.94Grand Total 37,764	75,271	1.99


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada report the following: 1 and 2.
Imports of Butter by Country 1973-1977


[Stage Direction]
Average
Country	Quantity	Value	Price	Lowest	Highest
	oh)	($>

1973 Ireland	11,524,200	6,204,118	0.54	0.51	0.55Australia	21,119,500	10,576,470	0.50	0.41	0.58New Zealand	25,588,900	12,217,196	0.48	0.43	0.58Argentina	56,000	22,270	0.40	0.40	0.40United States	4,331,400	2,390,931	0.55	0.53	0.67Grand Total	62,620,000	31,410,985	0.50
Mr. McGrath: In 1977, by province and by month, how many persons exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The following table indicates the number of claimants who have exhausted their unemployment insurance claims during 1977 by province and by month.
Exhaustees 1977
Nfid.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alberta	B.C.	TotalJanuary	1,540	174	1,375	1,103	10,758	6,463	516	161	206	2,693	24,989February	1,189	145	1,291	1,032	11,015	6,536	542	171	226	2,738	24,885March	1,312	186	1,503	1,407	13,058	8,369	765	265	316	4,037	31,218April	1,308	259	1,833	1,331	13,488	10,785	1,065	411	428	4,346	35,254May	4,253	713	1,981	2,720	14,947	13,403	1,495	606	541	6,107	46,766June	3,190	473	2,640	2,684	17,300	12,900	1,636	719	755	6,407	48,704July	2,319	270	1,536	2,556	16,079	11,488	1,338	563	654	4,864	41,667August	2,225	280	1,845	2,626	16,952	11,481	1,268	595	718	4,718	42,708September	2,124	326	2,663	2,343	15,576	10,483	1,099	496	650	4,323	40,083October	2,235	399	3,096	2,663	14,318	9,198	1,074	453	612	4,390	38,438November	2,493	631	2,629	2,961	16,629	10,446	1,326	529	776	5,170	43,590December	2,243	562	2,962	2,552	17,831	10,964	1,185	694	932	6,156	46,081Total	26,431	4,418	25,354	25,978	177,951	122,516	13,309	5,663	6,814	55,949	464,383
Source: UI Administrative Data


*
*
June 27, 1978


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved:: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon proposals that have been made and in the future are from time to time made public by the Government of Canada, on subjects related to the Constitution of Canada;
That twenty Members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the House at a later date, be members of the said committee on the part of this House;
That the committee have power to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting their Honours to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems so advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to say the least, at the outset of this debate, the constitutional issue has been with us for a long time. It is in 1927 that efforts were initiated, under the government of my predecessor, William Lyon Mackenzie King, some time between the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster, of 1931, those two steps which enabled Canada, formerly a colony, to accede formally and legally to the status of an independant country.
1 shall not refer to the intermediate steps-there were many-but 1 shall deal briefly with the last stage which started in 1967, this time on the initiative of the provinces, when Mr. Robarts, the then Ontario premier, convened the so-called Confederation of Tomorrow Conference, which was followed soon after by a series of federal-provincial meetings at the first minister level, the first of which was called in February 1968 by my illustrious predecessor, Mr. Lester B. Pearson.
The Constitution
This last stage, which extended over a period of several years, saw the publication of many white papers which were debated at various federal-provincial conferences, which resulted in a complete failure at the so-called Charter of Victoria Conference in 1971. The Victoria effort, however, was partly brought back to life between 1975 and 1977 both at meetings and through an exchange of correspondence between the premiers and myself, where we considered the possibility of implementing a number of clauses of the Victoria Charter.
In view of this long series of failures which has lasted some 51 years, why has the government decided to make a new effort in the constitutional field, an effort which was announced in the Speech from the Throne last fall when we indicated the government's intention to introduce in the House a number of initiatives in areas which are of strict federal jurisdiction? The reason, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. 1 suggest that the current situation imposes upon us, the government, who have been elected to represent the people, the obligation to face this issue once again. Of course, several things have changed in Canada during these 51 years, but the rate of acceleration of these changes has been particularly high over the past few years.
We have seen a shift of power relations develop in Canada which has expressed itself in various ways.
One of the ways in which this new relationship has expressed itself is in the increase in the size of all governments. In 1967 expenditures by all governments constituted some 23 per cent of the gross national product; ten years later, in 1977, this had increased to 40 per cent. Even within this increase of 8 per cent it is important to note there had been a shifting of power relationships. While federal spending went up by 3 per cent between 1967 and 1977, provincial and municipal spending together went up by 5 per cent, most of it provincial.
New power relationships were developing. The citizen was faced with governments which were growing in size. Of course the regions were taking on increased importance. The Atlantic regions were surging toward the hope held out to them by the new resource base, particularly the maritime resource. The western provinces had gone from a time when they were small markets, distant markets, and suppliers of raw materials, to the present situation where they comprise some one quarter of the Canadian population. In terms of wealth the three "have" provinces in Canada now comprise in their number two western provinces, Alberta and British Columbia.


Mr. Benjamin:: And another one coming up fast.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Another one is coming up fast-Saskatchewan. There has obviously been a shift westward in that sense, not only in population but of the centre of economic gravity in Canada.
80045-62%

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
Ontario, of course, has gone increasingly toward a province which is open, hospitable to everyone, and which has shown in the composition of its population that it is multiethnic and very democratic.

Finally, the case of the province of Quebec is well known. For quite some time, constitutional matters were discussed there but, since the month of November 1976, it has become particularly obvious, with the election of a provincial government which set itself the mission of pulling Quebec out of Canada, that the constitution and constitutional matters are of prime importance in that province.
Why, I ask again, should we tackle once again the constitutional problem? Because it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we should try through new documents, through a new constitution, to deal with this new power relationship, the concerns of the citizens, the new requirements of the various areas, and especially, and that may be the absolutely irrefutable reason, of importance to all Canadians and Quebeckers in particular, to prove that new constitutions are a possibility before the citizens of that province have to commit themselves in a referendum on their fate, on their political future.
So, for all those reasons, the government of Canada has decided to come to grips once again with that constitutional matter. Mr. Speaker, efforts were always met with failure on previous occasions because we tried to reach unanimity among the provinces and the federal government, we felt this time that we might solve the problem in two stages, the first of which would entail amending the constitution in such fields as fall within federal jurisdiction, and the second, amending the constitution on matters of joint federal and provincial jurisdictions.
We realize, of course, that it would ill become the federal government to propose amendments regarding provincial jurisdictions without the consent of the provinces. That is why in our determination to solve the constitutional issue, we have decided to take action, and as the bill now before us clearly shows, we have decided to start with the field that comes under our jurisdiction.

It is important to make this point clear, that the Parliament of Canada has, under the present constitution, the power to amend its constitution. Section 91 of the British North America Act in the first paragraph says so quite clearly. When the present constitution, the British North America Act, enumerates the powers of the federal parliament it indicates as the first among those powers the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada in respect of the six areas which are enumerated.
The equivalent of that for the provinces is well known by this House. Section 92 in the first paragraph says that the provinces can amend their constitution from time to time in all
matters except-and then there is one exception, that relating to the office of the lieutenant-governor.
So it is quite clear that the Parliament of Canada can amend the Constitution of Canada except in certain areas which I will return to, and the provinces can amend their constitution except in one area. Indeed, the provinces have repeatedly amended their constitution. Well-known examples of that occurred when a few provinces decided to abolish the legislative council, their second chamber. This was done within very recent times by the province of Quebec. It had been done before by other provinces. It is quite clear that both levels of government can amend their constitution in so far as it concerns matters not excepted under sections 91 and 92, in the first paragraphs. But also it follows that both governments cannot amend the Constitution of Canada acting alone, unilaterally, by mere action of their particular legislature.
We have proposed to the country and to the House of Commons that we exercise our rights under section 91, and that we amend the Constitution of Canada in several areas which I will detail briefly, but none of them, of course, are areas which are covered or concerned by the exceptions, namely, section 91 first paragraph. Before going into details on that, let me add a word about patriation and amending formulas.

From a jurisdictional point of view, where does the problem of repatriating the constitution and finding an amendment formula belong constitutionally? It could be either in the first or in the second phase, depending on our discussions with the provinces. In fact, the patriation could very well take place in the first phase since it would in no way affect the distribution of powers among the federal government and the provincial governments. At the same time, if we patriate the constitution and agree on an amending formula, the participation of the provinces would be required some way or other. That is why the provinces might prefer to postpone until the second phase the discussion on patriation and the amending formula. For our part, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing a bill dealing with our powers and jurisdiction. That does not mean that we are not prepared or even not anxious to discuss that second phase when the provinces will want to do so but we know that should not be done without the agreement of the provinces to open the discussion.
I know we have been blamed for starting with what is not more important. That is a point of view, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the sharing of powers is extremely important but I also remind the House that we are dealing in the province of Quebec with a government which does not want to discuss any sharing of powers but rather the handing over of the totality of political powers to the province of Quebec. Of course, that is a situation we cannot consider. I know that the other provinces cannot entertain it either. So it would be useless to say: let us


June 27, 1978

start the discussion there when we know that at least one of the participants refuses to support that discussion. So I believe we have not only the right but a near obligation to move ahead on that constitutional issue and move ahead in the area where we have the right to move ahead. It could be that in previous discussions the constitutional issue concerned mainly the experts-lawyers, politicians, academics and news commentators. But I believe I am right, Mr. Speaker, in saying that this time the constitutional issue concerns everyone. It concerns Canadians, particularly those in Quebec who are looking at their future, their political destiny with a measure of anguish, and it concerns that very large number of people who wanted to show their interest in the constitutional issue before the Pepin-Robarts commission or other forums.
So we made that proposal, and to try to explain it without going into the technical details, I would like to say that we think that three major problems stand in the way of harmony and unity in this country. The first one has to do with the relationships of the people with governments. The second is the language problem, the fact that we have two official languages. The third one has to do with regionalism, namely a certain alineation of the regions vis-a-vis the government and the central parliament.

I would like to show how this constitution bill attempts to deal with these three very important sources of uncertainty and division in Canada.
Let us begin with what I suppose could be described as the alienation of the citizen toward governments, big governments, as I indicated earlier. They have been getting bigger as modern governments in industrial societies feel they must deal with an increasing number of areas. At the same time as the citizen has been asking his governments to do more things for him, he has been subjected to legislation which naturally reduces the area of his liberties. For that he has been asking certain guarantees against big governments.
At the same time citizens in Canada seeing this evolving power of relationship, sensing frustration toward big governments, federal, provincial, and sometimes even municipal levels, sensing the divisions between regions and the central government which often express themselves in federal-provincial tensions, sensing too the linguistic problem which has caused a great deal of puzzlement and sometimes annoyance among citizens where minorities, French minorities in other provinces or English-speaking minorities in Quebec, also with the increasing number of Canadians of other ethnic stock than that of the French or those from the British Isles who have wanted to know their place in this society, have wanted to know the constitutional rank that was given them as well as the rank that the native peoples were concerned about. We attempted to deal with all of these problems in the following ways.
First of all the preamble, the statement of aims, which I will not recite here, does try to create for Canadians a sense of purpose, a sense of identity. It does try to tell them in
The Constitution
reasonably simple and intelligible language that in Canada we honour and respect diversity, but that basically we are all united and we all share the same goals, goals of equality of opportunity from any part of this country where one may come, or from whatever part of the world one may emigrate to Canada. We tend to express this in the preamble and in the statement of aims in a way in which Canadians can feel that their government in a constitution binds itself to recognize these basic rights, freedoms, and the right to seek one's fulfilment in equality of opportunity.
The next problem with which we have to deal is the problem of regional alienation. The expression is well known and often used. Essentially, it comes and is expressed from and by the people who feel that they in some way belong to regions which are either too distant from Ottawa in terms of geography, political representation, economic fulfilment, or linguistic equality.
These various feelings of alienation have been the object of concern by all governments. That is why so many of them have been talking about constitutional problems and why so many other groups have been talking about constitutional problems. The official opposition recently published a paper, a white paper or policy paper, on the constitution. There is a group called, 1 believe, Canada West, which has published such a paper. There is a group of academics from Toronto. The government of Ontario has published policy papers trying to deal with this problem.
Looking at all these documents, it appears there are two ways essentially of approaching this problem of regional alienation. The first would be for the constitution to transfer vastly increased powers to the regions so that in the regions or in the provinces those powers would be exercised by governments which are at least closer geographically to the centres of population.
This approach of massive decentralization, which takes various forms, is one which this government rejects. We believe that whatever form the constitution takes, there must always be a central government able to speak for all Canadians in all parts of Canada in areas which are important in the lives of those people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We think it would be a mistake to try to save the unity of Canada merely by saving its geographical entity. We think that unless the central government can indeed govern effectively over all citizens in the country, we might have saved the map of Canada but we would not have saved the reality of a nation, a people united in their purposes and seeking to fulfil their destiny together.
That is why, along with massive decentralization, we reject other approaches which tend in the same direction. 1 would name solutions such as associate statehood or loose confederations as other forms of constitutional change which would tend to save the country by destroying it in the long run.

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
Therefore, if we cannot and should not solve the problem of regional alienation by giving powers out to the regions, we look at the other approach and feel that that must consist in bringing, in some way, the regions to the centre, making sure that that feeling of alienation which exists in the regions is in some way healed by making the regions feel that they are truly represented in some ways at the centre.
There are various ways of doing that, Mr. Speaker. One, of course, would be through changing the approach in this very chamber. We could, for example, decide that in the future the electoral system in this country for election to the Elouse of Commons would be one based on proportion representation. In this way the citizens of the regions would find that their national government would tend to be formed of coalitions, of groups, of parties speaking for the regions, since this indeed would be the object.
This is a remedy which has been examined by some and, I am sure, will be debated by others. However, it is an approach that this government also rejected for a very simple reason. We fear not so much governments of coalition, although it is certainly very debatable whether that is a very desirable approach, but governments of coalition which would be based on rivalries between regions rather than slight ideological or party differences. To our mind, that would not unite the country, but divide it further. This House, parliament, would become a place where regions would quarrel amongst themselves and seek alliances, not to further the national good of all the country but in order to further their own particular regional or provincial interests.
That is why we have rejected that approach and chosen instead to try to reform our constitution by acting in a way which is common to most federal systems, acting through the second chamber and seeking ways in which that second chamber, which we call in this bill the House of the Federation, can in some way bring the concerns and the debates from the regions to the centre. They can make sure that whatever concerns are expressed and felt in the various regions of Canada will be debated and resolved not only and not mainly at the provincial level, but here on Parliament Hill in the parliament of all Canadians. For that we have decided to produce certain modifications to the second chamber, the House of the Federation.
Here again various approaches would have been possible. One would be to have the members of the second chamber elected directly by the people. As everyone knows, this is the system which is in practice in the United States and in Australia, where the senators are elected directly by the people, according to certain percentages and numbers across the totality of the federation. In this way the upper house, the second chamber, reflects not national parties which are geared and oriented toward the expression of the greatest common good of the whole country, but is filled with people who are elected to speak more precisely for their regions.

