1979-01-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The city of Calgary is growing at the rate of more than
2,000	people per month. There are eight or more new, large districts in Calgary North and other areas where the Post Office has established postal depots, without boxes in many cases, and the depots are open only from eight o'clock in the morning to four o'clock in the afternoon. These new areas are made up mainly of young people from all parts of the country, and in many cases both spouses work and are unable to get their mail as the depots are locked by 4 p.m.. Family allowance cheques and personal mail are unobtainable.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):	-
That the Postmaster General personally look into this serious situation and see that 4,000 boxes, unused and presently in the possession of the Post Office, are placed in these depots, and that the said depots remain open so that people, with or without keys, can obtain their mail after working hours; and, further, every effort should be made to see that all people get delivery of mail the same as established in other parts of the city of Calgary, in view of the present discriminatory policy, so that all taxpayers and Canadians have equal opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In the past three weeks the redemption of Canada Savings Bonds has accelerated, and again last week Bank of Canada figures showed a net decline of $90 million for that week, according to The Globe and Mail. This compares with $52 million the previous week and $22 million the week before. The average last year at this time was running at just $10 million. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That in view of the fact many of the owners of these bonds are just plain, ordinary Canadian citizens, the Canadian government increase the interest rates on these bonds to protect these ordinary citizens and/or consider seriously indexing these bond issues to the consumer price index.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


UPGRADING OF WINNIPEG ARENA TO NHL STANDARDS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that officials of the city of Winnipeg, as well as those of other Canadian cities, have approached the federal government to aid in upgrading arena facilities to bring those arenas up to National Hockey League standards, a move which would allow for the possible expansion of the NHL into those Canadian cities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the federal government give the same support to representations from Winnipeg as it has to construction projects of sport facilities in other Canadian cities.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented for debate at this time with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

January 26, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BEREAVEMENT
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That, considering the tragic events of yesterday that stole away the lives of four young Toronto students and sent 29 others to hospital, this House wishes to express its deepest sympathy to the bereaved families and the students and faculty of Weston Collegiate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since World War II, only four major western nations have had fiscal policies successful in keeping inflation under control, namely, the Eisenhower government of 1953, the de Gaulle government of 1958, the West German government of 1948, and the Diefenbaker government under which the inflation rate in Canada was kept to 1.6 per cent annually between 1957 and 1963.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the finance committee of the House of Commons forthwith initiate a study into the prudent fiscal policies of these governments with a view to replacing the "spending our way to prosperity" policy of the present Liberal government with the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning national security, and specifically in regard to two individuals, namely, Michael Pitfield, secretary to the cabinet and Eldon Black, under secretary of state for external affairs.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Prime Minister confirm that Michael Pitfield was refused top security clearance by the armed forces security services within the past two years, and that this was one of the main reasons for the removal of Walter Dabros as head of armed forces national security and, further, that the Prime Minister confirm that Eldon Black, among other duties, has been and is directing the replacement of RCMP security officers at Canadian embassies abroad with security officers of the Department of External Affairs; and, finally, that Mr. Black is involved with others in a planned phase-out over six years of the entire security services of the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House welcomes the action of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in suspending for six months the proposed guidelines respecting Indian health services, and now calls on the minister to rescind the Blue Cross and Blue Shield contract entered into on behalf of Indians in the maritime provinces so that during the coming six months all Indian health services will clearly be the responsibility of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can only be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 26, 1979



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and touches upon his announcement yesterday of the appointment of a new deputy minister to the Department of Finance.
In view of the fact that in the past decade our budget surplus of $393 million has gone to a budget deficit of $12.1 billion, that the current account surplus nine years ago of $1.1 billion is now $4.4 billion, that unemployment is up 50 per cent and inflation is now at 9 per cent, compared to 3.3 per cent, with bankruptcies up dramatically, will the Prime Minister indicate if the appointment of the new deputy minister yesterday was in anticipation of a change in direction as far as the Department of Finance is concerned?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Minister of Finance can help the government, as in the past, to create jobs at a rate faster than any other industrialized country in the world, and if he can duplicate the record of the past ten years of creating more than 2.5 million jobs-


Mr. Lawrence:: Good grief!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -I think that he will have demonstrated that the Canadian economy is in better health than any of the members of the opposition are able to put it into.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would add to the Prime Minister's comments that if the deputy minister is instrumental in duplicating the record so far in this decade, God help Canada if the figures on inflation, unemployment, trade deficits and budget deficits continue to soar.
With regard to that general subject, would the Prime Minister indicate if the promotion of Mr. Shoyama to the position of special adviser in his own office is a further indication of the downgrading of the Department of Finance and the upgrading of the Prime Minister's office to deal with questions of the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so concerned with the deficit continuing to soar, he should speak to his own leader who wants it to soar by another $2 billion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is always complaining that he is being taken out of context, yet he repeatedly takes the Leader of the Opposition out of context when he refers to questions of the deficit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on October 20, 1978, I asked the Prime Minister if he could give the House an explanation for the soaring bankrupticies in this country, which in 1970 represented one in ten, compared to the United States, and at the time were up to seven in ten as compared to the United States. The 1978 figures are up by 28 per cent over 1977. At that time the Prime Minister stated that he was not aware of these figures and that he would read the report to determine an explanation.
Now, three months later, could the Prime Minister indicate to the House of Commons if he has an explanation for the startling increase in bankruptcies in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that I take his leader out of context. I wish that he would put him in context, in the context of the hon. member's statement in November that we should hold budget spending steady, with the clear statement by the Leader of the Opposition who wants to increase the deficit by $2 billion. Let him put that in context.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Answer my question.