This, once again, is a solution which will be debated and on which the government is anxious to hear argument. But we rejected this for a very simple reason, too. It is that experience has shown in Australia-and, I think, theory would also demonstrate-that this system of direct election of two chambers, the House of Commons and the House of the Federation, would result almost inevitably in difficulties in the functioning of the parliamentary system. There would be the question to which of the houses is the government responsible, and what should be done in the case of an irreconcilable difference between the two chambers? What would be the result at a time of double dissolution, and so on?
It is because of such questions that we are afraid the introduction of this system is not compatible with the parliamentary method of government and would tend to lean more toward the presidential system where somebody above the elected chambers, someone responsible to the whole country- a president of sorts-would exercise legislative authority. That is the difficulty to which direct representation in the second chamber would lead us. I submit this would also be the difficulty if we had one chamber, elected by PR, which was the forum of contending regionalist parties. We would inevitably drift, I submit, toward a presidential system since some authority above these quarrelling regions would have to be elected, such authority coming directly from the people. Therefore, through a process of elimination, Mr. Speaker, we ended up with a second chamber which would not be elected but which would be appointed.
Now it may be asked: why not have the provinces appoint the members of the second chamber in a system which would be somewhat attuned to the system of the government in the Federal Republic of Germany? Our view is that the provinces have a function within the constitution which is to exercise the jurisdiction contained in the constitution, and particularly in section 92, or some modification thereof, with authority over the citizens of those respective provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction. We do not think it would be the right approach to tell the provinces, whose authority is absolute within their spheres of government in the provinces, to determine also how the national government shall be managed and how the national parliament shall be run.
We think it is important for the people of the regions to know that they, as regions, have spokesmen in the second chamber. That is why we have proposed that members of the House of the Federation be chosen by a system which ensures that the result will correspond to the popular vote in those different provinces-not a system which corresponds to the will of the national government or of the provincial governments, but a system which equates itself to the voting pattern of the people of the provinces voting sometimes in provincial elections and sometimes in federal elections. This is the result which is proposed to the House in this constitutional amendment bill, Mr. Speaker.
It is said it will be very complicated. I suppose it is possible to look for alternative ways, and I repeat the government is
June 27, 1978

anxious to hear discussion on all these questions. But I submit that every constitutional change is probably met with the fear that it will be too complicated. Certainly the system which exists in connection with the Senate in the United States, with a third being elected every two years for six years, and the congressional system, must have seemed very complex when the constitution of the United States of America was brought forward. The system of the Bonn government must also have seemed very complicated when it was introduced.
In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I ask those Canadians who want to debate constitutional problems and look for solutions, to consider this whole matter, going back to the first principles I have put before the House-how do we bring the regions to the centre and make sure that in some way we end the feeling of alienation which eventually, if left to develop, will destroy the legitimacy of the national parliament? How can these questions be resolved in a constitution?
Finally, I said there was a third area where problems in Canada were acute and had to find their solution in the constitutional bill. That is the area of language. I believe it is the matter which is of most concern to the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) who just crossed the floor.
I believe it must be for that reason, because 1 know that when the hon. gentleman was a member of cabinet he was most earnest and ardent in his search for greater equity for the regions. I doubt whether he could object to any honest effort to ensure greater representation for the regions. If, as I suspect, he crossed the floor because of a disagreement on the question of language, I can only say that I respect his decision but do not deny that it is a profound disagreement and one which could not be reconciled.
We on this side of the House take it as a basic tenet of Canada that we must avoid any constitutional or legal development which would result in one province speaking only or mainly French, and all the other provinces speaking only English.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Given the historic and demographic data of this country, I think it is folly to say that bilingualism is divisive. Again, given the historic and demographic data, 1 think one must conclude that equality of the two official languages is not divisive but the only way in which this country will remain united.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 say this because it is the only way in which English-speaking Canadians will continue to live and want to live in Quebec and feel at home and equal citizens there, and because it is the only way in which French-speaking Canadians will continue and want to continue living in other parts of Canada. And it is the only way whereby we can avoid developing in Canada two nations, one French-speaking in Quebec and the other English-speaking elsewhere, which would inevitably lead to the dissolution of this country either into the form
The Constitution
of a loose confederation of associated states or of two nations expressed as sovereign independent states.
The only way in which this problem will be solved will be to tackle honestly and squarely the problem of the French and English languages. Here again, this is what is attempted in this bill. It is attempted, first, at the federal level by the linguistic guarantees which are part of the bill of rights. As I wanted to indicate earlier, the bill of rights covers a multitude of areas- pc'itical, democratic, civil and, of course, anti-discrimination provisions-but it also covers linguistic provisions and ensures that at the federal level the spirit of the Official Languages Act, which was adopted by all parties in this House, is incorporated into this constitution. It also ensures that the provisions of section 133 of the present BNA Act are incorporated in this constitution, putting both languages on an equal footing, not only in parliament and in the records and publications of parliament but also in the courts.
Insofar as provincial jurisdictions are concerned we can only suggest ways in which the provinces will assure this linguistic equality, and the way in which we approach it, of course, is to impose-to suggest that three provinces accept for themselves the provisions which Quebec has as regards its minority under section 133. We know that section 133 of the present constitution gives certain fundamental guarantees to the Englishspeaking people of that province.
We think it would be unrealistic and probably impossible, within the future which I can foresee, to see the provisions of Section 133 which protect the English in Quebec apply in every province of Canada, but we do suggest that the provisions should protect French-speaking Canadians in Canada in those three provinces where 95 per cent of all Francophone Canadians live, that is to say, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. We realize that we will cause some difficulties but probably not that much greater than have been caused in Quebec for the past 111 years. However, once again this is in an area of provincial jurisdiction. We are seeking solutions here, and we are asking for provincial contributions in this area.
As far as education is concerned, we do not differentiate. The approach of this constitution is to protect official language minorities in the area of education wherever they exist, the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minority in every other province. We think this is the proper solution.
I know that some provinces will say that we should not be discussing education because it is purely provincial, but the way in which this constitution is couched will permit the provinces to see that indeed we are not attempting here to legislate in that area. We are suggesting the way in which we think the linguistic problem at the provincial level will be solved, but I merely want to remind those who make that point that we have in our present constitution, and have had since 1867, provision for the federal government to intervene in areas of legislation and to protect minorities in the educational system. Therefore, the concept is not new.

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
It is true that when the Fathers of Confederation approached this problem 111 years ago they defined minorities then in religious terms because there was a certain equation between religious and linguistic problems in the province of Quebec and, indeed, at that time in the province of Manitoba, but the concept of the federal government's protecting minorities in the area of education is not a new one. It is 111 years old, and all I want to say is that we are not proposing the continuance of this protection by the federal government; we are suggesting that all governments in a sense give up some of their jurisdiction, not to other levels of government but to the citizen in a declaration of rights, including that of linguistic rights.

Mr. Speaker, that is about all I had to say on the bill now under consideration and 1 chose not to get into technicalities because I hope the debate will bear on basic issues rather than matters of detail. Indeed that is why we are not on second reading of this bill today. Instead we are discussing a motion to establish a committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study the bill and other constitutional documents which may be referred to it by the government or which the committee itself may wish to study. I am thinking particularly of the proposal concerning constitutional matters made by the Progressive Conservative party one or two months ago if my memory serves me well.
So it is important to remember that this bill, which, as I have been trying to explain over the last thirty minutes or so, embodies the solutions proposed at this stage by the government and the Liberal Party of Canada, has not gone beyond first reading yet. In other words, before its re-introduction in the next session, there will be not only, I hope, a very positive discussion in the joint committee of both Houses, but also possibly a report from the Pepin-Robarts commission which we might take into account in drafting the bill for the next session and that there will be discussions at the provincial level. In fact, my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) and other ministers have already met the premiers to explain the spirit, the philosophy and the economy of the bill and we are at their disposal to provide them with further explanations.
Mr. Speaker, we know that there will be a meeting of premiers in August and that one of the issues on the agenda will be those constitutional proposals. So I repeat, it should be well understood that it is not a definitive or unilateral action that precludes any discussion. It is the result of the ideas developed by the government with the support of the Liberal caucus. It is the result of our thinking but, as I said, we are prepared to continue the debate and improve the way in which we shall be able to study the bill.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that I have forgotten a very small item in my outline. I would like to refer to it simply to show the House that we believe this to be important. When I suggested

that the regions should be represented within the legislative body in the second chamber, I should have added that we also want the provinces to feel represented, or in any case not alienated, with regard to the national government and the supreme court, and certain proposals to this effect are contained in the bill.
But it is time that I concluded, Mr. Speaker. In closing, I would simply like to say once again that we do not believe that a constitutional bill can lead the country towards greater harmony or unity if the bill is not debated and eventually accepted by the great majority of Canadians. This is why we have proceeded in this way by moving a motion to establish a committee. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this committee can report to us in the coming months. As for me, I am convinced that we owe it to ourselves and that we owe it to Canadians to give them finally a constitution written, passed, proclaimed in Canada, for Canadians, by Canadians.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am pleased that the government has decided to establish a parliamentary committee to look at the question of constitutional reform. I should say to my hon. friends to the left that we are pleased this is a joint committee, and that we intend to do our part to keep it that way. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated, and as the House will recall, this is something we proposed more than a year ago. Frankly I think it would have been even more effective than today to have had a parliamentary committee representing the whole of the country and dealing with the matter. At that time, it was turned down by the government.
I have one or two comments in direct response to what was said by the Prime Minister. I want to raise these matters at the beginning, because they reflect some attitudes of mind of his which may well be causing difficulty in the country. He may well disagree with the suggestion that those attitudes of his causes problems, but probably it is good for him to know that we on this side of the House think they do.
He made reference to the very real difficulty, and I think he used the word "impossibility", of dealing with one province which has elected a government that is determined to separate the country, the province of Quebec. Perhaps it will be impossible for any federal government to deal with that province. However, it is important for the country and the House to recognize that virtually nothing has been proposed to that government, or indeed the other provincial governments of confederation, by the federal government which might indicate some willingness on the part of Ottawa to consider very seriously some of the substantive jurisdictional changes of power that will be essential, if we are going to have a system which is satisfactory.
I regret the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is not in the House. Indeed, in those relatively isolated cases when something has been tried by the government, as was attempted in relation to the immigration arrangement, an agreement was reached between the Government of Canada and the province of Quebec.
June 27, 1978

From time to time, even in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the fact that everyone in the House of Commons is a federalist needs to be underlined. Everyone wants to see elected in the province of Quebec a government which is committed to maintaining the Canadian federal system. There is no disagreement about that. It seems that one route to that goal will be to demonstrate that there can be changes in a system which a large number of Quebeckers and a large number of other Canadians believe is not working. Frankly they are not particularly interested in patriation formulae or amending formulae. They are interested in the effectiveness with which governments do their jobs.
It would be very helpful to making a case for federalism if there were a much greater determination on the part of this federal government to sit down with the provinces, including Quebec, in an attempt to reach a specific agreement on specific changes of power where a failure to agree now means that services are not being well delivered. It means frustration is high not just with government, but potentially with the system.
I do not want to go on at any length, but I hope the Prime Minister's view of Quebec, that it is absolutely impossible to deal with that government, even though his colleagues have found that it is possible to deal with them on matters such as the immigration question, will not be used as an excuse to stop him from sitting down with the other premiers of Canada, including the premier of Quebec if he will come, to discuss specific changes which may make modern the Canadian federal system.
I could not help but be amused when I heard the Prime Minister speaking about the problems of Canadian citizens dealing within a larger society with distant governments and more complex matters, and the fact that he went back to his quite long standing concern for a charter of rights. It is agreed that a charter of rights would be of very real value. Certainly the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) took an important initiative in introducing the Bill of Rights. It is quite important for us to make the point that the introduction of a freedom of information law in this country, or the determination of a willingness to amend the Official Secrets Act, would at least be as effective as a charter by demonstrating in practice what we proclaim in a charter as regards human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In case it is not clear, the point of that is: I think the Government of Canada should realize that there are ways to demonstrate good will and that there are ways to make progress, other than by drafting laws and proclamations. They and we will be judged very much by our actions, as well as by our declarations.
As I said at the outset, we look forward to the establishment of this parliamentary committee. Certainly we will do our part as the official opposition to ensure that there is a thorough and
The Constitution
informed consideration of the contents of the document tabled by the Prime Minister. I think it is important to make it clear now in the House of Commons that we believe it would be wrong to attempt to have parliamentary consideration of constitutional changes limited by or to this document. We think it would be wrong to let the government pretend that presentation of this so-called bill exhausts the obligations of the federal government regarding constitutional reform.
[ Translation]
If you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify those two statements. First of all, the exact status of this proposal is not clear. It has been presented in the form of a bill, which implies that the basic proposal of the government has already been established and that only the details can be changed. However, the proposal is referred to the committee without trying to obtain an agreement in principle on the part of the government, which leads us to believe that the government considers that it is not really a definitive proposal. I hope the second interpretation is the right one. We certainly intend to consider this bill as a white paper-as a simple proposal- and we hope that the government will not try to restrict the debate to the limited scope covered by its own proposal.
Indeed what partly differentiates a constitution from other laws is the fact that if it is to apply to the whole community a constitution must so reflect it. The Parliament of Canada is the best representative of the whole nation. This is why, as I have stated, my party proposed a year ago the creation of a parliamentary committee but I suggest that the committee will have to wonder whether it is in itself representative enough so that a sufficient number of Canadians who favour federalism as a form of government be able to consider this Parliament as a legitimate source for a new federal constitution.

I suggest we have at least two deficiencies. One has to do with our nature. In constitutional questions we represent only the national part of the Canadian partnership. The provinces are not here. The other limitation, which is quite a serious one, has to do with the mandate of this parliament. In normal circumstances this parliament would be ended, and the people of Canada would be choosing a fresh parliament and a new government. There is real doubt as to whether a parliament, which hangs on beyond its normal life, has the mandate to propose changes so fundamental as constitutional reform. Certainly any claim to legitimacy we have would be weakened seriously if we consider proposals from only one source.
As the Prime Minister indicated, it is our good fortune that a number of responsible Canadian organizations and individuals proposed constitutional reforms well before the government document was tabled. My list is not at all complete, but I think of groups like the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Advisory Council on Confederation, the government of the province of British Columbia, the premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and New Brunswick, at least; the C.D. Howe Research Institute, the Canada West Foundation and, as the

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
Prime Minister mentioned, my own party. We are pleased to be joined in June of 1978 by the proposals of the Government of Canada.
I would hope that some of those recommendations from the groups 1 have enumerated would be considered by the committee, and considered with some care and in some detail. Naturally, I think it would be a terrible waste of the money of the taxpayers of Canada, and an insult to the members of that commission, if we were not able to consider in the committee the recommendations, however tentative at this stage, of the Pepin-Robarts royal commission.
This is not an idle observation. Canadians have lived long enough with this government to distrust both its motives and its judgment on questions of constitutional reform. Many of us are puzzled-I tried to find a good neutral word and I think "puzzled" probably serves-by the change in tactics and by the timetable this government has adopted since it decided not to call a federal general election.
A year ago parliament was deliberately denied a voice in constitutional reform. Today we have what appears to be a bill going to a committee. Six weeks ago, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) mentioned, not long ago, in explaining his decision not to call an election, the Prime Minister spoke of the urgent economic initiatives his government still had to take. Parliament adjourns in four days and no new economic measure has been proposed. But what we do have is a deadline for concluding a very complex constitutional debate.
These inconsistencies inevitably increase suspicion that the government is using constitutional reform for partisan purposes, and that suspicion is going to be much greater if the government seeks to rush the work of this committee, seeks to stampede it through, or if it seeks to limit unduly the questions the committee can consider.
[ Translation]
At the beginning I stated that the government cannot claim that its obligations in the field of constitutional reform are limited to issuing a document and setting a deadline. Indeed, the job of the federal government has only begun. This document deals mainly with its form. The true disagreements in Canada deal with the basic issue which is how to share power in a great diversified federal country. The present document does not even touch this issue.
Yet this is an issue which is the cornerstone of the problem. In fact a witty person could even conclude that one of the purposes of that proposal-with its proportional representation, its consultation process regarding judges, its council of state-is to divert attention so that people forget the urgent need of starting to reach an agreement regarding the powers which will be exercised by the various levels of government in a mordern and reformed type of federalism.

Sir, I have heard and read transcripts of the Prime Minister's remarks before-his lamentation, really-about his ten years of failure on constitutional reform. It is true that the initiatives that were begun by Mr. Fulton and Mr. Favreau have lost considerable momentum in the last ten years. As the late Prime Minister Pearson said, "The process has, of course, continued, although in the years since I retired it has lost much of its impetus. I regret that very much."
1 think it is important for this House of Commons and for the people of Canada, as we embark on this latest step in constitutional consideration, that we put that failure in some kind of perspective. What have failed have been formulae, a formula to amend and a formula to repatriate. What has not failed, but what very sadly has not been tried enough, is agreement on specific changes in the conduct or jurisdiction of different levels of government.
There have been some successes, including some by this government. I mentioned earlier a very real success in the field of immigration. There may well be some others that I do not know of, although I would be surprised if this government had any successes that it had failed to communicate at substantial public expense. These successes are exceptions, because for the last ten years constitutional reform has been viewed by this government as a legal question, not a political question.
Earlier Canadian governments-governments that were less preoccupied with legal form-were far more successful in getting political agreements, ranging from the winter works program, the equalization grants, and the Fleming-Sauve formula, initiated during the years when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister, and then through the Canada Pension Plan and Medicare with Mr. Pearson. Both those governments gave significant attention to the constitution as a legal document, but they were also able to look beyond legal reform; their eyes were not limited to the horizon of legal reform, and they were able to make the constitution work with an agreement among partners in this country.
That brings me in these remarks to probably the single most serious danger in this document. It is a danger about which I am pleased to note the Prime Minister was a little defensive in his own remarks. It is the attempt, however disguised, to have Ottawa unilaterally amend the partnership that is confederation.
The government argues with energetic innocence that it confines itself to its own strict jurisdiction, and does nothing that has any influence on a province. That, unfortunately, is not true. Anyone could go on at great length about this, but let me deal just for a moment with the supreme court.
At an earlier time unilateral federal amendment in respect of the supreme court was not considered by the provinces to be a serious matter, and hence it was not included originally in exceptions for federal amendment. That was at a time when the supreme court was not the final court of appeal. It is now the final court of appeal, and surely provinces have to be consulted as to a change of this magnitude which the govern-

June 27, 1978

ment is proposing, and there is not provision in this House at this stage for that kind of consultation.
There are other instances of that kind of difficulty. Proposed section 14(2) in this bill, and since I think none of us is sure exactly what stage of this bill we have reached I hope you will allow me to quote from some of the specific provisions, sir, states:
Any individual has the right to use English or French, as he or she may choose, in any of the debates or other proceedings of the legislative assembly of any province.
Proposed section 16(2) says:
Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading or process in or issuing from, any court of Ontario, Quebec or New Brunswick.
Those are the provinces to which the Prime Minister is making the suggestion, and unfortunately he slipped and called it the "imposition", which is probably a closer reflection of his state of mind.
Proposed section 19(2), and this is a rather long quotation, states:
Any member of the public in any province has the right to use English or French, as he or she may choose, in communicating with any principal office of a department or agency of the executive government of that province, or of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body or Crown corporation established by or pursuant to a law of that province, where that office is located within an area of that province in which it is determined, in such manner as may be prescribed or authorized by the legislature of that province, that a substantial number of persons within the population use that language.
I recognize that the Prime Minister has already begun the argument, and some of his colleagues will carry it, that these provisions will not apply in a province unless the province agrees. The point I want to emphasize is that we have no business, in this House of Commons, passing a declaration expressing a direction as to how a province should act within the exclusive jurisdiction of that province prior to the province establishing its own considered opinion.
I have read the explanation. 1 know that the official explanation is to have federal parliamentary approval granted in advance so that there can be a very quick indication of federal approval and a very quick closing of the arrangement once the provinces agree. That may be the excuse, but the much more likely result would be to attempt to have that action by parliament give legitimacy to an action the legislature may consider to be impractical or impossible. It amounts to an official statement of direction in a field that is beyond our jurisdiction and beyond our competence.
Although proposed section 17 may provide some protection in this matter, a fair reading of section 16(2), which I quoted earlier, would require every traffic ticket in Ontario to be capable of being argued in either official language. In many parts of the real world that will be impossible for a long time to come, and parliament should not attempt to pressure any province into enacting what it cannot honour.
The Constitution
[ Translation]
This approach involves two dangers, one specific, the other global. The specific danger concerns language rights and, more particularly, the objective of creating a climate in which residents and governments of predominantly English-speaking provinces choose to significantly increase services and encourage communication in French. In certain circumstances, it is useful to recognize rights and pass legislation. That is the conclusion arrived at by New Brunswick. In other cases, it may be preferable to go ahead without official declarations or provincial laws. As hon. members of the House know, I gave full support to the Official Languages Act and my predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), did more than any other member of the House to gain acceptance for this act throughout Canada, especially in the west.
This federal act is now part of the basic principles of our system and in trying to make it accepted we have learned a few things. We have learned that most people prefer to have a choice rather than be forced into something. It is encouraging to see the important practical progress made towards offering bilingual services in most English-speaking provinces. The progress made in Ontario is well known. It may not be so well known, however, that in my own province, Alberta, the number of students at the primary and secondary levels who learn French is increasing constantly. It rose from 6,323 students in 18 school boards last year to 7,601 students in 20 school boards this year.
This is happening at a time when the total number of students in Alberta is decreasing, but also when registration at the university college of Saint-Jean, in Edmonton, has increased substantially, especially among students who intend to teach French in Alberta. I can truthfully say, as one who knows that Albertans would rather choose than submit to restraints, that the passing of a piece of legislation may perhaps delay progress.
In my view, which, I think, was also the view of my predecessor, a personal type of leadership is more efficient than the mere passing of legislation.

That, sir, is the specific danger to which I refer.
The general danger is that the provinces, like the rest of us, do not much like the idea of being pushed around. One of the major sources of conflict in our country in the last ten years is that the federal government has tried so often to push provinces around, and there is every danger that the device of having parliament pronounce on matters within provincial jurisdiction, and pronounce before the provinces do, will be seen as one more cause of discord. There is already evidence to that effect from a variety of premiers representing a variety of political parties.
I think this is particularly true because in the course of the last six weeks we seem to have revived around here that atmosphere of confrontation between Ottawa and the provinces, from which we were happily freed for a long time. I

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
remember that the Prime Minister actually called the premiers to go on television with him during one break in the pattern of his conduct of federal-provincial relations. But we seem to be back again at that attitude of Ottawa going out and picking fights with the provinces. We saw it clearly in the very stubborn manner in which the federal government proceeded with the invasion of provincial jurisdiction on the sales tax issue. We saw it again in the declarations of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), and we certainly see it in the lottery question. Indeed, we have a hint of that in the repeated assertions of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), that he is not going to let the objections of mere provinces stop his amending the common constitution.
We have a document here, sir, with a handful of specific proposals. They are going to be considered in detail at committee along with, as 1 have said, and I hope, a lot of other relevant proposals. Some of these provisions are curious, to say the least. 1 find it bizarre, for example, for the federal government to propose to the provinces that it is going to suspend the power of disallowance in regard to a province, which everybody knows is a useless power, when the provinces have agreed to certain federal conditions. The Prime Minister is the worldly expert in the House on forums and constitutions, but it seems to me to be odd that a constitution should enshrine the practice of offering a treat to those who are good. It is no wonder that this government is called paternalistic, with an attitude like that.
1 also think that this government does not know much about the psychology of the people responding to treaties. There may be some kids around who may be cajoled by the offer of ice cream, but I do not think there would be very many who would respond to an empty cone, which is what we have here in regard to the power of disallowance.
Another curiosity is that the document extends constitutional status to the office of Prime Minister of Canada but not, so far as I can see, to the office of premier of a province. Again, it proposes an extraordinary safeguard, the double majority vote, and it accords that-and this is quite important-in relation to linguistic rights, but not in relation to provincial rights.
The Prime Minister spoke at some length about the role of the provinces, the role of the regions in making national decisions. As he knows, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) on behalf of my party put forward for discussion a proposal for Senate reform, a proposal which we have found was contentious enough in itself, which clearly established the second chamber as an institution that would allow the provinces to participate directly in national decisions. This proposal the Prime Minister has made, as he has been gracious enough to admit, is very different. What he proposes, when you strip everything away, is representation of party interests, not of provincial interests.
Indeed, when you read through the document, proposed section 64(1) prohibits membership in the upper chamber of any elected member of a legislature or of the House of Commons. However, proposed section 60 allows a member of
the federal cabinet, but not a member of a provincial cabinet, to be invited to participate in questioning or debate in that second chamber. These matters are contentious in detail and in concept. They require the most thorough consideration and debate, and that is why my colleagues and I hope very seriously there will be no attempt to rush this matter through or to limit the agenda of the committee.
The Prime Minister, when he began, looked back to Mackenzie King and spoke of the historic concept and the history of constitutional change in this country. I think we all recognize, sir, that history, including history in a country like Canada, is made a step at a time. It may very well be that we are at such a step now. It may very well be that that is involved in this document or, more likely, that it will emerge from some of the considerations of the parliamentary committee.
1 would like to repeat that it is the determination of members of my party to pursue serious proposals seriously. I think it is important that we recognize, too, that constitutional problems in a country will never be resolved, because there are always going to be differences among the people who make up a country and among the regions which make up a country. We may very well be able to change some of the institutions that are here. We may very well have to bring the actual document home, but it is important to recognize that any political system, particularly a large federal system, will always be defining itself and always be re-arranging itself. 1 should like to risk conventional wisdom by saying that, in my view, we have done that relatively well through much of our history as a country.
We face some particular challenges now, some of them very serious. One is a failure to nurture in the province of Quebec paticularly, a sense of security regarding the Quebecois culture and regarding its capacity to survive as a federal state.
Another challenge, as the Prime Minister admitted in his analysis but did not appear to recognize in his response, is the failure to respond to the new potential of our various regions, particularly of our distant regions, a potential brought by the discovery and development of our resources, by a movement of population, and by the simple fact that some of them now have power to exercise. It is a challenge that has been effected in no small measure. I will not go into this at more length at this time. I have done so on other occasions and I shall do so again. It is a problem that has been caused in no small measure by an unusually centralist government that has, throughout its life in office, reached out to try to gather to itself powers that would be more effectively exercised by municipal governments, by provinces, by the private sector, and by voluntary agencies. That has added appreciably to the tensions that we have to resolve and relieve in this country.
It is essential that we are able to find in this parliament- and I have full confidence that the committee that is established will help us in that search-responses that recognize the failures I have indicated, and that establish structures and attitudes that will serve the future of this country.

June 27, 1978

1 very much hope that this document which is before us, and the discussion to which it gives rise, will prove to be valuable. 1 must say that I have more confidence in the usefulness of the discussion than I do in the usefulness of the document. The committee must have something to start with, however, and I am pleased that we have this document at last.
Whatever comes out of the discussion of structures, whatever we happen to do to the other place, what is absolutely essential is that we restore in this country a sense of partnership and co-operation among governments. That just does not exist now, although it is clear that it can exist if governments want to make it exist.
I will not elaborate on the experience I had as leader of this party in drawing together the premiers from four very different provinces at Kingston almost a year ago to get agreement on specific changes. We were able to get it not because we came from one party but because we came with one common purpose, which was to come to agree and not to come to disagree. I recommend that experience to the Prime Minister for the length of time he has left to exercise it.
The point is that in the provinces of Canada there is clearly a willingness to sit down and try to make some of the changes in particular powers, and in the administration of particular powers, that can make our federal system function far more effectively. That will is there among the provinces. The very real question, far more important than the contents of this bill, far more important 1 regret to say than the work of the committee we are establishing, the fundamental, important thing we have to do is to get the federal government to recognize again that it is part of a partnership and it is going to have to deal with the other partners in confederation on that basis. If that can be done I think we have the best possible prospect for success as a nation.
I can give the assurance to the Prime Minister on behalf of those members of my party who will be serving on that committee, that they will carry out their responsibilities in a very thorough and serious way. I say to him, since he is for a while longer Prime Minister of the country, that I hope he will change some of the attitudes that have caused so many of the problems in this country in the last ten years. I hope he will recognize that we can get agreement of some specific changes of jurisdiction, and that we can get agreement on making the federal system work if there is the same will at the federal level that has been demonstrated in so many cases at the provincial level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the opening sentence of the explanatory document for the bill we are discussing today regarding the process of referring it to a committee, the following is written to describe the purpose of the bill:
-to promote the cohesion and well-being of our federation and all its parts.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke this afternoon he essentially made the same point in justifying and
The Constitution
setting the framework for the legislation we are examining in general terms today. He said its central concern was threefold in nature. It was to deal with the place that Canadians would find themselves in as individuals within our confederation; second, it was aimed at dealing with regional alienation, and third were linguistic rights, an important concern throughout the history of our country.
The purpose of the bill is very broad, and as the Prime Minister indicated in his tone, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his, it is very serious. This means that in assessing the bill we must do so in that very broad, historic context. We must ask if it comes to grips with the serious question of national unity which has plagued our country for months, indeed, for years.
In assessing it we must all keep two things in mind, particularly we members of parliament who tend to be preoccupied with laws and regulations and who must face both questions. The first is whether, as a constitutional document, it is adequate in terms of providing a legal framework for nationhood. Does it adequately provide a new constitutional framework for over 20 million highly divergent Canadians representing many cultures, but with two principal cultures and two official languages? Does it meet the real needs of economically divergent parts of the country populated in different degrees of concentration? It seems to me that is a fundamental question that has to be answered in a positive way if we are going to say this package of proposals is the kind that, as a parliament, we should recommend be accepted by the people of Canada and the provinces.
Second-and I think it is very important that we deal with this second question-quite apart from its adequacies as a constitutional document we have to ask whether the issues, the tensions, the problems, the concerns about regional inequality, the concerns about language rights, can be resolved by any constitutional approach. That seems to me to be a pretty fundamental question in itself. If the answer is no, then as politicians at this point in our history we have a pretty basic obligation to provide some alternative answers than that which will be provided by a good, bad, or indifferent set of constitutional proposals.
1 want to deal with the first question this afternoon, and to do so not by assessing all of the bill's proposals but by commenting on those which seem to me to be most essential to our concerns as a people at this time. During the summer the committee, comprised of members from all parts of the House, will be considering in detail the whole range of specifics to be found in the bill. My purpose this afternoon is much more restricted.
First of all I want to say very categorically what I find, and what my colleagues find, to be very acceptable and very good in the bill. First, like all Canadians, we find it desirable at long last to have our own written constitution here in Canada instead of in some distant part of the world.

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
Second, we think the proposal that the provinces have some say in the selection of judges in the Supreme Court is a good one.
Third, the proposal we have embedded in the constitution, that of a charter of basic rights, and fundamental liberty, including linguistic rights, we also think is a good proposal. However, we think there are problems associated with the implementation of this particular proposal, but the essential principle we accept and we commend the government for introducing it.
Finally, among those items found in the bill which are desirable and good at this time is the suggestion that the first ministers' conference in Canada be institutionalized. That makes a lot of sense.
To say that these proposals are not new is accurate, but 1 do not, in so saying that, mean in any sense to denigrate them. No country in the world at any period in the past or the present could conceive of dealing with a package of constitutional proposals that were primarily new. By definition, a constitution for a people has to represent a kind of serious level of consensus building. It has to reflect in a serious way the aspirations, the values, the objectives in a political context of people at a given time. Therefore, these proposals that have been made by the Prime Minister, by the government of the day, while not new, are relevant and are good and are, for us, acceptable in principle. 1 hope they can be speedily dealt with in terms of getting acceptance by the committee, and ultimately by the Parliament of Canada.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that what we do find to be new, and significantly new in this package of proposals which is not only unacceptable to us but disturbingly unacceptable, and in that regard I am referring to the proposed replacement for the second chamber of the parliamentary system, is the new House of the Federation. I say, and 1 say it in all seriousness, that if the government had deliberately set out to propose an institution that would simultaneously promote discontent, fractionalize the country, and frustrate the democratic will, it could not have done better than propose the House of the Federation. 1 say this without any attitude of partisanship on this question and with no exaggerated sense, in fact no sense at all of being negative.
The Prime Minister indicated in his discussion this afternoon an approach of flexibility on this and on other matters. I want to stress that what I am about to say will be in like vein, with the same openness of mind, to be persuaded, ultimately by the government if my arguments turn out to be fallacious, and we can be shown, on the basis of experience in other countries or on the logic of the system as l see it being proposed, as a mistake in judgment, then my party and I would be prepared to reconsider.
So the attitude on this fundamental question it seems to me has to be open on all sides of the House. With that in mind I make the following criticisms. Simply stated, if we create what 1 regard as a kind of abomination, for the first time in modern

history we will have a body as a second chamber with even more powers than the existing Senate, but this power will be used. That is a fundamental concern, or ought to be a fundamental concern, not only for Canadians now but for our future Canadians. The inevitable consequence, in my judgment, of the proposal that has been made by the government will be a deadlock in democracy in our country. A triumph ultimately of the second chamber over the House of Commons is the exact reversal of the principle of parliamentary democracy, which is that the House of Commons should remain supreme in all legislative processes. The House of Commons is the body directly elected by the people of Canada, the democratic body in the system.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this suggestion to be implemented as it stands. I will not go through all the details. However, we know there will be 118 members, almost half of the total coming as a result of federal elections in proportion to the party vote at the national level, the other half coming at various times corresponding to the popular party vote in a given provincial election. The duration of the tenure of the members, of both federal nominees and provincial nominees, will vary according to the duration of the various legislatures. In short, we will have a great change-over in membership. In comparison with the existing institution this might be welcome, but welcome only on first analysis. I say this because it signifies the kind of people we would get in this new body, if it comes into being. These men and women would come there in anticipation of acting. They would not only have that anticipation but would carry it out. They would not be there very long but while they are in Ottawa, coming from all over the country, they would propose to act and indeed would act as legislators.
The powers of this body are, if anything, greater than the existing powers of the Senate of Canada. In addition to the normal powers, they would have the right to appoint or play a role in approving nominees to the Supreme Court of Canada and to other key federal bodies. In the normal legislative process they would have the right to introduce bills of all kinds, with the exception of money bills. They would have this right, and significantly and crucially from our argument, they would have the right to frustration, that is, to stop the passage of any bill, including money bills, that come from the House of Commons. Once this is done it would take a two thirds vote in the House of Commons, with certain exceptions-the Prime Minister is shaking his head and I suspect I will come to a certain aspect of the argument that he is shaking his head about in a moment-to overcome this decision by the second body.
What is wrong with this proposed system? It would achieve exactly what the Fathers of Confederation 111 years ago intended for the Senate. We rarely read it in our school books, but without exception, Cartier, Macdonald, D'Arcy McGee, all said that the principal task of the Senate was to inhibit this pernicious force known as democracy which was emanating from the United States. There are a number of quotations, hardly the kind one would look on with a great deal of pride if
June 27, 1978