STEPS TO REDUCE NUMBER OF BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, but perhaps I should repeat the question asked by my colleague.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, three months ago, said that he would be taking some specific steps in looking at the bankruptcy rates within our economy, what steps, in fact, has he taken during this period of time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None, Mr. Speaker.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that the government has taken no steps to deal with the bankruptcy rates in Canada. But if the Prime Minister is not doing anything about the situation, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the business rate in Canada increased by 41.1 per cent in 1978 over 1977, would the minister be prepared, particularly within the small business sector, to look into areas which would reduce the bankruptcy rate-for example, amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we put certain measures in our last budget in order to help small businesses in Canada. For example, we changed the rules regarding capital gains and small businesses are now taxed at a rate which is half that of big business rates. It is a much better rate than their counterparts have in the United States. The legislation for small businesses in Canada is very good, and I am supported in that by Mr. John Bulloch who was very happy with what was done for small businesses in the last bill.

January 26, 1979
Oral Questions
Of course, when operating in an open economy as opposed to a controlled economy everyone takes their chance, and if the competition is very strong-a situation which everybody prefers-then some businesses will fail. It is what we call a market economy.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Small Businesses Loans Act is not operating as effectively as was expected? In fact, a recent poll indicated that 95 per cent of small businesses applying for assistance were turned down.
Could the minister advise whether he has taken this matter up with the banks and, if not, would he now be prepared to do so in order that the small business sector may have an opportunity to take advantage of the act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be willing to look into the matter and talk to the banks, but I think there is a lot of credit available in Canada. In fact, for the third year savings in Canada are at a very high point.
I am told that the liquidity of the banks and other financial institutions is very good. In fact, not long ago one of the banks increased the rate for mortgages and then decided to put it back because there was too much competition. I think, therefore, that there is a lot of money available in the banking system for big business and also for small business. If there is some special problem that the hon. member wants to refer to, however, he can indicate it to me and I will talk to the banks.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration which concerns the Outreach program and particularly women.
On January 18, the Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Outreach program that was specifically directed at women received a notice that the funding would be terminated as of March 31. As the minister knows, that program aided hundreds of singleparent families and many hundreds of women in the last year in Saskatoon: it helped get people off welfare and found them work.
Will the minister reverse the decision of his department, make sure the program is not cancelled and that funding will continue for the Saskatoon Outreach program which is so valuable?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the department recognized it was providing a valuable service. In fact, over the last years we have provided $191,000-close to $200,000 in funding.

We have done a survey of the various projects, however, and it was the feeling of regional officers that this particular service could be adequately performed on a cost-benefit basis by the Canada-Employment centre in that region and that a comparable service could be offered to women in the region.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There are some 21 other programs that are similar in national scope across the country. Since the minister will not save the program in Saskatoon, can he assure the House that the other 21 programs will not be cut back and, indeed, will not be terminated but will continue to provide the excellent service they have given in those communities?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, these have all been looked at and some are in the process of being looked at. In some areas they will be continued with exactly the same funding, in other areas the project will be continued with less funding, while some will be cancelled as is the case with the one raised by the hon. member.
We are giving a close and careful look to each Outreach project with a view to determining which should be funded at the full level, at a reduced level, or cancelled altogether.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister may add that the Outreach program in his own riding, as I understand it, is getting increased funding. I should like to ask the minister why, when he makes these decisions, he does not consult the head of the women's employment division in his department or the people involved in the training and development program. The information I have is that these people have not been consulted, and they have the direct knowledge of the value of these programs to women. Why have they not been consulted?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to check the allegation of the hon. member. I know that we have had a co-ordinator in this particular area since 1972, and it would be strange if that individual was not consulted. I will check to find out if that is the case.


REPORT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN- EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the remarks made earlier this week, and the report of the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women published on January 10, with respect to the failure to involve the Advisory Council in the evolution of the employment strategy of the minister's department?
Has he conferred directly with the chairman or other representatives of the Advisory Council because of the very serious allegations raised about the lack of consultation and lack of input in terms of the formulation of employment policies and their impact upon women?
January 26, 1979