one has a solid commitment to democracy, that make it clear that in addition to the representational role for the provinces, the Fathers of Confederation clearly had it in mind that the Senate of Canada, not being elected as was established about 100 years earlier in the United States directly by the people, was to be an inhibiting factor in the democratic process. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, it did not turn out that way with the existing Senate for a variety of reasons, principally because the Senate turned out to be the fiefdom of the prime minister of the day and it was widely known and widely accepted that the day the Senate overturned legislation, certainly in recent decades, as passed by this House, within a matter of days if not hours, steps would be undertaken that would lead to the abolition of the Senate.
My concern is that this new creation proposed by the government would act effectively as a check on democracy, a check on the will of the people of Canada expressed in a federal election to elect the House of Commons.
Let me give a concrete example of my expressed general concern. 1 met with an official of the government, perhaps the leading constitutional official who, no doubt at the instigation of the Prime Minister, was playing a role with the Leader of the Opposition and myself the day the bill was introduced, in order to explain some of the technical details of it. During the course of this meeting I pointed out that, as I understand it, the present Senate, as a result of the most recent election, would be dominated by members of the opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada and the NDP, and the Liberals would have a minority. This was easily ascertained in terms of the voting records in recent elections.
The crucial point I put to him was that my understanding of the law as it would pertain to this new body was that, had it been in existence at the time, it could have held up the AIB legislation brought forward by this government a couple of years ago. 1 pointed out that a central proposal affecting, in the government's view, the good of the country, something that ought to have been done rather quickly, according to the government, could have been held up for as much as six months by that body. The reply I received from the senior official was yes, it could happen.
I asked why that would not happen. The reply I received was indicative of a number of people who are supporting this kind of body. He said that somehow these people would be reasonable, would sense the mood of the country, and would not respond in an inhibiting way when the House of Commons spoke clearly.
I have rarely heard a more naive view about the working of an electoral system. It is the height of naivete to assume that a newly created body, which is going to be based directly on proportional party votes in the provinces in half measure, and the other half on proportional party votes in the federal election, would automatically, especially when they are men and women in parties on the opposite side of the government, act with the same assumption about what the national interest
The Constitution
is as the government of the day. With perfectly good conscience and perfectly good integrity, they would almost inevitably do the opposite.
In a party system in Canada the people respond in terms of the collective set of values of their party. They inevitably look at a situation from a party perspective. Therefore a national program brought in by a democratically elected House of Commons, and I used the example of the AIB, could be thwarted by that other body, not for weeks but for many months. In that situation the government would find itself, on issue after issue, stymied by a majority opposition in the other place.
I have no doubt at all that deadlock and delay would result. The practical concerns of Canadians at any given period of time, whether it is job creation, regional insecurity, housing, fishing, consumer rights or whatever, those legislative measures which should be produced rather quickly in a democratic age to meet the needs of the people, would be frustrated and held up by this body.
The result would be that instead of reducing tensions in this country produced by regional discontent, this new body would exacerbate them. It could lead to a sense of frustration with federal politics on a national scale that could be truly alarming at some point in the future. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister was shaking his head earlier. I do not know.
If the government says that it assumes a government of the day would invoke the proposed urgency clause in the legislation to head off delays, I say it simply has not thought through its own proposals carefully enough. If that is the intention, the whole purpose of this newly created second chamber will seem to be simply a charade.
The conclusion is inescapable. The body could use its powers, and I am inclined to think it would, and frustrate the democratic will. Or not use them; in that event it would be seen to be a completely phony institution, fully equivalent to our existing Senate. It would play no real role in the world of power in Ottawa, which the Prime Minister in his comments this afternoon quite correctly described as being a central concern of the regions of Canada.
Everyone outside of 25 miles of Dundas and Yonge in downtown Toronto feels like a regional Canadian. All those Canadians have some sense that they are not getting their say in the legitimate legal power structure in Ottawa. I say that this proposal from the government is the last kind we should be considering to meet those needs.
An additional negative result of this body would be that it would undermine the potentially creative role played by the first ministers' meetings. I mentioned earlier that 1 was pleased to see in the proposals the suggestion that the first ministers' meetings be institutionalized, that a meeting take place at least once a year. I think that makes good sense.
The premiers of our provinces, unlike their equivalents in the United States, Switzerland, West Germany and Australia, have real power. They have much more power than the heads of the Australian states, the American states, the cantons in

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
Switzerland or lander in Germany. They have to play an integral role in the governing of this country, particularly in areas of overlapping federal-provincial concern. Therefore the proposal to have the meetings regularized is a good one.
The practice initiated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in discussing proposals for his most recent budget, although there was a significant bungling in the middle of it, was, as I said at the time, a commendable initiative and something that should be duplicated. The more that can be done in terms of this kind of federal-provincial recognition of the real powers which our provinces have, the better.
I suggest to the Prime Minister, however, that this body would undermine the good intentions of the recommendation that first ministers' conferences be institutionalized. It would not only thwart the democratic will of the House of Commons in Ottawa, but would undermine the role played by the provincial premiers, either when they meet alone to make proposals or when they meet with the Prime Minister of the day.
The third concern we have about this new body is the double majority principle, an idea borrowed from Calhoun, one to which we should give long, hesitant consideration. The Charter of Rights, including linguistic rights, is a good idea and is embodied solidly in the proposed new constitution. So I ask, Mr. Speaker, why do we need this new proposal of a double majority based, as it is, on racial differences? I simply say that my colleagues and 1 want to look at that question with a great deal of care because its very existence could be a source of significant disunity in the future.
1 want to deal with the regional concerns which are at the heart of the sole significant new proposal. I refer, of course, to the proposed House of the Federation. The Prime Minister expressed his concern about it this afternoon. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that for me the concerns of the regions are primarily economic. They are primarily dependent upon national and provincial political leadership which sets out the right kind of economic priorities. Having said that, it would be to misunderstand reality to see no role at all for constitutional procedures of the government in coming to grips with those regional differences. That is why federal states have been created around the world, including our own.
On behalf of my party, Mr. Speaker, I wish to put forward a proposal which seems to me deals in a much more fundamental and adequate way in meeting the terms of democracy and the requirements of regionalism than is embodied in the government's proposed second chamber. Instead of that abomination which has been proposed, it seems to me serious consideration should be given to the following: instead of setting up a new body with 118 members, take perhaps 100 of them, divide them into five to coincide with the number of economic regions throughout the country so that there would be 20 or so from each of those economic regions. I am using the 20 or 100 as approximate figures. These people would be

elected, on the basis of proportional party votes in the regions, directly to the House of Commons.
Instead of setting up a second chamber on the line proposed by the Prime Minister, my idea is that we would take 100 people who would be proposed in a series of party lists in each of the regions so that citizens in every part of Canada could see, submitted by each of the parties, a list of outstanding individuals whom the parties are proposing as candidates for those parties in that region. So there would be added approximately 100 seats to those already in the House of Commons. Their holders would constitute a genuine representative force from the regions, and they would be indirectly elected by the people in those regions.
What would be the advantages of such a system?


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister smiles.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the smiling Prime Minister, who tends to take that attitude toward any idea which comes from sources outside his own party, that the advantages would, in our humble view, be as follows: first, Atlantic Canada, the prairies, and British Columbia would gain proportionately in representation in this House. These are the regions which, for understandable geographic and economic reasons, feel they have less input into the conduct of this country's affairs than they should, less sense of identification with the decisions which are made here. They would have a greater say. To this extent, their increased representation would constitute a contribution to national unity.
Second, all parties in this House would virtually be represented in each region as a result of so many being elected on a proportional basis. This, in my view, would lead to a marked improvement in the caucus discussions of all the parties because they would more adequately reflect the diverse nature of our country. In addition, the government of the day would be relieved of some of the problems the present government faces. For example, it wanted a representative from Alberta and had to persuade a Tory member to join its caucus in order to get one.
By the process I am suggesting, the government of the day, whatever its political complexion, would have among its ranks not only competent men and women but, hopefully, since the party itself had prepared the lists, an outstanding man or woman, presumably of cabinet quality, at its disposition. That is regional input where it really counts in a democratic system. Regional influence would be felt directly in the caucuses of the parties of the House of Commons and directly in the cabinet of Canada.
Another advantage of this idea which I am submitting for consideration is this: the number I am proposing would be significantly smaller than the total composition of the House of Commons. The vast majority of the members would still be representing individual constituencies. The Prime Minister did not deal with this aspect when he was discussing the various alternatives-the only point he made about the House of Commons reflecting regional needs related to the election of all members by a PR system. As he knows, a number of other
June 27, 1978

countries combine the two methods, right in the lower house there are members representing single constituencies and members elected by proportional representation.
The advantage of my proposal, it seems to me, is that the vast majority of the members would still represent constituencies, something which 1 believe to be very desirable in a democracy since the majority of the men and women who are elected have direct contact with the people and a direct opportunity to respond to the needs of given groups of electors. But there would be a significant minority element which would provide important and, in many cases, decisive regional input into the decision making processes of the House of Commons and of the cabinet.
Moreover, such an arrangement would not fly in the face of parliamentary democracy as I believe the other proposal does. It would be in accord with the tradition of parliamentary democracy that the House of Commons should be the ascendant body and that the cabinet should be responsible to the House of Commons. This would not be the case if the proposal for a House of Federation were adopted. The course presently proposed would undermine the authority of the House of Commons. I hope that not only the government but the official opposition will seriously consider the idea 1 have put forward.
1 want in my concluding comments to turn away from the constitution. I said earlier that the principal sources of discontent in our land are not constitutional in origin. 1 strongly believe this. They have not had their origins in the maldistribution of constitutional power or other related legal matters which are inextricably connected with provincial and federal jurisdictional matters.
One hundred and eleven years ago the Fathers of Confederation talked about creating what became Canada. They did not restrict themselves in those discussions to technical, legal matters. They talked about the broadest essential purposes of nationhood. They understood that a constitution was to be a means, not an end in itself. At that time there was regional economic concern among the provinces in Atlantic Canada, and in Upper Canada and Lower Canada. A very real concern was expressed about the possibilities and opportunities for economic growth and expansion which would inevitably entail a crossing of this continent. In short, the problems were economic. Regional economics were an essential and central part of the confederation debates. They were a concern then. They are a concern today, and they are not related to the constitution.
Also at that time there was a concern among the provinces which were coming together to form the Dominion of Canada about domination by the United States. It was very real among all the delegates who gathered to discuss the future of Canada. I submit that that same concern is or ought to be uppermost in the minds of serious politicians today in Canada. That too is a non-constitutional matter.
One hundred and eleven years ago it was recognized that the principal means of ensuring French-speaking Canadians the
The Constitution
survival of their culture was the creation of a province in which they would be the numerical majority and in which, through the democratic process, they would be able to ensure-within a united Canada which would protect them for other reasons and which would ensure growth for other reasons-the continued development of their own language and culture. That aspect of the constitution existed 111 years ago. That aspect exists today. That aspect, therefore, is a non-constitutional concern for us today. In fact, I suspect that perhaps the one permanent accomplishment of the Parti Quebecois in the history of the province of Quebec will be the ultimate establishment of the supremacy and the sense of legitimacy and domination of the French language in every aspect of Quebec life. But that was done within the existing constitution.
There is in the history of a nation, our nation as well as any others, matters which completely transcend legal or constitutional discussion. They are economic and cultural in nature, and they are matters to which the government of the day has not addressed itself. The government of the day has failed in coming to grips with them, and to that extent the government must be held responsible for failing to generate the kinds of opportunities which could come in terms of economic growth.
In western Canada changes are needed to produce a system in the prairies whereby they could develop their secondary industry. Changes are needed in the freight rate system, and those changes would be policy economic decisions. Regional economic development in Atlantic Canada involves policy economic decisions and not constitutional decisions. So, the question of national economic independence for the country as a whole is a broad national economic matter, and again the government of the day has given worse than no attention to that important consideration.
What I am saying is that we support a number of the proposals which have been made-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the extra time. I will be brief.
We support a number of the key proposals which are in the proposed legislation. We look forward to discussing them in detail at the committee stage. We categorically reject the idea of a House of the Federation but are submitting an alternative for consideration which we think would much more adequately and democratically deal with the regional needs and concerns of the country. However, above and beyond that we are saying that the basic concerns of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians at this point in our history, as indeed was the case 111 years ago, have almost no connection with constitutional matters. They have every connection with the question

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
of economic and cultural leadership, and that more than anything else is required in this country.
Before I sit down I want to move an amendment which pertains to that other place which has been centred so much in the discussions so far today in the House. We believe that a matter as important as the Constitution of Canada should certainly be determined directly by the people who are elected by the people of Canada. We do not believe that future constitutional arrangements of this country should be determined, even in broad outline, by people who, as I said earlier, happen to be the fiefdom of the prime minister of the day or his predecessor. We categorically reject, therefore, the idea that members of the other place, the Senate, should be on such an important committee as this one is in the history of our country?
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended,
(a)	by deleting from the first paragraph thereof the words "a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons" and by substituting therefor the words "a Special Committee of the House of Commons";
(b)	by deleting from the second paragraph thereof the words "on the part of this House"; and
(c)	by inserting a period after the words "within Canada" in the fourth paragraph and by deleting all of the fifth paragraph from the said motion.



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 debated at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)- Manpower-Employment of immigrants; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Abortion-Request for review of abortion laws; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Abortion-Funding of abortion clinics.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon proposals that have been and in the future are from time to time made public by the Government of Canada, on subjects related to the Constitution of Canada;
That twenty members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the House at a later date, be members of the said committee on the part of this House;
That the committee have power to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting Their Honours to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems so advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, we are perhaps entering today the most important debate in the last 100 years, during which discussion has been going on between the representatives of different Canadian provinces. At that time, Canada did not exist. There were Upper Canada and Lower Canada and the colonies, the present maritime provinces, and I think that since that time many things have been said and written about the constitution. Lately, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) submitted to us a bill on the reform of the constitution and we are asked today to adopt a motion for the creation of a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to discuss the bill on the reform of the constitution and report to parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I doubt that such a committee on the constitution is necessary because a few years ago, in 1970, the House of Commons created a Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution of Canada. That committee went all over Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to find out what the Canadian citizens of every province and territory wanted. It visited all the provinces and 47 of the most important Canadian centres and gathered, in extraordinary quantities, testimonies of all kinds dealing with the constitutional problem and the ideas expressed by Canadian citizens, both Anglophone and Francophone, as well as Canadians of other ethnic origins. Those people contributed their ideas about what a new constitution should say. A report was tabled in the House in 1972; I

June 27, 1978

have a feeling it was put on a shelf, where all it does it take up room in a library.
Mr. Speaker, the travelling expenses of that committee across Canada amounted to between $3 million and $4 million and, today, it is suggested that another special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate be set up to travel to almost the same places, meet just about the same people, to get almost the same information that we already have in the report on the constitution of Canada.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have doubts about the need for that committee but, having heard the speeches of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), I have a feeling that they seem to agree on the setting up of such a committee, which committee will, in any event, be created to study anew that constitutional problem. It goes without saying that it is indeed true that the problem is extremely important, and that it must be looked into, in every aspect.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point that surprised me as well as the members of my party-because this afternoon I am speaking on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada and it is that this resolution proposes the setting up of a joint committee on the first phase of that constitutional amendment which precisely provides for the abolition of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I and we, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, agree entirely with the amendment introduced by the Leader of the New Democratic Party to the effect that that committee be made up only of elected members of the House of Commons whose responsibility it would be to examine the issue of rewriting the main part of the Constitution of Canada dealing with the federal administration which is being proposed in the white paper introduced a few days ago and in the constitutional amendment bill.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the representatives of parliament should be the ones to consider this bill and meet with the Canadian public since it seems that it has now been decided to meet with the Canadian public to hear their opinions. Notwithstanding the decision that will be made following that committee report and the rejection of the bill introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last week, I believe at that time the senators will have to accept the decision made by the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the constitution is nothing new, and the culminating point I believe in that discussion arrives at a time when the national unity crisis seems at its highest point since the beginning of the federation. It seems that the party now heading this government-and it has been running it for several years-has a lot of things to blame itself for with respect to the events that occurred in Canada over the past ten or 15 years. I think we have every reason to blame severely this federal government because as the political authority in this country it promoted and brought about the national harmony crisis in Canada. They talk of national unity in a country which is made up not only of English Canadians and French Canadians but also a host of other nationalities and to try to make a united Canada out of all those diverse
The Constitution
groups I believe is to daydream. We should rather talk about and try to harmonize all those cultural diversities to make a nation out of them. I think I could use here a musical image. For example, you can take a band of 20, 25 or 30 different musical instruments that have no resemblance and produce different sounds, and when you can put them together in harmony, you get melodies which are truly pleasant to listen to.
Mr. Speaker, if we do the same thing with all the nationalities which make up Canada we might build a truly strong nation, the kind of country we would like to have. I think that all Canadians in all parts of the country, maybe with a few exceptions on both sides of the linguistic border in Canada, wish to live in a strong nation but they also wish that each and every province making up Canada be strong and able to administer itself as it sees fit.
The Social Credit Party of Canada has long since been warning Canadians about the strictly strategic position of the federal government. Through its attitude, it has allowed the crisis to develop and then tried to make people believe that the same government would solve the crisis through amendments like these. Mr. Speaker, 1 have been sitting here since 1962 and I and several of my colleagues from Quebec, like our late leader Real Caouette, have taken every opportunity to urge that Canada be given a constitution recognizing certain rights for every province and not only for Quebec. I remember particularly that during the general election the Progressive Conservative party had proposed two nations as an alternative. In the province of Quebec at least, that party did not receive the approval of Canadians on that subject and was practically wiped out. In the sixties Quebec had a Union nationale government which in some respects was closely identified with the Progressive Conservative party and the leader of that government, Mr. Daniel Johnson, was also proposing the two nations alternative. We know what happened to the Union nationale in a provincial election-they disappeared completely from the electoral map of the province of Quebec.
The Social Credit Party of Canada has always claimed- and our former leader Real Caouette mentioned it several times in this House as well as in public tribunes throughout Canada-that our party was for a single Canadian nation, two official languages and multiculturalism precisely because Canada is composed of different nationalities which largely contribute to enhance the character of Canada and we must respect those ethnic entities.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of this constitution which we are being asked to reform, I think we must be very careful. In this first phase, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is proposing that we study only-or almost uniquely if you want-sections of the constitution dealing exclusively with the federal administration and in this regard the Prime Minister believes that the provinces have no say in what is already ascribed to the federal government by the present constitution. Mr. Speaker, I think we must be very careful in that respect. It is not

June 27, 1978
The Constitution
quite true that the provinces have no right to voice their point of view about what comes under the federal administration. There may be some aspects which the provinces would like to see fall under their jurisdiction. To my mind, that is where the provinces should be given the privilege of deciding whether these sections of the constitution should be kept under federal jurisdiction or whether they should be reassigned to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, if the provinces are to respect the constitution they must participate in its drafting without constraints, they must decide among themselves what they want to have administered by the central government and what they want to administer themselves. Only then could a province be said to act less than graciously if it did not respect a constitution to which it would have been a party. During a convention held in Drummondville, the Social Credit Party of Canada passed resolutions dealing with the Canadian constitution or the reform of the Canadian constitution and these resolutions have been ratified at a council or at a national convention held in Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker, what the Social Credit Party of Canada is asking for is a constitutional amendment which would allow the provinces to participate in the drafting of a constitution the same way the provinces participated in the creation of the Canadian federation in 1867. In the first phase:
Each province will have to institute a process of public consultation enabling all individuals, associations, groups or public bodies to express their views regarding the constitution. Second, in light of this first round of consultation, each provincial government will have to submit its proposal for a constitutional formula to the people of the province for their approval by way of a referendum. Third, when every province would have been given a mandate by its people, the provincial governments would initiate interprovincial negotiations on a basis of equality, that is the provinces or the government of the provinces would meet to negotiate among themselves without particiption by the federal government. Fourth, the conclusions of these negotiations should be submitted a second time to the people of every province by way of a referendum and no province would be bound to accept them by virtue of their right to self-determination.
Finally, following the results of this consultation by referendum, the provincial authorities will ask the federal government to take all legal, political and administrative steps to respect the wishes of the provincial governments, duly elected by their constituents. Mr. Speaker, in a letter dated June 12, 1968, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada wrote to the premier of Quebec and said among other things:
This renewal will give us the occasion to provide Canada with a new constitution which will remedy the deficiencies and drawbacks of the one we have been living with since 1867 and which will ratify a new pact between all citizens of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we want to ratify a new pact between all Canadian citizens, it must be by referendum, it was not done in 1867, and maybe this is one of the wrongs of this constitution. But if we want this constitution to be recognized,

accepted and respected, not only by the provinces but by all Canadians, I think we must give them the opportunity to decide, through a referendum, whether they want to accept the provincial proposals regarding what should be administered by the federal government and by the provinces. Mr. Speaker, if it is a renewed, amended or entirely new constitution that we are seeking for the next 50 to 100 years, then this constitution must stand on a solid foundation and that requires going to the Canadian people.
There is an aspect of the Prime Minister's proposal on constitutional reform which deals specifically with the representation or the changes in the Senate. It is proposed to abolish the Senate and to replace it with a House of Federation whose members would be partially appointed by the federal government and partially by the provinces. That is perhaps an improvement over what we have known so far in terms of appointment of senators, but I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we want a Senate that is truly representative not only of the regions of Canada but of all Canadians, we must go much further than what the constitutional reform bill proposes. Such a Senate could, in my view, be appointed partially by the federal government, partially by the provinces and partially by public bodies. It would then represent in some way Canadian corporations and public bodies, of which I could name a few, for example, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the workers' unions, union-management associations, chambers of commerce, the Canadian Bar, the College of Physicians and so on. Those corporations could be called upon to appoint senators, and since of course they do not change as frequently as do federal or provincial governments-which could bring about rather frequent re-shuffles in the Senate personnel set up along the lines of this proposal-the participation of public corporations would I believe stabilize considerably the Senate chamber, and stabilize it to such an extent that they could be given the task not only of monitoring the legislations brought forward by the Canadian parliament, but most of all to deal with commissions of inquiry, for example. So I think we could get a truly representative Senate made up of men from all walks of life who could do efficient services with regard to commissions of inquiry and replace those we already know, which operate at tremendous costs and which we could dispense with since we would already have the people needed to undertake the same studies and inquiries.
Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Prime Minister is looking for ideas, here is one which is not put forward lightly. The Social Credit Party of Canada is not the only one making suggestions, for I know that the public bodies have already done so, and I am making representations on their behalf calling on hon. members to seriously consider this method of appointing senators.
Mr. Speaker, there are other peculiarities in this bill which have caught my attention, and evidently for lack of time, I do not think I shall be able to examine every point. There is one,
June 27, 1978

however, on which I should like to devote a few minutes, for I think it is very important. In the section which deals with political and legal rights and freedoms within the constitution,
I read "the right of the individual to life, and to the liberty and security . . ." and "the right of the individual to the use and enjoyment of property . . Well, Mr. Speaker, it is all very nice to talk about rights, but rights without powers do not mean much. Until now, these rights were included in the Canadian constitution, but many Canadians did not have the power to benefit from them.
It is a fact that in Canada today-and I am not dreaming up these figures, because we often see them in the news following studies or statistical data-it is a fact that 20 per cent of the Canadian people, and maybe even more, live below the proverty line. Now, Mr. Speaker, for all those people who have a right to life, to freedom and to security, the use and enjoyment of property do not mean anything. We are a population of tenants in Canada and those who are not tenants live in houses owned by the BCN or other banks, guaranteed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. So 1 think the proportion of the Canadian people who own their house is very low. For these people, then, use and enjoyment of property are very limited.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should add to the constitution something that would allow all Canadians not only to have some rights but also the power to translate those rights into reality, the power to use and enjoy their own property. We talk about conflicts between capitalists and socialists. I for one would like all Canadians to be capitalists and to have their own home in Canada. I see a Canadian constitution granting these rights through the powers it would give to each and every Canadian. No matter what kind of constitution we give ourselves, if it does not provide that assurance to all Canadians, they will never respect it because too many of them will be right in questioning the value of their country, their government and their parliament.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we are sincere men, if we are truly representative members of parliament, this is precisely the point of view we must never abandon now that we have started considering this constitutional reform: to ensure that all Canadians of all nationalities, from one coast to the other, have the right and the means to feel they are Canadians everywhere in their country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment to the motion. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. The question then is upon the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6:15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 26, consideration of Bill C-36, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 2 and 4 (Mr. Crosbie).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motions Nos. 2 and 4 in the name of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In accordance with Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-36, an act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in clause 5 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 5 the following:
"(4) The corporation shall, within three months after the termination of each year, transmit to the minister a report approved by the board on the activities of the corporation for that year, including accounts prepared under this section, section 30, and section 21, and the minister shall cause such report to be laid before parliament within fifteen days after receipt thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
(5) Every report tabled under this section stands permanently referred to any committee of the House of Commons established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to finance, trade, banking, and economic affairs."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion which is in my name, I would like to emphasize that I feel that if the Export Development Corporation is given the authorizations which are set out in this bill, it will be virtually out of control. The government seems to have shown very little tendency to try to scrutinize tightly the activities of this corporation. We cannot count on the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) to keep a tight hand on the corporation. We know that from past experience. In fact, we find it wondrously strange that this minister, who at one time said he was the guardian of private enterprise and free enterprise and who was the champion of the free enterprise system, has not only joined the socialist Liberal government which has been ruling this country for ten years but also now is one of the stoutest advocates of government intervention, including the type of financing he is sponsoring through the EDC. He is now saying that more government assistance should be extended to help the various sectors in our society. At one time he claimed he stood up ruthlessly for free enterprise. In truth, the man is a phony.


Mr. Lumley:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 say that because I think we must analyse what is happening here tonight and put it into perspective. In 1969 the EDC had an authorized capital of $25 million. Through three separate amendments that authorized capital was increased from $25 million to $400 million. If we pass this bill tonight, we will authorize an increase in that capital from $400 million to $1 billion. However, that is just the beginning. On the insurance side-what is called the corporate insurance side for the EDC-we find that while its total authorization in 1969 was $250 million, and as a result of three separate amendments has reached $2.5 billion, tonight we are being asked to consider an authorization of $10 billion on that account alone. We are taking the present authorized insurance
June 27, 1978

sector of EDC from $2.5 billion to $10 billion simply by passing the bill tonight. That is on the corporate side.
On the government insurance side we find tonight that it is being proposed that we raise the authorizations from $1 billion to $3.5 billion, a jump on that account of $2.5 billion. However, most importantly, on the corporate loan account which initially had an authorized limit of $600 million in 1969 and at present is $4.25 billion, tonight it is being proposed that we increase that amount to $10 billion with this bill alone. That is for the corporate account.
On the government account we find that the government wants to increase the EDC loan amounts from $200 million, which they were initially in 1969 and which are now at $850 million, to $2.5 billion. As my colleague the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) pointed out earlier on other motions, we believe that when we add up those aggregate authorizations, which come to $26 billion, that is too much to give to any Crown corporation which appears to be out of control to the extent this Crown corporation appears out of control. His amendment suggested that $16 billion would be ample for the foreseeable future to give in authorizations to EDC. If the House decides to pass the amendments we have already debated, the net effect will be a reduction of these authorizations from $26 billion to $16 billion.
The thrust of my amendment would be to make a permanent reference from now on. If my amendment is passed, we would get the annual reports of the EDC referred to the appropriate standing committee of this House for detailed examination year in and year out.
What we are saying is that it is not good enough for parliament to be passing these massive authorizations, knowing that we will have absolutely no check on this corporation thereafter. It is not good enough, and we are suggesting in motion No. 5, which is in my name, that there be a permanent reference to the appropriate committee of this House so that there can be some detailed study of what in fact this corporation has been up to in at least the previous year.
I say this because during the committee hearings when we considered the proposals of the government, it was rather startling to learn the attitude of the officials of the EDC and, in particular, the president of the EDC, Mr. John MacDonald. He has a great name, John MacDonald. This country had a great prime minister at one time, a Conservative named John Macdonald, and I would be very surprised if that great prime minister would ever have countenanced the program which the present John MacDonald, head of the EDC, is proposing for the Canadian public through the EDC.


Mr. Danson:: The president is sober.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I refer to page 33:12 of the May 11 report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. John MacDonald was asked to give us a little more detail about some of the doubtful accounts already on the books of the EDC. The hon. member for St. John's West was doing some of the questioning, and among other things he
Export Development Act
asked for an up to date list of any countries about which the EDC was concerned. Mr. MacDonald replied:
It goes right back to the year 1965. The countries touched on are Chile, Egypt, India, Kenya, Liberia, Pakistan, Panama and the Philippines, which had one or more reschedulings.
Hon. members will recall from an earlier speech I made on this bill that this rescheduling is a rather clever wording. When a loan gets into trouble, the EDC simply brings the officials of the country involved in and tells them that it would look better on the EDC's books if they would sign a new note. The EDC agrees to throw in all the interests, take all the accumulated interest and principal, and sign a new note. That way it looks current to the EDC as well as to the country involved, and everyone is happy. Mr. MacDonald was saying that each of those countries had had one or more reschedulings. When he says that, it is interesting to note that some countries have been rescheduled more than once. They will do it one year, and if they still fall into default, they will do it the second year. Mr. MacDonald said:
In the years from 1964 through to the present time it gives the gross amount rescheduled-
He is referring to a statement he had tabled.
-the amount repaid, that rescheduled again and the amount outstanding. The gross figures are $65 million; $65.3 million has been rescheduled in total; $21.9 million has been repaid; $5.3 million rescheduled again-
That is the gimmick when they fall into default for the second time and they get them to sign up again. He went on to say:
-a further extension, and we have $38 million outstanding at the moment.
The chairman of the committee then said that he had just one last short question. Then MacDonald was asked again whether there are any additional bad loans that he is a little worried about. Mr. MacDonald replied:
The countries that are of concern at the moment in the international community are Zaire, which is under recheduling, and Turkey which is under discussion. Peru may, but has not yet become a subject of discussion.
Let us take a quick look at what we are talking about. Mr. MacDonald has said that they were taking a pretty serious look right now at three countries which may be in some trouble, namely Peru, Turkey and Zaire. If you refer to the annual report of the EDC for the last year ending December 31, 1977, you will find that the total amount for which they have signed agreements with Peru is $114,118,000. Of that amount they have already disbursed $81,662,000. They have received $9,084,000 back in repayment, with the total outstanding balance as far as Peru is concerned of $72,578,000. They still have $32,456,000 to be disbursed to Peru.
The point I am making is that surely this House would be negligent if we gave these massive authorizations which the minister is asking us to consider tonight without having some provision to ensure that EDC at least once a year can be examined by a committee of the House to find out what it has been doing, what loans it is rescheduling, and what countries it is concerned about as far as repayment is concerned. I say that