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the hon. member's question, I have not had an opportunity to meet with the chairman, Mrs. Rousseau, but in fact at the committee, when they were talking about job creation and encouraging workers to establish more stable work patterns, she indicated:
The government may achieve this goal, not by reducing the benefits of the workers who are more likely to be affected by the a high unemployment rate, but rather by guaranteeing reasonable jobs and adequate training programs for women. The CACSW will go on studying very closely the employment strategy suggested by the government to inform women of their rights and job opportunities.
So, in fact, they have been studying the employment strategies: they have been looking at them and they have indicated that they are going to continue to do so. If there are representations to be made, they can be made. Mrs. Rousseau said:
Women are full-fledged members of the labour force with the right to the same opportunities and advantages as their male colleagues on the work force.
And, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Rousseau was quoting me.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would give this House an undertaking because of the very serious concerns raised about the lack of present consultation. Would he consult with his senior officials to see if there was any consultation with women or with the Advisory Council on the evolution of the employment strategy? Would he arrange, at the earliest possible date, a meeting in order to deal directly with the number of specific concerns that were raised at the recent quarterly meeting of the Advisory Council concerning the employment strategy and its impact upon women?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members on both sides of the House know, my office door is open. I have met with many, many groups. There is never any difficulty getting in to see the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and I have received valuable assistance and advice from a whole series of groups in this particular field.
I will check with my officials to find out if there was some consultation or not on this specific matter. I am prepared, obviously, to meet with the president at any time she wishes in studying all the projects she says their group is going to undertake, and hear representations from them because they do have valuable points and ideas to put forward.


JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR IMPROVED AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION TO MEMBERS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As there are regulations governing the implementation of federal job-creation programs such as the Canada Works and the Young Canada Works programs, can the minister tell us why hon. members cannot acquaint themselves with those regulations? After all, they are delegated to represent their electors.
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member has a hard time getting the regulations that govern the Canada Works program. If he has any more trouble in that regard, he can phone me and I shall give him the answer.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the minister suggests that I call him. I must tell him that during the month of December last, I called twice without getting an answer. Finally I wrote to the minister and here is the reply he sent me, as sharp as a north wind: "The regulations you speak of in your letter dated November 8, 1978 were designed exclusively to guide manpower advisers in their respective provinces." 1 wonder why hon. members cannot get those regulations since they too are appointed to represent their electors who seek their advice with regard to the implementation of the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, every hon. member knows the details of the projects in his own riding; if the hon. member wants additional information, he can contact me and I shall give it to him.


AIR CANADA
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am informed that he has made representations to the British government in connection with consideration being given by the government and the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom to switching air operations from the present Heathrow Airport to Gatwick. Air Canada, in consequence, will lose, in a little over 2Vi years, $270 million.
What representations have been made? What is the present position? Has the British government given an indication that it is prepared to reconsider its desire to shift the operations at these airports?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As briefly as I can, Mr. Speaker, the sequence is that this matter emerged some months ago between the Board of Trade, the appropriate government agency in Britain, and Air Canada. At that time Air Canada indicated its opposition to the move. That opposition was reinforced in representations which I and the Minister of Transport made to the then minister of the Board of Trade, Mr. Dell. Within the last few weeks the matter has been moved to a government-to-govern-ment basis as a result of conversations between our Prime Minister, Mr. Callaghan and others in December.

January 26, 1979
Oral Questions
The note which was referred to in the House a few days ago was delivered in person by our High Commissioner a week ago yesterday, I believe. Consequently, we are now awaiting the reaction of the British government. As of this morning, just shortly before coming into the House, no formal response- which, obviously, a formal note requires-had come from the British government. I stated in the House the other day, and I welcome this opportunity to reiterate it, that the Government of Canada agrees with Air Canada and will vigorously support all of its efforts to remain at Heathrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it not help in the deliberations that are taking place if this House were to pass a resolution strongly objecting to a course of action that will be so detrimental to Air Canada? Surely the House in general would be prepared to do that. If so, it would add strength to the representations being made by the High Commissioner.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, no one in the House is more aware of the sensitivities and sensibilities of the British government and British parliament on these matters. I will consider it, if it appears it would be advantageous to do so. Certainly, we on this side would have no objection. The only qualifying consideration would be whether or not the judgment on whether it would be beneficial is sustained. I will look at it over the weekend.


MEASURES TO STIMULATE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY AND REDUCE TRADE DEFICIT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As the increase in our trade surplus last year was due solely to increased sales of our raw products, which provide relatively few jobs in their production and require absolutely no sales effort because of the great desire of other countries, particularly the United States, to obtain our raw products, and in view of the statement by Statistics Canada this morning that our trade deficit in fully manufactured products increased by 10 per cent during the past year to $12.2 billion from $11 billion in 1977, I ask the minister, will he not now come forward within the next week and announce to the House just what he is going to do to stimulate our manufacturing industry so that we can start to overcome this enormous trade deficit in fully manufactured products, the ones that produce the jobs?
I ask this especially in view of the fact that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has stated that if we can overcome this enormous trade deficit, we can provide no less than
800,000	additional jobs for Canadians to work at, and completely eliminate unemployment in this country.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I just happen to have the music to answer the hon. member's question. Basically, manufacturing

jobs are up substantially in Canada this year over a year ago. Capacity utilization is up substantially, nearly 5 percentage points, over a year ago.
With regard to manufactured goods, I have the Statistics Canada figures with me. Imports of manufactured goods, inedible, are up 5.2 per cent. Our exports are up 24.5 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish the hon. member would take a pencil and write these down. I have the exact figures for our imports of manufactured goods. The figure is $33,121 million for 1977. In 1978, imports of manufactured goods totalled $34,857 million. Compare that with the exports of our manufactured goods and the substantial increase is obvious. In 1977, we exported $30,042 million, and in 1978 we exported $37,412 million. That is a substantial increase in exports of manufactured goods. Naturally, this has been reflected in greater factory utilization and greater employment in the manufacturing field.


George Harris Hees: All of which adds up, Mr. Speaker, to the Statistics Canada announcement this morning that the trade deficit in fully manufactured goods had increased by 10 per cent to $12.1 billion, as opposed to $11 billion a year ago.
As the minister demonstrated when he was in China, figures confuse him, and when they do he is inclined to make statements that have no relation to fact and are ridiculous. In view of this, have we in this House any more reason for having confidence in the figures that the minister produces to try and convince us of his argument than did the Chinese businessmen when he tried to sell them trucks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as minister responsible for the Alaska Highway pipeline project. It has to do with the current status of this multibillion dollar project.
In view of concern registered in Hamilton and Washington that the project might not go ahead because of a possible deal between the United States and Mexico on the delivery of gas, can the minister give the House some kind of assurance that the pipeline will be built and, notwithstanding possible alternative arrangements the Americans may be exploring, can he assure us that the Canadian steel industry will not be delivered the kind of body blow that would be felt with hundreds of jobs lost? If this project is in jeopardy, it would have a profound impact on Hamilton and other parts of the country.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Government of Canada is concerned, there is absolutely no weakening of interest or determination in pursuing the successful completion of this project.
With regard the hon. member's reference to an American-Mexican deal, I believe that suggestion was put to rest by Mr. Schlesinger in his testimony before Congress recently when he placed his priority on Alaskan gas as his first objective in the energy field. That, of course, indicated his support and the support of the administration for the northern gas pipeline. Yesterday, I had a conversation with Mr. Schlesinger. There is no question whatsoever about the common resolve of both governments to accelerate as quickly as possible this particular project.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the minister's assurance. However, my understanding was that the closing date on tenders for steel was last October. I would like to know when steel contracts will likely be awarded, and whether the minister will give the companies adequate lead time for plant expansion, jobs, and so on. Can the minister give us any hope for relief in unemployment in the steel and electronics industries in Hamilton and other areas of this country affected by this project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the Christmas break it was announced in the standing committee dealing with the northern pipeline, by the pipeline commissioner, that I had approved-and a subsequent press release confirmed this-the procurement plan for Foothills. That procurement plan, of course, authorized Foothills to begin negotiations with Canadian steel companies both in Hamilton and in Saskatchewan for the supply of Canadian pipe for this particular project. Therefore, there is absolutely no delay whatsoever in the processing of the Foothills' procurement plan. 1 have not heard in the past two weeks the results of the negotiations between Foothills and the steel companies.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the recommendation of the Task Force on Canadian Unity which refers to the right of every Canadian to have access to radio and television services in both the French and English languages, will the minister tell the House what he has done, and what more he plans to do, to speed up the CBC's so-called accelerated coverage plan?
French-speaking Canadians in many northwestern Ontario communities in which they are a majority are becoming increasingly impatient with the CBC's foot-dragging in provid-
Oral Questions
ing this service, one for which parliament has already voted the necessary funds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am aware of this situation, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has been pertinacious in bringing it to my attention-and I have discussed it with the CBC authorities. I will renew those discussions to try to make sure the hon. members's representations are given full and sympathetic consideration.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, Bell Canada announced a scandalous 37 per cent increase in profits for 1978, a year in which it was allowed higher rate increases by the federal government.
In view of the need to control inflationary pressures in Canada, can the minister tell us whether he will take the necessary steps to roll back the rate increases recently given to Bell Canada, thus reducing the cost of living burden on Canadians?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The government is concerned about these increases, but as far as I know we have no power to roll back at the present time. But I will look into that.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The minister should be aware of the over-all profit increases announced yesterday by Statistics Canada, showing profits increasing at a rate of 34 per cent. Can he tell us what steps he and his department are taking to get the corporations to reduce their prices, in view of this exhorbitant increase in profits, so as to lessen the burden of inflation this year?


William Warren Allmand: We have no program to try to prevent companies from earning profits, or high profits which may in some cases be due to their efficiency and to their ability to sell their products well. On the other hand, there could be cases where profits are unwarranted, and I shall be glad to look into the matter further.


POST OFFICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question in line with the motion I sought to move under Standing Order 43.
There are eight new communities in Calgary-probably more-in which 30,000 or 40,000 people are obliged to get
2600

January 26, 1979
Oral Questions
their mail from what they call the post office depots which open at 8 a.m. and close at 4 p.m. There are no post boxes there, with the result that these people are often unable to get their mail. This city has been growing at a rate of more than
2,000	a month and the fight for better service has been going on for months.
Will the Postmaster General take a look at the situation personally, because the present arrangements are highly discriminatory, unfair and unjust?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would be most happy if I could give door-to-door delivery of mail to every Canadian but, as the hon. member knows, we are operating under financial restraints and we have to abide by them.
The conditions the hon. member has described exist in other areas. They exist in my area, in the Scarborough area of Toronto and, of course, in Calgary; they exist in suburban areas where there is a fast-growing population. Maybe a more positive way of looking at this would be to say that if these areas are growing so fast, it is because the economy of the country is so good.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the answer, but it is no answer at all. I am pointing out that 4,000 boxes could be put into this depot so that people could go there with a simple key, just as was done 40 years ago, and pick up their mail. The present system is holding up pension cheques, baby bonus cheques and all that class of mail. I would ask the minister to analyse his answer carefully and give me a proper answer with a view to giving these communities some service.