June 27, 1978
Export Development Act
in the context of Peru alone. According to Mr. MacDonald, it may become the subject of discussion, to use his words, and if it does, that will be $72 million that the Canadian public may have to reschedule, to use his words, or eventually even write off.
Mr. MacDonald also said that Turkey is under discussion. Here is the picture with regard to Turkey. The total amount of signed financial agreements with Turkey is $298,288,000. Of that amount they have $126,929,000 already disbursed, of which $18,248,000 has been repaid, leaving a total outstanding of $108,681,000. Let us take another look at this. Here we have the president of the corporation saying he is a little concerned about Turkey and about the $108,681,000 which was already disbursed to that country and not repaid.
I am pleased you are seated, Mr. Speaker, because you know what? They have $171 million of undisbursed funds waiting to go out to Turkey, to a country about which the president of this corporation is concerned, as he tells us. Surely a committee should have the right to review this situation on an annual basis to find out what is happening with Turkey in this case.
Let us take a look at Zaire, the other country which, as the president of the corporation said, has already been rescheduled, to use that beautiful term. They have financing agreements amounting to $14,993,000, and of that amount $14,726,000 has already been disbursed. Nothing has been repaid and they still owe $14,726,000, with $267,000 sitting in the kitty waiting to go out. That is the first reason I suggest we would like the amendment in motion No. 5 to be passed. It will give this House, through the appropriate standing committee, at least an opportunity to take a look once a year at the activities of EDC to see to what extent they will cost the Canadian public millions and millions of dollars in possible write-offs if they are not run in a prudent and responsible way.
I have referred to the authorizations which the corporation now has, but let there be no doubt that this corporation is so out of control that if the bill which is before us is not passed tonight, it would, in all likelihood, run over its present authorization ceiling because the corporation has given out commitments to such an extent that there is no way in which it could stay below the ceiling under which it is now required to stay.
Let me clarify here. I am not suggesting that the corporation is necessarily legally obligated. What I am saying is that it has certainly given encouragement and, if you like, moral commitments to various people to make extensive financial arrangements, and if it even lived up to only half of the so-called moral commitments, it would be way over the authorization that either this or the previous parliament has given to the corporation.
What I am saying was spelled out again in the committee as reported at page 40:11 of the committee's proceedings on June
6.	On that page 1 am reported to have asked the president of EDC the following question.
I would be correct in saying of $6 billion in moral commitments, approximately half is out to either communist countries or OPEC countries.
I should make it clear that it was already established by the president of EDC that there was approximately $6 billion in moral commitments that were outstanding which they were hoping to honour, at least substantially, in the future. What I was trying to do was identify to whom those moral commitments were made, and what did I find? After asking Mr. MacDonald if I would be correct in saying that of the $6 billion in moral commitments approximately half is out to either communist countries or OPEC countries, I said:
I calculated you are up to about $2.7 billion of a pipeline to either OPEC or communist countries.
Mr. Hegan, who is vice president of finance for EDC, responded by saying:
Yes, Mr. Stevens. On what we have discussed at this juncture, that is correct. As I said in the introductory remarks, the character of our commitments will follow very closely the credit-worthiness characteristics and the efforts of Canadian exporters. One would find amongst the countries with oil revenues and some of the eastern European countries a strong credit-worthiness.
Let us put that into perspective. I have said that they have run over, certainly in moral commitments, the authorizations that parliament had given them, and not only have they run over those authorizations but they have done so to the extent of about $2.7 billion in favour of communist and OPEC nations. Surely a committee of the House should have the right to inquire to what degree the EDC is right in extending that kind of financing to a communist state. Communist states function in an entirely different way as far as their labour structure and wage scales are concerned. Consequently, by our encouraging development in some of those communist states, we are encouraging further unfair competition with our own producers in Canada. 1 will come back to that a little later.
The other thing we have to ask ourselves is to what extent should we, as EDC has been doing and proposes to do, be lending money to OPEC nations? Has the government totally forgotten that Canada is a nation which is running up significant current account deficits with the world, whereas the OPEC nations are running up huge current account surpluses? Let me put it into perspective, Mr. Speaker. We have a Crown agency proposing to lend hundreds of millions, even up into the billions, of dollars to the OPEC nations. These nations in 1974 had a current account surplus in the aggregate of $70.5 billion. In 1975 they had a current account surplus of $39.5 billion and in 1976 it was $41 billion. This figure was repeated generally in 1977. The figures which 1 have been referring to do not come from the government, but from where we get so much of our detailed economic information, the international economic report of the president of the United States transmitted to Congress in January of last year.
The point I am trying to make is that when we are dealing with a corporation which has requested authorization of $26 billion, it behooves this parliament to ensure that if they are granted any such authorization they are required to return to a committee of this House to give an accounting of their activities at least once a year, such as I am suggesting in motion No. 5. I say that because how else can you get some type of perspective into EDC or at least an explanation for the

June 27, 1978

Canadian public as to why it feels justitied in loaning nunareus of millions of dollars to OPEC nations which have current account surpluses of the magnitude I have been referring to, while we are running current account deficits of something over $4 billion per year.
I say that because I feel that so much could be done to help domestic industries with at least part of the money EDC is proposing to lend various countries around the world. Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. The fishermen on our east and west coasts need financing to help refurbish their fishing fleets. Money is needed to build the Bay of Fundy project, and more money is needed to develop the hydroelectric potential in the lower Churchill and in Labrador. And we all know that Montreal is still without proper sewage treatment facilities. These funds could be used to complete such projects as these.
There is also the Toronto area urban transportation problem. The Toronto area, Mr. Speaker, an area that I am familiar with, is a startling example of the inconsistencies of this government. In Toronto we need $58 million to help in the realignment of trackage coming in from the west of Toronto to Union Station. We cannot put any more commuter trains on the lines without that realignment. Railways are a federal responsibility and yet to date the government in Ottawa has consistently refused to lend or in any other way provide the $58 million which is needed for that realignment on the west side of Toronto.
Does it make sense that we have a government which says there are no funds available to help commuters get to and from work in the Toronto area and yet have a Crown corporation which is proposing to put out hundreds of millions of dollars that in many cases will help to build transportation facilities in foreign countries? I see that the minister is in the House, and I wish, before this debate concludes at the report stage, that he would get up and at least offer the government's explanation as to why there should be funds available to help people in other countries with their transportation needs but no funds available to help, for example, the commuters in the Toronto area with their transportation needs.
I know that the justification for much of the Export Development Corporation activities is the hope that they will create jobs in Canada. But would it not be doubly advantageous if we could not only create jobs in Canada but, in creating those jobs, build some of the infrastructures we need in this country, such as the commuter type of transportation facility which is needed to help our own people in their own livelihoods?
I would like now to go to the Canadian west. The grain handling facilities have needed improvement in efficiency for years. In many areas farmers have to leave the grain in the fields in the hope that they can get it off early enough in spring to avoid the rains and subsequent rotting. As we know, British Columbia would like to revitalize its pulp and paper industry. But to such projects as these Ottawa states that there are no funds available or very limited funds. However, the government seems to have funds to help countries like Poland, Cuba,
Export Development Act
Iran, Romania, the United States and even Russia with similar projects which are being completed in those countries.
The $26 billion package the government is proposing to award in this bill to EDC represents more than 10 per cent of all the goods and services produced in Canada this year. That is the magnitude of the figures we are talking about. To put it another way, the $26 billion is approximately two and a half times the total federal budget a mere ten years ago. For one Crown corporation to have such authority is unbelievable, but to have such authority without the proper scrutiny of a committee of this House is irresponsible. That is why I am proposing in motion No. 5 that there be this reference at least once a year to somehow police EDC activities.
Some of my colleagues have pointed out that not only is the bill proposing to give EDC this massive authorization, but there is nothing in it to prevent the corporation from loaning money to the very nations which are going to use those funds to become more competitive with us in international trade in subsequent years.
My colleagues have mentioned the $160 million loan for a pulp and paper mill in Poland, money the EDC put up despite the fact that our own pulp and paper industry is struggling to stay alive in the face of increased competition abroad, and despite the fact that everyone expects the Polish people to be one of our major competitors in the European paper market.
EDC has rationalized this decision by pointing out that Poland would buy Canadian equipment for its plant. However, this just does not hold up because in a state run society, as I have already mentioned, the Polish worker is paid far less than his Canadan counterpart, and ultimately Poland will be able to undercut Canadian prices. The pulp and paper industry, which is operating at something like 75 per cent capacity now, will be hurt even more, costing thousands of Canadian jobs.
The Polish loan is only the tip of the iceberg. The EDC, for reasons of its own, seems bent on clobbering this industry. Recent EDC projects include loans of $102.6 million for a forestry development in Iran, $57 million for paper mill projects for Argentina, and still more millions for pulp and paper concerns in Peru and Romania.


Mr. Rodriguez:: And the United States.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the hon. member points out, they are also putting money into the United States to help build steel mills and pulp and paper facilities there. The EDC is putting up $400 million to help others compete with our forest industry. The government, it seems, expects Canadians to help everybody but themselves.
Just recently I spoke to the president of a pulp and paper concern. This company in fact was referred to in the hearings before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. He pointed out that the financing the EDC is extending to other pulp and paper concerns all over the world is so favourable that if his company wished to build comparable facilites in Canada there is no way they could get
6804

June 27, 1978
Export Development Act
comparable financing. He also pointed out that if the company wished to extend or modernize their pulp and paper facilities, they were in the ludicrous position of having to go to other countries to see if they could get the same financial treatment that EDC is giving to foreign concerns. This would put them back in a competitive position while the EDC pursues its financing activity in foreign countries. Surely at some point the minister will see how ludicrous the situation has become where industry after industry is basically selling state financing as opposed to selling their goods.
The unfortunate thing is that while one year's work may be gained now, 15 or 20 years ahead the Canadian public will pay heavily when today's borrowers default on these loans. We have been a source of ready and cheap money for projects in the United States, in Russia, in the oil rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Venezuela. In fact, by the end of 1976 EDC had loaned a total of $275.8 million to the Arab bloc and oil exporting countries, and this year it granted Algeria a staggering line of credit of $1.2 billion.
If hon. members are interested in what Algeria is doing with our money, which is relatively long-term funding at a low interest rate, they should read the current edition of The Economist, the British magazine. If they do, however, they will not sleep tonight. The Algerians are proposing to invest that money and make 180 per cent on it as they develop their petrochemical resources.
Has sanity been lost in this country, Mr. Speaker? We are told that we do not have sufficient funds to develop the tar sands and Arctic gas resources, but apparently we have a $1.2 billion line of credit that can be made available to Algeria to develop their natural resources, such as gas, at a profit to them of 180 per cent. This is another example of why we would like a reference to a committee of this House in order to get this thing aired at least once a year.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, at the end of 1976 the OPEC nations had accumulated more than $45 billion in trade surpluses while Canada hobbled along with a current account deficit of $4 billion per year, and if you aggregate that it is about $16 billion. Yet we are loaning them money. We are in deficit while they are in substantial surplus.
Equally perplexing are the loans to Cuba, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania and other communist countries. It is no doubt desirable to encourage trade with the east, but must we subsidize it with low-cost loans, on average at about 8 per cent interest, while our own industries are forced to pay much higher rates or cannot even get money? Would it not be much better if the government invested at least a portion of this $26 billion at home where we need jobs, where industry needs a hand and many infrastructure projects should be completed to help our commuters get to work in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, or Edmonton? Our fishermen need new fleets to enable them to haul better catches and farmers in the west need better facilities to help harvest their crops. That is why we would like a committee review of the activities of the EDC. It cannot be left with the authorizations that are proposed in this bill without tighter scrutiny by a suitable committee of this House.

I see my time is almost up and I want to give others an opportunity to speak on my amendment if they so desire. But this situation is serious, Mr. Speaker. In five to ten years Canadians will be asking why there was such negligence in 1977 and 1978-why authorizations were granted so irresponsibly to the Export Development Corporation without better scrutiny by parliamentarians.
That is what is at stake, Mr. Speaker. That is why I urge hon. members to support my suggestion that there be a permanent reference to a standing committee of this House to ensure that we have an ongoing scrutiny of the activities of the EDC. What we are asking for is not unique. There is a permanent reference with respect to Air Canada's activities and whose annual report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on an yearly basis. Surely if it is right for Air Canada it should also be right for the Export Development Corporation, which will become one of the major Crown corporations of Canada if not the largest.
That is the case I should like to put in support of my amendment as set out in motion No. 5. I will have more to say about motion No. 6 and possibly I will speak again on third reading, but I urge all hon. members not to accept the EDC bill lightly. In future, they are going to be called to account for any irresponsibilities of the present time. I caution them that those irresponsibilities will surface if we do not ensure that there is proper committee review of this corporation's activities such as I have suggested.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long but I should like to say a few words to set the record straight. I would inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to speak at length at third reading stage of the bill.
I should like to set the record straight on one specific point, however. In the past number of years the Export Development Corporation has been before one committee or other of this House of Commons on an average of every six months. It certainly can be called when the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are considered every year. I see little purpose in the hon. member's amendment and I suggest that the House vote against it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, if that is the minister's rebuttal of what the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has said, he obviously does not recognize the reality of what goes on around here at estimates time. He knows as well as I do that on May 30 the estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House and that there is no way of keeping the EDC henchmen of that department before the committee for any protracted period of time in order to get answers. I was in attendance during debate on the last two bills. These are the only occasions that we have had an opportunity to question the Export Development Corporation. In the last six years we have had representatives of the EDC before the committee twice with bills. It is at the committee stage when we attempt to get answers from the corporation.
June 27, 1978

There are some reasons why I support the amendment of the hon. member and there are some things about the EDC that strike fear into my heart, and they ought to strike fear into the hearts of every member of this House and indeed of the nation. The first instance that really struck me as frightening occurred on a day when the president appeared before the committee. 1 was questioning him about loans to countries that have less than what might be called acceptable human rights practices. Specifically we dealt with Chile. The president of EDC said: "We do not moralize". I asked him: "Does that mean you will do business with the devil?" And, Mr. Speaker, he said: "We would do business with the devil depending on his creditworthiness". So as long as he is creditworthy the corporation is prepared to do business with the devil.
The attitude that has been taken by the officers of the Export Development Corporation is my first concern. Even the United States has become most enlightened in respect to the way in which they hand out aid and lend money. Indeed President Carter, when speaking to the Organization of American States, told the Latin American states, who are members of the OAS, that in effect the United States expects them to clean up their act respecting human and civil rights if they expect to receive any aid and loans from the United States, which goes to show that the U.S. is concerned about moral aspects.
The minister and his henchmen in the EDC cannot act as a collection of Pontius Pilates, washing their hands and saying: "Well, we do not worry about their moral attitudes and moral commitments." That is despicable. Now the minister is smiling-


Mrs. Campagnolo:: He is smiling at your hypocrisy.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a big joke to have some sort of moral behaviour in the way we do business in this country and the way our Crown corporations do business.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member interpreted my smile as if I was being hypocritical regarding the intent of his remarks. I was smiling at the evangelistic approach which the hon. member takes to the matter. When he discusses morals, he could well campaign in Alberta and 1 would invite him to Crowfoot. 1 am sure his fervent fever would be well received.


Iona Campagnolo: To Camrose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would like to suggest to the hon. minister that that is not a point of order but a point of debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to extend that debate but I could say that we experienced a visit from the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to Nickel Belt. He came there to speak. Some reports said it was the most boring speech ever heard. They went on to say that people were put to sleep with statistics which often times were questionable. Indeed, I wish the hon. minister would return to the evangelis-
Export Development Act
tic fervour which I have seen expounded in my office when he was a member of the official opposition; it seemed to fit him better then. Some may say the smile the minister has on his face-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he return to the motion under discussion.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 was just about to do that. In passing I would say the smiles can only be gas or some such thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Another concern arose about the EDC and was brought out in committee. At one time the president of the EDC sat there, rubbed his hands and said: "We made $13 million profit last year. We are in business to make profit and we will double that next year."


An hon. Member:: With no taxes.