Mr. Lamontagne:: I am as much concerned as is the hon. member about the postal service in these areas and I can assure him that, especially in Calgary and in the Toronto area, we have special teams now trying to give people as quickly as possible, the required service.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. His negotiators are once again entering into talks with civil aviation inspectors of the air operations group: the date is January 30,1 believe, if the meetings are not cancelled again.
I should like to ask the minister whether the negotiators will enter those meetings in a spirit which will resolve the lack of comparability which exists for that unfortunate group as between them and their counterparts in the military, and the air controllers group and their counterparts who supervise in the civilian sector? This meeting is very important for the civil aviation standards of Canada. Can the hon. gentleman give us some idea of the attitude his negotiators will be taking?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously our intention to enter into the negotiations in good faith. As the hon. member knows, this group has since 1975 been contesting the status of the AIB and some of its rulings through the administrator and through the Federal Court. The matter was resolved last fall. Nevertheless, on two separate occasions we gave the group the maximum increases to which they were entitled under the AIB guidelines, even though there were no negotiations, and we are now in the process of entering into negotiations for the current period.
It is certainly our desire to arrive at a settlement and to do so in the most open and fair manner possible.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has there been any investigation by officers of his department into whether there has been trading in any manner, shape or form by members of the public service in the shares of Pacific Pete at the time of the purchase and the offer by Petro-Can of Pacific Petroleum shares?


William Warren Allmand: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: My question is for the
House leader, Mr. Speaker. When will the government call for second reading the bill dealing with the Arab boycott?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, that bill is part of the legislative program and it will certainly be my intention to deal with it as quickly as possible. Indeed, I would consider having consultations with party representatives to determine whether there might be a way of expediting this bill.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one addressed earlier to the Secretary of State. When Bill C-58 was passed, a number of border com-
January 26, 1979

munities lost the only television channel they had, because they had been getting American television. The CBC then came forward under the ACP, saying they would put in an English television service, though most Canadians take coverage in at least one language for granted and now are getting coverage in the second language.
When will the CBC finally fulfil its promise to operate an English service in southeastern Manitoba? The corporation now says it could not do so in 1978 because of restraint, though those commitments had been made well before the government's present restraint program was introduced.


John (Moody) Roberts: I am pleased the hon. member has referred to Bill C-58, which has now been in operation for four years, because of the extraordinary success of that measure, one which was passed despite the opposition of members on the other side of the House.
As far as the hon. member's representations as they relate to Manitoba are concerned, I will discuss them with the CBC and come back with an answer.


REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council, who is responsible for the GATT negotiations.
I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council the following question. Since there seems to be an appalling lack of communication between Ottawa and Washington, and some sources in Washington have indicated that unless there is some move made by Canada the whole agreement on the GATT package would be in serious jeopardy, and since Canada is one of the only countries that has made no move to sign an agreement, what are the problems at present, and why is it taking so long for our negotiators to complete this very important agreement with the United States which will eventually lead to the completion of the GATT talks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, I should say that while progress has been made generally, no agreement has been signed and, strictly speaking, no moves have been made to sign such an agreement and probably will not be made until the spring because negotiations are still continuing. It is not a matter of surprise that comments will appear in one country or the other suggesting that more should be given by Canada. I would regard that as a normal bargaining technique. We are still negotiating intensively with the United States and with other countries and we will continue to do so.
I do not see any benefit in attempting at this stage to negotiate in public or to give explanations why Canada is taking certain positions. We are taking the general position to
Oral Questions
get maximum advantage for Canada, and it seems to me that the hon. member should commend us for having drawn such a reaction from our other partners.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, nobody is asking for public negotiations. I should like to ask the minister the following question. Since the United States has made its offer with the other countries and has an agreement with the European Economic Community, and since that offer cannot stand unless Canada makes additional offers-up to this point there has been very little movement made-would the minister inform the House what instructions the government intends to give to Canada's negotiating team so that the present round of tariff talks will be concluded as quickly as possible?
There is a great deal of concern in the United States and in some circles in Canada that these talks will not be completed and that Canada might withdraw from tariff negotiations altogether.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can put to rest that concern. If there is any concern that the talks will not be completed or that Canada will withdraw from the negotiations, there is absolutely no foundation to any such suggestion at this time and it is my firm expectation that there will be a successful conclusion to these negotiations. But these are negotiations and Canada is attempting to get the best possible result in the service of Canadian interests. At the present time, it is not my intention to disclose publicly the nature of instructions that are given on a day to day basis to the Canadian negotiating team.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At a series of votes at the United Nations General Assembly, apparently Canada voted affirmatively on seven votes and abstained on eight others. The favourable votes seemed to have been in favour of general expressions of world opinion against apartheid, whereas the eight votes, from which we either abstained or in which we voted against were against various forms of sanctions, including a proposed ban on new investment in South Africa and a pledge of assistance to national liberation movements.
Will the minister state whether it is Canada's definite policy to vote for rhetorical expression against apartheid, and then to vote against any practical steps to make the resolutions into additional binding sanctions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I have looked over the package of resolutions to which he has referred. The basic principle which was followed is one which I think the hon.
80047-23 'h

January 26, 1979
Oral Questions
member, with his experience at the United Nations, can understand and would probably agree with.
In the General Assembly at the United Nations, we will support those resolutions which are critical or condemnatory of apartheid. Matters of sanctions are expressly, and quite legally and properly, the purview of the Security Council and consequently we do not believe that it is wise to have the debates on sanctions questions in the General Assembly, that the real focus for those is in the Security Council. That is the basic reason for the pattern followed in the voting yesterday, which I think the hon. member will find, on looking over the record, to be consistent with what we have done all along.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Before Christmas, the minister agreed with the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to have a briefing on Namibia and South Africa with which the minister was very much involved. Is the minister now agreeable to proceeding with this briefing as soon as possible and, if so, could the necessary arrangements be made with the President of the Privy Council to give proper terms of reference so that we can get on with the account from the minister of what happened in this important part of the world?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have already had conversations with the chairman of the committee and I am informed by him that he has already written me a set of proposals in this regard. Of course, I will be more than pleased to appear before the committee in any form or way that seems to be most suitable.
In the meantime, I think the House might be interested to know, and certainly the hon. member will, that the UN representative, Mr. Ahtisaari, has now returned from Namibia, that what we had forecast hopefully before Christmas has transpired and the prospects, I am glad to say, look, at the very least, reasonable for United Nations' supervised elections in Namibia. So I will have something of a more substantial nature to report when the committee meets.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Since the Minister of Finance just left his chair, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister.
Since the government still claims it is not trying to prop up the Canadian dollar, can the Prime Minister tell the House why the bank rate was raised this month to 11.25 per cent, more than double the rate of 5.25 per cent which existed in January, 1973, just six years ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member would refer to the record, he would see that the parliamentary secretary is here to give the answer which has been given many times in the House.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since university students and university graduates will be leaving colleges and universities in three months' time, I wonder if the minister has any plans to announce, and when he makes the announcement, if he makes it, will he speak about any summer employment programs or other summer programs to assist young people?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the press release of Young Canada Works projects was made public in the latter part of December. We are also looking at specific areas where it would have particular impact, such as the Sudbury-Nickel Belt area where a strike is in progress, to see whether we can find additional funding for such regions.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Accepting the fact that Young Canada Works is usually part of a package of summer programs which the minister usually announces, including a number of programs running to millions of dollars providing summer youth employment by different departments and agencies of the federal government, I wonder if the minister will announce how much money will be spent on such programs and whether there will be an increase over last year, in view of the high rate of unemployment among the young people in this country.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I did circulate the figures and I commented on them to some extent last September. We reintroduced the job experience training program in which a lot of students are participating. Also, the employment tax credit program is in place to encourage employers to hire more young people. So there are those two additional projects in addition to those I mentioned, the 13 or 14 others that are aimed at young people. A quarter of the money spent on those programs-a quarter of $714 million-is specifically aimed at the employment of young people.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the practice of searching titles each time a property or house is bought costs Canadians a sum which is onerous, particularly when they buy their first house, would the minister ask his provincial counterparts to establish, for the benefit of the consumer, registries containing up to date information on the status of titles, thereby replacing the costly procedure of searching titles from scratch each time a property changes hands?
January 26, 1979


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, that is a provincial matter; but I would be willing to write my provincial counterparts concerning it and put it on the agenda for our next federal-provincial meeting.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday when the government House leader was absent from the House, for a good and sufficient reason, I asked his deputy about the House business for next week, and his answer did not deal with next week. Since the government House leader has returned, I wonder if he could give us an indication of the government's legislative intentions for next week. Perhaps the government House leader might be able to comment further respecting the Arab boycott bill. That would be helpful to the House. If he has any intention of calling it early in the week, he can be assured we will have no objection whatsoever.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond to the question of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I thank him for his understanding of my absence yesterday; I was in Halifax extolling the immortal memory of Robert Burns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to tell the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that the address she gave a year or two ago is well remembered. The hon. member drew a capacity audience, but not as great as it was last night!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The intention is to proceed today with second reading of Bill C-9. I will bring that forward on Monday if it is not carried today, and hopefully continue the second reading of that bill. Following that, it will be my intention to call Bill C-2 to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, and then vary somewhat the order which I gave earlier and call Bill C-12, which will be of interest to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
These are the items I will call within the next few days. Also, I should like the House to deal quickly with second reading stage of Bill C-35 which has already received three days of debate. Because of the general support for the bill, if possible I should like to have it passed within a relatively short additional time of debate.
Respecting the Arab boycott, it is on the legislative program. If we are able to secure an agreement to deal with it within a particular time frame-perhaps a day-I would be happy to send it to committee. At this point I cannot call that bill unless I have some understanding as to how long debate on second reading will take.
Order Paper Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the answer by the President of the Privy Council in respect of business of the House. You will recall, sir, that he said Bill C-12 dealing with public service superannuation would be called some time next week. I presume it will be dealt with at the first instance next week. It might be very helpful to the House if the President of the Treasury Board could early in the week table the figures the government will be disclosing in any event during the minister's speech on second reading, so that members of the House can see what Figures the government feels are applicable for the first triennial period. The debate could then be couched with those figures in mind. In terms of the public interest, and certainly in terms of the interest of public servants, this is the $64 question. Perhaps the minister would consider that, and if it could be done I think it would add immeasurably to the debate and perhaps its early completion.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to look at that suggestion. For myself, I see no reason why that information should not be given early in the week. There may be some technical problems but, barring that fact, I would be happy to do that. I think it might do much to allay the concerns of some hon. members and those of public servants who are retired or close to retirement. For that reason I would be happy to do that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 390, 804, 806, 836, 847 and 875.