John R. Rodriguez: With no taxes, the hon. member says. But there is the concept, Mr. Speaker, of money-grubbing, making money, profiteering. These people are the same ones who will stand up and argue that they are really trying to help third world countries deal with their economic problems. One would say that they are trying to take advantage of third world countries and make all these millions of dollars.
The way in which the EDC goes about this whole business of lending money in the international market is a real concern. From time to time there is a useful editorial in the Northern Miner on the mining industry. Even though I take a subscription to it, I do not use this paper as my handbook for speech making or comments on the mining industry. However, if one is selective it can be put to use. One has to assume the people who write the Northern Miner and who contribute to it have some knowledge of the mining industry and have some concern about the way in which we develop this industry in Canada.
In this connection I quote from the Northern Miner of November 3, 1977. The following appeared in their editorial of that date:
Although Guatemala and Indonesia cannot be charged with having precipitated the current situation-
The "current situation" means the lay-offs of workers in the Sudbury basin. The editorial goes on to say:
-looking further down the road to the years when nickel markets improve, the reality is that there will be more nickel producers laying a claim to a share of the nickel market. And no amount of castigation of Inco's policies or motives will alter that fact. We sowed, so shall we reap.
The Export Development Corporation loaned Inco $77 million for developing its subsidiary operations in Guatemala and Indonesia. I have heard all the arguments in committee. I have heard all the arguments with respect to the EDC. The Export Development Corporation, I am told by officers of the company, is like a stock record. They say the purpose of the EDC is to encourage and to expedite the export of Canadian prod-
80045-63)4

June 27, 1978
Export Development Act
ucts and services. That basically is the thrust of the Export Development Corporation.
Next we are told that there are certain criteria which govern loans that the EDC makes. First of all is the product viable? Second, is the borrower creditworthy? Third, will the project go ahead? Those are the three criteria on which loans are disbursed by the Export Development Corporation. In the case of Inco's loans, Inco-Guatemala and Inco-Indonesia, one could not doubt that Inco was creditworthy; that is, the parent company. They are creditworthy.
Another criterion was the viability of the project. I have some difficulty as to how the EDC came to the conclusion that the project was a viable one. We have been through this in committee and I will go through it again, again and again until we get through to the people who are responsible for running the Export Development Corporation. Firstly, Inco's operations in Guatemala and Indonesia are lateritic nickel. A lot of energy is needed to smelt lateritic nickel, which is different from the sulphide nickel found in the Sudbury Basin where the ore contains sulphur which acts as an energy agent in reducing the ore. So, in effect, nickel would have to go to $3 a pound before it actually becomes profitable to develop the lateritic nickel of Indonesia and Guatemala. Nickel is now $2.15 a pound. It would have to go to $3 a pound because both those countries have to import a considerable amount of oil at world market prices. That makes the smelting process of that lateritic nickel extremely expensive.
The next step in the game of those corporations operating in Indonesia and Guatemala is to establish a subsidiary in those countries. They then go to the EDC for a loan in order to establish and look for oil so that they can bring that oil on to the market and supply it to their subsidiaries to smelt the nickel. At that point it becomes extremely profitable to exploit those resources. That would have an adverse effect on Canadian nickel and Canadian employment. That is the reality of the situation.
The EDC says that looking at the long term, the project would go ahead anyway. One surely has to set some priorities among the projects for which they have application. Once the money has been loaned, a more advantageous project may come along which does not challenge the Canadian employment picture down the road. The EDC would then not have the money to get into the other project. It is therefore a matter of setting priorities with regard to how the money is loaned.
There must be a sense of responsibility on the part of the Export Development Corporation to ensure that when money is loaned it will not have a disastrous effect on the long-term Canadian employment scene. Does that sound unreasonable? Well, it is not. I have looked at the American version of the Export Development Corporation. I got out the ground rules for the EX-IM Bank in the United States. I want to quote clause 2(B) 1 (B) which governs the activities of the EX-IM Bank:
-in authorizing any loan or guarantee, the Board of Directors shall take into account any serious adverse effect of such loan or guarantee on the competitive position of United States industry, the availability of materials which are in short supply in the United States, and employment in the United States.
It was under that very section that the United States EX-IM Bank turned down an application for a loan from an American steel company to build a steel plant in Trinidad. If you look down the road, you can see that in the long term it would have a disastrous effect in terms of American employment. However, that does not bother the EDC. They are proud to say they made millions of dollars in profit. That is their basic motivation. It would not matter if it were Hitler himself; they would even do business with him.
Indeed, this was taken to the ridiculous when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce appeared before the committee. I put this example to him. If an automotive parts company in Canada applied for an EDC loan in order to establish a plant in the southern United States, would EDC make the loan, even though it might have a disastrous effect on the automotive industry in that country? The minister replied yes, they would make the loan. That is ridiculous. What is the basis for that? Why are they not farsighted with regard to the way loans are made through EDC?
We have very serious problems. This country accepted over
1,000	refugees from Chile, not because they were being treated properly by that government but because they were put out of the country and living in refugee camps in Argentina, Panama City and Mexico City. When they came to this country, we heard their horror stories. We heard of President Allendc committing suicide by shooting himself with a machine gun 16 times.
Today I picked up a press blurb from the EDC saying they had just completed a loan to Chile of over $40 million. However, we cannot get information on some 1,600 people who are missing. We make a great deal in this House, and quite rightly so, about the dissidents in Russia. We pass Standing Order 43 motions galore. We express a great deal of concern for the plight of dissidents, people who want to leave the Soviet Union to go to Israel. Yet in this situation we have 1,600 people about whom we have no word. We have been promised by the chief of the junta that we will get this information. However, EDC is prepared to lend over $40 million on a long-term basis at very favourable interest rates at the same time as we are accepting refugees from that unfortunate country.
These people have to be checked and questioned. The bureaucrats in our Crown corporations and government departments have become our masters. One would think they are the ones running the country. No one would believe it is the elected members.
This government which goes along with that sort of clothes closet approach is not doing a service to Canada. They should be the first to say this sounds like a reasonable amendment, that EDC should appear every year before a standing committee of the House in order to be questioned by, and be accountable to, parliament. For the minister to stand in his place and

June 27, 1978

offer in exchange for that sort of detailed and extensive appearance and questioning one or two meetings during the estimates period is really an insult to parliament and the people of Canada.
There are very serious problems with the way in which we are lending money. The people of this country are concerned. 1 know those in my constituency are extremely concerned. The fact is that while Inco workers are becoming employed, their government is using their taxes and the credibility of Canada to borrow money in order to lend it to the very people who created the unemployment problem in their area. That is a real slap in the face for them.
The minister also said that EDC loans to companies such as Inco assist third world countries to develop. I say that loans to multinational resource companies do nothing of the sort. In the case of Guatemala, the loan was made to a subsidiary of Inco, a very large and powerful multinational mining company.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister has left the chamber. In addition to elaborating on some of the points made by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), I wish to correct a few of the remarks the minister contributed to the debate on motion No. 5.
As I understand it, the hon. gentleman said my hon. friend was in error and that there was no need for any reference back to the House because the corporation was always available to the finance committee for examination. I thought the minister had learned more than that during his 20 years in the House. Perhaps we did not teach him very well over here, but, of course, the finance committee has no right to hear from officials of EDC unless there is an appropriation to be voted on, and the stated purpose of this bill is to remove the necessity for the corporation to come back to parliament for more money.
1 wish to advance a few arguments in support of the motion by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe. The first has to do with accountability. The House should know it is the Canadian taxpayer who is eventually responsible for the commitments of the EDC. Despite the fact that the corporation is increasing its borrowing from the private sector, it is the Canadian taxpayer who stands in the breach. Any time the management fails to keep things on a profitable plane it is the Canadian taxpayer who will have to pick up the pieces.
Export Development Act
It is interesting to note that as of April, two months ago, the corporation owed the government SI.3 billion while its loans from outside sources amounted to less than $600 million. When Mr. MacDonald was questioned in the committee about the relationship of EDC to parliament, he said:
We quite frankly stated that we were an agent of the Government of Canada and my presumption is that if this corporation and its board of directors made a mess of it and went bankrupt then the Government of Canada would have to stand behind it.
So there can be no question about where responsibility lies. Because of this situation we say the corporation should be required to come back once a year to account to parliament. The taxpayer, as a co-signer, relies on parliament to protect his interests. If the government wants to extend the corportion's already wide limits, then the voters have a right to expect parliament to insist on accountability by the corporation on an annual basis.
As things rest, everything depends on the judgment of the corporation's management. We are talking about a lot of money. It was disclosed in committee that there is no limitation contemplated other than the statutory ceilings we are talking about in the case of individual deals backed by the corporation. The agency is now in the position of making commitments to the value of $6 billion. There is nothing which would prevent bad judgment on the part of the directors from bankrupting the organization in the event of a bad deal, though I agree this is not likely to happen when there is such a big cushion to rely on.
Mr. MacDonald was asked in the committee whether there was some limit beyond which the corporation would not lend in connection with an individual deal. He replied that there was not. There was no limit beyond which the EDC might go in pledging the credit of the Government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to conceive of a corporation which does not operate on the basis of there being some limit governing its deals. Even Citibank has set limits on the size of the loans it makes to other countries, and it is worth noting that Citibank declined to lend Canada more than $175 million in connection with the recent bond issue. We say, therefore, that in the absence of an upper ceiling a regular referral is necessary to enable parliament to keep an adequate watch on what is going on.
Up to this point I have been looking at things from the point of view of the taxpayer. Now, perhaps, we should look at them from the point of view of parliament in relation to the corporation. It is obvious that the EDC has become quite a political animal and that it is incurring criticism from many quarters. It has taken to publicly criticizing in print paid for by its own funds a member of parliament, naming him in local newspapers and in its own newsletter. It has run special advertisements in the Financial Post at a cost of over $20,000 at the same time as this bill was before the House, in addition to running other advertisements in newspapers across Canada.
We must remember that the EDC is a Crown corporation, that it is responsible to parliament and that it should not be

June 27, 1978
Export Development Act
attempting to mobilize political pressure on parliament for its own aims. This question of the accountability of EDC to parliament is critical and central to the amendment proposed by my hon. friend.
I do not wish to take up time unduly but 1 think I must say a few words about the attitude taken by the minister himself-1 see he has returned. I refer to his irresponsible statement earlier, his remark about the committee always having access to officials of EDC, when he should have known that the corporation's affairs cannot be referred to the committee unless there is an appropriation to be voted upon.
It is interesting, too, to note the statement made by the minister accusing the opposition of unduly delaying the progress of this bill. The record will show that the Export Development Corporation first approached the government seeking higher ceilings last October. It took only a month or so for the government to approve new ceilings, but it took five months, until March 20 of this year, before Bill C-36 was brought before the House. So only three months have elapsed, including second reading and days spent on committee hearings, and it seems likely we shall be getting rid of the bill this week.
Better control is needed over a corporation which has a record like that of EDC and which is now asking for such limits. Control is needed over a government which would give such powers and such expansive limits to a corporation which does not have to come to parliament on a regular basis. All the Canadian taxpayer has to rely upon is the promise of the present administration that some future legislation might be coming along this fall. However, if that is the case, we are not quite sure why we have to have this bill before us right now. I urge all hon. members, in the interests of protecting their own voters, if not their own votes, that they should be supporting motion No. 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This motion being the last motion, I will now call in the members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. What about motion No. 6?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: There is one more, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had the impression that motions Nos. 5 and 6 were to be debated and voted on together, but since they are to be debated and voted on separately, the vote on motion No. 5 stands deferred and the House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-36, an act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 5 the following new clause:
"7. The corporation shall, before it implements the increase in authority provided by this Act, take into account the effect of such implementation on the Canadian economy and specifically the long and short term effect on employment in Canada."
He said: Mr. Speaker


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Dispense.


John R. Rodriguez: It is good to see that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is in the House tonight. It should be funny.
Let us look at the amendment we have before us. It calls upon the EDC to incorporate a certain criterion before approving a loan. It proposes that the criterion should be that the EDC take into account the long-term and short-term effect on employment. Is that an unreasonable amendment?
I want to reiterate that the EX-IM Bank of the United States is governed by a particular clause which provides that loans issued take into account long-term and short-term effects on employment in the United States. It is difficult for a Canadian worker, whether he works in the pulp and paper industry or in the nickel industry, to see stories about employment being created in his own industry while at the same time he reads in the newspapers that his government has subsidized the company he works for to establish a branch plant operation in a third world country. For him that spells disaster in the long term.
Inco has been granted loans to operate in Guatemala and Indonesia. The EDC claimed it was creating 4,000 man-years of work by lending $77 million to Inco, but Inco laid off 2,300 workers in the Sudbury basin. In the Sudbury basin we do not have an infrastructure around the nickel and copper industries.


Iona Campagnolo: Not again.


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) can say "not again" all she wants, but she knows very well she has problems in her own riding.


Iona Campagnolo: We lost 500 jobs under the NDP.
June 27, 1978


John R. Rodriguez: There is unemployment in the minister's riding. Why does she not get out of that government and walk across the floor as her buddy did today? Twenty-three hundred workers were laid off, but the public relations people say
4.000	man-years of employment were created. That was for the short term. In the short-term analysis we have no doubt that with the $77 million loan to Inco the EDC did create
4.000	man-years of work, but it was very high technology and short-term work.
We in the Sudbury basin do not have an infrastructure around the nickel and copper industries. We have no research and development based around that resource. The resource is ripped out of the ground, put in boxcars and shipped out to be processed abroad and then sold back to us as finished products. When any attempt is made by entrepreneurs in the basin to diversify operations, they are told that there is no venture capital for that. No wonder there is not. Our Crown corporation, the EDC, is raising money in Canada's name and lending it to multinational mining companies so that they can go abroad and exploit the resources of third world countries. Much the same was done to us many years ago.
There is a legitimate question in the minds of Canadian workers. As they lose their jobs they see loans being made to the companies they work for. Their companies go abroad, not to develop for the benefit of companies abroad, but for the benefit of themselves.
We have the same situation in the paper industry. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi is in the House. The EDC made a loan to Bear Island Paper Company. It is a partnership of Bato Company Incorporated, Dow Jones and Company Limited and the Washington Post Company. That was a loan for $47 million to Virginia for the establishment of a pulp and paper operation. It will be probably one of the most modern plants.
The paper workers there have a concern. They have written to me expressing their concern about the pulp and paper companies in this country which have not modernized their operation so that workers can be more productive. When I was out in Vancouver I found that the MacMillan Bloedel Company's pulp and paper section was decrepit and that their plant needs to be modernized.
In Timiskaming the pulp and paper mill has been closed down. What happened there? EDC has come up with $47 million to develop the pulp and paper industry in the United States which, as EDC has admitted, will be filling markets that are currently being filled by Quebec plants. I just do not see the sense in that sort of operation. Here we have pulp and paper mills in this country having to compete and fill markets, and the EDC is lending money for the long term at favourable interest rates to develop competition for these pulp and paper mills in Canada and moving into the southern United States of all places, which is not noted for modern industrial relations techniques. They have right to work laws on their books, no strike laws on the books, their minimum wage is $2.35 an
Export Development Act
hour, their plants do not have to be heated in the winter and their government gives them years and years of tax free holidays. Those are the hidden realities, but the EDC steps into the breach, as Mr. MacDonald, the president, would say, because "we can make a buck and we are not interested in the long-term effects."
The EDC uses three criteria in making loans. The first is that the plant be creditworthy. Is the operation going to make money? Is it a flexible operation? Will the operation go ahead anyway?


Mr. Kaplan:: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question. Does he honestly believe that if Canadian companies do not participate in the development of the nickel resources in the United States, they would lie undeveloped, or that if Canadian companies which manufacture this mining equipment did not get the business developing in Indonesia or Guatemala, that the great nickel resources in these countries would lie undeveloped? Does he believe that these countries with their rich nickel resources are lying starving and waiting, and that without Canadian participation they would remain undeveloped and in poverty?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned nickel resources in the United States. He also spoke of Indonesia and Guatemala. It is a good question and I should give the parliamentary secretary credit for asking a good question. Probably he was not in the House when I mentioned the EX-IM Bank because I am always making comparisons. Section 2(B) of the act governing the EX-IM Bank says:
-in authorizing any loan or guarantee, the board of directors shall take into account any serious adverse effect of such loan or guarantee on the competitive position of United States industry, the availability of materials which are in short supply in the United States, and employment in the United States.
It was brought out in committee that in the United States there was an application from a borrower to establish a steel plant in Trinidad. An American company wanted to build that steel plant and it applied to the EX-IM Bank for a loan. The EX-IM Bank considered all the criteria applied by EDC, and in applying the fourth criterion said that to develop the steel plant in Trinidad would, in effect, be competitive and create unemployment in the future among American workers. So the loan was turned down. That does not prevent some other bank, the Japanese equivalent of EDC or the German equivalent, from lending money to build the steel plant in Trinidad.
I am saying to the hon. member that the resources in Guatemala, for example, are not developed by that country, although the impression is left that that is so. I do not know how many times I have to bring this to the attention of the hon. member, but in effect it is an Inco subsidiary that is developing the ore in Guatemala and Indonesia, and it is developing it not for the benefit of the Guatemalan people but for the benefit of the multinational mining company. If Guatemala itself were applying for the loan, then all the criteria would come into effect; that is, the criteria for putting technology into the hands of third world countries and helping them to exert some control over their economic destiny.

June 27, 1978
Export Development Act
But that is not what we have here. We have EDC, promoting imperialism in third world countries, because in effect that resource is being scraped off the top of the ground, put in ships and shipped out to Wales where the final processing is done and the manufacturing of the finished product takes place. It does not take place in Guatemala. So the resource is exploited, but not for the benefit of the people. When the operation is fully operative in Guatemala, only 700 people will be hired. It is a highly capital intensive operation. The labour intensive part of the operation is at the processing and finishing end of the project.
So the suggestion that somehow or other we are helping Indonesia and Guatemala develop their resources through EDC loans is not correct. We are not doing that at all.
Earlier I spoke about pulp and paper mills. We did the same thing with steel plants. One of the things we need to do in Cape Breton is to modernize the steel plant, and it takes a lot of capital to do that. EDC lends millions of dollars to a Canadian company to go down into the United States eastern seaboard to develop a modern steel plant, which makes it very difficult for the Cape Breton steel company to compete for those markets with the kind of decrepid equipment they have and the resulting lack of productivity.