Mr. Herbert: During each of the past five years, what amount, by province, was given to the Government of Quebec in the field of education, including language?


John (Moody) Roberts: A. Post Secondary Education:
Payments made by the Secretary of State to the Province of Quebec during fiscal years 1973-74 to 1977-78 under Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972 (Post-Secondary Education Adjustment Payments) and Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977.

January 26, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Fiscal Year	Payments Made During Year (Thousands of Dollars)
1973-74	196,070
1974-75	232,981
1975-76	240,859
1976-77	335,642
1977-78	311,455 Total 1,317,007
B.	Canada Student Loans Program-Alternative Payments to Quebec:
(Thousands of Dollars)
1973-74	9,036
1974-75	10,698
1975-76	12,708
1976-77	13,190
1977-78	13,559
	Total 59,191
C.	Citizenship:
Fiscal Year
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1976-	77
1977-	78
Citizenship and Language Instruction


[Stage Direction]
Total $1,336,995.18
Language Textbooks
[Stage Direction]
Grand Total $1,699,738.65
2. The present rate of occupancy is 100 per cent. On December 22, 1978, there were 65 veterans on the waiting list. Of these, 21 have been assessed as requiring domiciliary care, 21 requiring extended care, and 23 are in the process of having their care needs assessed by provincial authorities.
Approval has been given to develop 60 additional domiciliary care beds for veterans in New Brunswick, and as these beds come into operation in the near future, the waiting list at Fredericton will be reduced. Some of the patients on the waiting list (approximately ten) are now in other health care facilities in New Brunswick (hospitals or nursing homes) and are thus already receiving institutional care.
Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, what was the total revenue received from the excise tax on gasoline?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue):: Total revenue received from the Excise Tax on gasoline for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978: Revenue, $770,402,453; Refunded, $171,999,746; Net revenue, $598,402,707.
D.	Language Programs:
Educational Contributions Paid Out to the Province of Quebec by the Language Programmes Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State (1973-1974 to 1977-1978)
1973-74	1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78Formula payments, elem. sec.	$45,000,083	$37,067,859	$42,055,714	$63,834,048	$109,772,304Formula payments, post-sec.	6,179,189	12,082,599	14,330,981	26,857,447	29,495,150Language training centres	-	191,236	108,764	-	200,000Special Projects	459,012	714,994	1,310,241	2,319,876	2,227,761Scholarships for the study of an official language	322,000	336,000	454,000	411,000	586,000Scholarships for teachers	88,538	385,505	406,902	322,973	431,469Summer Language Bursaries	856,580	983,883	1,178,001	1,451,495	2,197,403Total	$52,905,402	$51,762,076	$59,844,603	$95,196,839	$145,910,087


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many beds does the Department of Veterans Affairs have at the Victoria Health Centre in Fredericton, New Brunswick for the care of disabled veterans?
2.	What is the rate of occupancy and is there a waiting list and, if so, how many veterans are on the list?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. The Department of Veterans Affairs has 57 domiciliary care beds for veterans at the Victoria Health Centre in Fredericton.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of National Revenue finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1. No.
(a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.
2. No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.

January 26, 1979


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of Veterans Affairs finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Department planning to do so in the near future and, if so ta) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	No.
2.	No.


Mr. Howie: What is the general theme of research to be conducted by the Industrial Materials Research Institute?