An hon. Member:: You are comparing apples and oranges.


John R. Rodriguez: I am not comparing apples and oranges at all. I would like all these yahoos who are making comments to come up to Nickel Belt, where they will be invited to a public meeting at which 1 would like them to stand up and make all these comments about EDC doing such a great job.
There is also another aspect. The jobs which are created in the short term accrue primarily to the southern part of the province of Ontario. The jobs are created in Toronto and Montreal and some are spun off to Vancouver. Thus, we have the EDC stimulating employment in areas which are already heavily industrialized. For example, if a plant has an order to complete, it will more than likely expand its operation where the original plant is located. So what we have is EDC acting with one set of ground rules while DREE operates with another set of ground rules. Then there is the taxation system which operates with a different set of principles. There is no cohesion whatsoever with respect to the manner in which the loans are given. There is no plan to diversify industrial development into areas which need it.
There is also the question of the effect of employment and the loans of the EDC. In none of the questioning during the EDC committee was there any indication from the officers of that corporation that they even consider the long-term effects on Canadian employment. They are more concerned with showing a good profit. There is also the fact that they do not make moral judgments on the regimes with which they do business.
It seems to me that in this particular instance we should consider the concept-and no one can deny that it is a good

one-that when dealing with Canadian finished products and services there is a good argument to be made for an Export Development Corporation which assembles capital for the export of Canadian finished products. However, when it begins to come into areas where Canada for years has been very predominant, for example the resource sector, it seems to me that it begins to undo whatever good it may have accrued in terms of job creation in the long term.
The taxpayers of this country must be assured that no corporation which they support with their tax money is used to create their unemployment some years down the road. This is what is going to happen. There is no question at all, for example, that when the nickel industry starts coming on stream it will have an adverse effect on the areas dependent on the development of nickel. We cannot get diversification in our areas. We saw today where we would love to have an auto parts plant build some cars and sell them to southern Ontario for a change, but we cannot even get that in the Sudbury Basin. It seems the only strength we have is nickel and copper, so why, if there is money to be loaned, is it not loaned in the Sudbury area so we can diversify our industrial base?
That is a very legitimate question, Mr. Speaker, and a question which people are asking. In spite of the gentle answers and smiles we received in committee, it is a very legitimate question for a man or woman who has worked five years in a nickel or copper mine and who depends on that industry for their income. While the EDC officials may come before the committee and make very esoteric and flim-flammy arguments about how we are, in effect, helping Third World countries and really creating employment, it does not answer the question raised by the Canadian taxpayer who feels the effect of the unemployment created by the loans of the EDC.
I suspect that members opposite will vote against this amendment which we have put before the House. I notice that they are banging their desk tops. That is an indication that they will vote against an eminently wise and judicious amendment. It is obvious they are not concerned about unemployment in this country, particularly the hon. member for Northumberland- Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) who has close to 30 per cent unemployment in his area. He should not be sitting there braying like a donkey; he should be interested in what this amendment says.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct when he says the rate of unemployment in my area is high. That is why I have been doing something about it over the last four years. I would not think of braying like a donkey, because I think that is his department.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been working for four years to improve the 30 per cent unemployment rate since he first came to this House, but it is still 30 per cent. That is work only a Liberal can do, and it is either very bad mathematics or playing around with Canada Works or Young Canada Works grants. I wish that he would participate
June 27, 1978

in the debate on this amendment because it is an extremely important question with respect to his own area where there is pulp and paper industry. The hon. member should be concerned about the effect of that $47 million instead of getting up on spurious points of order. Rather, he should participate in serious debate on how we can make the EDC work for the benefit of Canada, not to the detriment of Canada.
The first and foremost consideration is how this loan will affect employment in Canada in the long term. It is a very wise amendment and I urge hon. members to support it. Let us make the EDC accountable to Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about this bill and I had hoped that the minister would have given greater consideration to it. This matter was brought to his attention in committee, and it does not seem as though there was very much done about it. Instead, it seems that the government is intent upon supporting business in other countries at the expense of developing our own.
We in Alberta are very concerned about developing our own oil and gas industry. It seems that we will have to do it alone with very little help from the federal government. However, when you consider that the EDC has a line of credit in Algeria of $1.2 billion and we in Alberta are having difficulties developing the petrochemical industry, it is a gross injustice.
I would like to put on the record a quote from The Economist of June 17, 1978 which states that Algeria will spend $28 billion on oil and gas projects between now and 1985, according to a master plan prepared by the American consulting engineers, Bechtel of San Francisco. It will build ten new gas processing plants, six plant extensions, eight reinjection units,
6,000	miles of pipeline, eight gas liquification plants and three oil refineries. The whole oil and gas program will last 30 years. In return Algeria expects to get $250 billion from oil and gas sales over those 30 years.
If those estimates are correct the Algerian government will receive a return of 180 per cent on its investments. It needs every penny of it because 100,000 school leavers will be available on the labour market between 1985 and 2000. By 1993 Algeria plans to sell oil only in its refined state and not as crude.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that Alberta does have a grudge and 1 hope hon. members opposite recognize this. We want to sell processed gas and build petrochemical plants too. We want to get into the business, but as long as the government insists on helping other countries we will be held back. It is all right, of course, to do this in certain cases, but to do it at the expense of our own country to me is incomprehensible.
The minister comes from Alberta. I hope he will give consideration to the fact that we in Alberta want to get the business too. We do not want to be cast aside because of policies that are hurting us so badly.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to have a vote tonight so I shall continue my remarks on third reading.
Export Development Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


John R. Rodriguez: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, I am to take the recorded vote on motion No. 1 and other motions at this time. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1 which will also dispose of the vote on motion No. 3.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 2 and 4 lost.
The question is now upon motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 6 having been disposed of earlier this day, the question is therefore on the motion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) that Bill C-36 be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Mr. Paproski:: Next sitting of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I sense that the bill will be read the third time at the next sitting of the House.
It being after ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 40 the House will proceed to the questions raised upon the adjournment.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, because of an oversight it will be impossible this evening to provide an adequate answer to the question of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). It has been agreed that we will proceed with question No. 2 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, the year 1979 has been designated as the International Year of the Child by the United Nations in commemoration of the signing of the UN declaration on the rights of children some 20 years ago. The purpose of that declaration was to enhance the living standards of children around the world, to improve their nourishment, their education and their total development. All members support that resolution.
On June 9 of this year I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he would mark the International Year of the Child in Canada by reviewing Canada's abortion laws. My basic argument at that time was, and still remains, that the greatest gift society can give to a child is, of course, the gift of life. The Prime Minister responded by saying it was not up to the government to give life but rather for God and parents.
Most of us recognize that life is a gift of God, but what I was asking the Prime Minister that day was whether he would review Canada's abortion laws which are removing the right to live inasmuch as they are taking life away from 60,000 Canadian children. The facts before us are a condemnation of each one of us. In 1976 there were 54,536 legal abortions performed in Canada, an increase of 10.4 per cent over the preceding year. It is estimated that an additional 4,000 Canadians had therapeutic abortions performed outside Canada's borders. We know that the figure for the last calendar year exceeds 50,000.
The government has argued that it is not involved in this taking of life by Canada's hospitals and medical personnel who should be dedicated to the preservation of life and the alleviation of suffering. The point is that the government is involved, and it is very directly involved with its grants system.
Planned Parenthood of Canada has largely become an abortion referral agency. More than 90 per cent of its funding comes from federal government grants. The Department of National Health and Welfare has granted $600,000 in the last fiscal year. The Canadian International Development Agency has granted $39,865 in the last year. One might ask whether the purpose of the Canadian International Development Agency is to provide aid to the third world. What is it doing granting aid to Planned Parenthood of Canada?
I could go on, but I know that my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), will delve into this subject further. However, I want to impress on the government that this blot on society cannot go unchecked any further, because all statistics-and I do not want to speak
8004 5-64 Vi

June 27, 1978
Adjournment Debate
about statistics; I want to speak about people-indicate that legal abortions are increasing on the average by 10 per cent per year.
What is happening to respect for life? What is happening to our civilization? Has life become expendable? All of us have been horrified time after time by pictures of the holocaust of World War II in which life became cheap. I ask sincerely whether we are any different today. If life is expendable for the unborn child, how much longer will it be before life becomes expendable at the other end of the age spectrum? When will society decide to remove life from those who are aged, infirm or terminally ill?
I do not want to play God, but I want to impress upon my colleagues here today-and this subject crosses all political partisan viewpoints-the point that we as a civilization are doomed if we do not respect life. We can have it no other way.
In the study of nations, if one wants to look at comprehensive studies like Arnold Toynbee's from a secular point of view where nations have lost their moral bases and justified everything on the basis of expediency, those nations are doomed.
These are serious words, but I am totally convinced as I stand here that we are going down that road. If we have any respect for life at all, I plead with the government to make the International Year of the Child a year of life and a year in which 60,000 Canadians will not face the spectre of death. I ask the government to reconsider. The Badgley committee stated that if abortions were to continue, the value of life would be lowered. I believe that as a civilization and as a nation we are at the crossroads. I plead with the government to reconsider and to give life to Canada's youngest citizens.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I can respond on behalf of the minister to all of the comments of the hon. member this evening. I respect a great number of the points the hon. member has made. One thing I could say on behalf of my minister would be that the federal government would very much like to see an even handed and equally fair administration of the laws of Canada right across the country and throughout each of the provinces. It does not assist us to have our laws interpreted unfairly or differently in the provinces and regions of Canada.
Whereas the abortion provisions fall within the Criminal Code and are a matter of federal jurisdiction, hospitals come under the control and administration of the provinces, and the enforcement of our Criminal Code and the administration of our justice is also under the control of the provinces. Therefore, it is up to the provinces to co-ordinate their approach to and their interpretation of this subject matter.
Without doubt the issue of abortion is a deeply emotional and moral one, and there are bound to be definitive and strongly held feelings on various sides of this issue. It would appear that no matter what words might be used in such a law, their scope will often be determined by the canons of local

medical custom-and those in turn are often set by varying social values in the different regions of this country.
I should point out to the hon. member that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson), will undoubtedly expand on some of his points and questions in relation to Planned Parenthood, and I understand the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) will also raise some of those points this evening.
I could point out to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) that provision is made in the Criminal Code for provincial ministers of health to review information relating to the circumstances of therapeutic abortions. The justice minister has said that he is not in a position to instruct the provinces on the matter. However, he has stated that he and his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), either directly or through their officials, would be meeting with provincial health officials once those officials have had a thorough opportunity to study the findings of the Badgley report, and the provincial review of the abortion procedure may be one of those topics to be discussed.
I could go on to read some portions of the Badgley report, but 1 think the hon. member is perhaps familiar with them and time will not allow me to do so this evening. Perhaps 1 could discuss this privately with him, if he so wishes.


ABORTION-FUNDING OF ABORTION CLINICS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on June 9 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made one of his cute remarks, which was designed to deflect attention away from the real issues, saying that only God and parents can give life. He said that in partial answer to the question posed to him by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). My question to him was based on the fact that while it is true that only God and parents can give life, it is the abortion clinics which take that life away. I asked the Prime Minister whether or not he would reconsider the policy of this government in funding abortion clinics or groups in society which offer abortion counselling to people and withdraw some of that funding to those organizations.
There are two principles involved in government funding of organizations. Number one, the government has no business funding organizations which have the goal of changing lifestyles. That deals with social programming and programmed responses, and it is a system of robbing citizens of genuine choice.
I have before me the press release of Planned Parenthood Association of British Columbia dated May 16. It says:
The problem is that more babies are being born to those least prepared socially, emotionally or intellectually to function as parents. Many of these disadvan-taged-from-birth children will likely become mentally and physically ill, with a potential for violence that is of serious concern.
June 27, 1978

It appears to me that Planned Parenthood is becoming something omnipotent when they can predict which children- not yet conceived, not yet born-are going to become problems in society. It seems to me that Planned Parenthood is reducing family planning to predetermined choices made by some omnipotent person who decides who has the right to be born. 1 remember a European leader who just 40 years ago decided that only those people who are blond and blue-eyed ought to have the right to bear children.
I hope that this government will not continue to fund organizations which are of that kind of mentality, whether it be different criteria that they use or not. It so happens that my mother had a grade three education and my wife's mother had a grade one education, neither of which were in one of Canada's official languages. I suppose that on the criteria which Planned Parenthood has established neither of those people would have qualified to bear children. My experience with them, however, has been that they were intellectually brilliant people irrespective of their lack of education. That is the first principle, that the government has no business in funding organizations which are determined to change lifestyles.
The second principle is that voluntary organizations must prove broad public support to obtain government funding. If they establish public support by raising money locally, which would indicate that they are enjoying public support, then perhaps the government could examine whether or not the organization deserves broader funding from taxpayers across Canada. The government should fund such organizations only to the extent of matching dollar for dollar.
The kind of budget which Planned Parenthood has established indicates to me that there is no broad public support for that organization. This is indicated by the fact that it could raise only $30,000, while on the other hand it is asking the government to supply $650,000 a year. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) asked the government on April 20 to provide increased funding to Planned Parenthood because they were not keeping up with the cost of living. His rationale was the fact that there were 12,956 teenagers who gave birth in the past year.
There is more education on sex today than ever before. There is less restraint in talking about sex, and there are more teenage pregnancies, but the hon. member for New Westminster or the government presumes that more education will reduce this incidence. The government has no business getting into the funding of organizations which do not enjoy broad public support, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will not bring up the business of how much they give to Serena. That is not the same argument, nor is it the same kind of organization. It is an organization that works for itself.
It seems to me that this whole organization is now deciding that fertility and pregnancy is some kind of disease, that unplanned children or unexpected children are some kind of pestilence on the corporate body. We need to reconstruct our thinking on that. I ask the government again to reconsider their funding policies of Planned Parenthood, to decrease that
Adjournment Debate
funding, and to justify it only on the basis of legitimate family planning and counselling, not on abortion clinics which this organization broadly supports.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that essentially the hon. member's question was the representation that funding in respect of certain groups be withdrawn. I recall that on or about April 6, 1978, I indicated to the hon. member that the Department of National Health and Welfare is attempting to reduce the dependence of these organizations on federal funds. I would point out to the hon. member also that in so far as I am aware the federal government does not provide funds to organizations to change lifestyles. Maybe that is a point upon which the hon. member requires more explanation, but it is not the case.
It may be of assistance to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) to look back upon the historical development of family planning services and the provisions of the Criminal Code, as well as established programs financing, in order to understand the funding policies of the federal government in this area.
In August 1969, parliament amended the Criminal Code in order to allow for the dissemination of information concerning contraception. In the same year, parliament amended the Criminal Code to allow for therapeutic abortions when, in the opinion of a therapeutic abortion committee, the continuation of pregnancy would or would likely endanger the life or health of the woman.
Following the tabling of the report of the committee on the operation of the abortion law, which stated that most people across Canada from whom information was obtained did not wish to see changes in the law, the federal government indicated that it was not prepared to propose changes in the Criminal Code at the present time.
The Department of National Health and Welfare provides sustaining grants to two national voluntary agencies, namely Serena Canada and the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, in accordance with their objective of providing family planning services and information on all contraceptive means. These agencies received $175,000 and $600,000 respectively, based on the extent of their activities in the area I mentioned. The department does not fund agencies whose activities are predominantly directed towards implementing changes in Canadian law, nor does it align itself with either the pro-abortion or anti-abortion positions.
On September 11, 1973, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), the former minister of national health and welfare, stated:
In terms of general policy, the federal government does not regard abortion as an acceptable method of birth control; I should like that point to be made very clear. It does, however, recognize that unwanted conceptions may occur as a result of failure to use an effective method of contraception or any contraception at all. In these cases, there may be justification for therapeutic abortion, not because the pregnancy was unplanned but because it may have given rise to

June 27, 1978
Adjournment Debate
conditions which, in the opinion of a therapeutic abortion committee, provide appropriate grounds for termination in accordance with the Criminal Code.
The minister went on to say:
Birth control clinics are often visited by women seeking advice about unwanted pregnancies. To turn them away without help would be inhumane and could be regarded as tantamount to an attempt by the clinic's staff to impose their personal views about a subject on which society has expressed its collective will through the law.
On March 4, 1977, he also announced that the federal government would work with provincial governments to ensure that family planning services are made available to all those who wish to use them, and at the same time would intensify its own planning information program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 11:10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 28, 1978