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: The general theme of the institute's research is the deterioration and durability of materials.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have believed always that the essence of parliament is that questions, when they are asked, are answered within a reasonable time. I do not ask questions just for amusement. They have a basis in fact; otherwise they would not have been asked.
I intend to refer to three starred questions. On November 22 I placed question No. 610 on the order paper. It reads as follows:
1.	Has the Department of External Affairs set up an exercise known as "Program for Foreign Visitors"?
2.	Are funds available for foreigners touring Canada as "opinion formers"?
3.	How many of such "opinion formers" have toured Canada under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs, and what was the total cost in each of the past four years?
These are simple questions. These people were going across the country singing the Hallelujah chorus for the government.
Next, on November 22 I placed question No. 611 on the order paper. It reads as follows:
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
1.	In consequence of Mr. Igor Gouzenko's revelations, how many individuals were prosecuted and (a) who were they (b) what happened in their respective cases?
2.	How many named in the revelations were not prosecuted and for what reason?
3.	With the termination of the 30 years during which secret documents are not revealed, for what reason is an exception being made in connection with his revelations?
Parliament has a right to that information, even though it might be uncomfortable for the government.
Also, on November 14 I placed question No. 576 on the order paper. It reads as follows:
1.	Was an order made that files containing secret or security information were not to be released until the expiry of 30 years and, if so, on what date?
2.	Has the government decided that all files in connection with the Gouzenko revelations of 1945-46 shall not be released now and, if so, for what reason and on what basis?
3.	Is the government aware of a press report that the reason given for non-production is "That they might hurt some people now living"?
4.	Were any such individuals then or thereafter or since cabinet ministers?
This series of questions does not require very much research. In every case this House has been denied the information; it has been delayed six or seven weeks. Why? If the government has nothing to hide, why hide it? What has happened here is a flagrant disregard and denial of parliament. There can be no excuse, excepting that the government does not want to reveal this information before the general election expected by me to be in April. Incidentally, I predicted that time for the election last October.
I want to have these questions answered. It may be understandable that there is diffidence on the part of the government to reveal the answers, but there is nothing in those questions which is not in the government's files and known to the government. I rise at this time simply to say that if we cannot receive information on matters which may be uncomfortable or even understandably viewed with suspicions by the government, then we might as well close down parliament. There have been some six, seven and eight weeks with no answers. I bring this to the attention of the House and I shall continue to do so regularly because I want this information before the election and not after.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to draw those observations to the attention of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. If I may just briefly respond, we do attempt to do this work as quickly, as efficiently and as effectively as possible. Last year I recall, when answering for my colleague on several occasions, that we ran fairly currently at a rate of somewhere between 80 per cent to 90 per cent of answers given to the current list of questions as they existed from week to week on the order paper.	#
The right hon. member referred to the questions he had placed on the order paper, starred questions, as being fairly simple questions. That may be, but I can assure him, as I am sure hon. members of this House know, that not all questions

January 26, 1979
Referenda
on the order paper are simple. Some are very complex and very involved and require a few days and often months of research by officials to locate, collate and bring the right information forward to the House.
I will take notice of the right hon. member's remarks and draw them to the attention of my colleague, as I have said. I can assure him we will attempt to get all the available answers to him as soon as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: It should have been a minister answering, not a parliamentary secretary.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 12, 1978, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde (for Mr. Reid) that Bill C-9, respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, let me continue the remarks I commenced late in the evening of December 12 when we last had a one-day opportunity to consider this measure. This is very important legislation in respect of which it now appears obvious, following that one-day debate, that the old alliance is once again appearing in parliament prior to an election. That old alliance, as you will recall, existed between 1972 and 1974 in respect of important issues this government brought forward in legislation at times when there was a serious prospect of the government being removed from office. The government was then invariably supported by my friends to the left in the New Democratic Party. We are again experiencing an example of that kind of "me-tooism". In fact, one person said to me, I think in jest, that once again the NDP was acting as a fellow traveller on the road with the government.
I am glad the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is here as I intend to address myself to this legislation in terms of its implications for provinces such as Saskatchewan, and in terms of the rights and regional interests of certain parts of Canada.
I think it is of the greatest importance to determine precisely what this legislation does, its extent and its scope in terms of the issue before us today involving the province of Quebec. From the introductory remarks and the remarks of various spokesmen on behalf of the government, including those of members of the NDP, it has become clear that this legislation is being brought forward for one purpose only, and that is to

deal with the situation that now exists in the province of Quebec. No one has suggested, for example, that we have this bill before us because of the existence of a western Canada separatist party. No one has suggested we have this legislation before us because of an Acadian problem in Atlantic Canada. It is before us for one reason and that is the problem which exists in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am not going to become involved in a debate with the hon. member as I only have 20 minutes left. However, we are not talking in terms of any political party, however small it might be, in the province of New Brunswick. My colleague will know that some candidates ran during the last election with a separatist bent. We are simply dealing with this legislation now because of the situation in Quebec and we should analyse this bill from that point of view.
When we look at this bill we find it goes far beyond that problem and in fact introduces a new device for constitutional change. I am glad to note that the newly appointed Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) has finally taken his seat in the House during the course of this debate. I should have thought he would be in attendance constantly during the debate, but I appreciate the fact that he is now here.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret interrupting the hon. member and I do not wish to be argumentative; I simply want to set the record straight. I know he is not trying to create a new issue, I am sure of that. I simply want to tell him that no party in New Brunswick during the last election ran on a separatist platform. There is a party in New Brunswick called Le Parti Acadien. Its aim is not to separate from Canada but to have a separate province of Acadia and remain in Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing from the apologist of that particular group from the province of New Brunswick. I realize now that he acts as their spokesman.
Let me speak in terms of this legislation which in fact does create-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, will you tell them to keep quiet, please?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, for all the world-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has the floor and I suggest we listen to him. We might all learn something.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is good advice, sir. I wish whoever it was that installed the buzz saw at the back of the other side of this chamber would remove it.
January 26, 1979

This bill goes far beyond the particular problems we are facing today vis-a-vis the province of Quebec. It introduces a new device for constitutional change in respect of our provinces. I have some misgivings about this legislation which I should like to outline as quickly as possible within the limited time at my disposal. I hope the intervention by the hon. member opposite is not taken from my time.
Let me express certain misgivings I have because of this clearly very wide-ranging piece of legislation. As a result of statements by the responsible minister, and I say that in the legal sense as opposed to the actual sense, I have very serious misgivings as to how far this government intends to go with this legislation. Some of the clauses of this bill, specifically clause 3(1), provide in fact that referenda may be used for the discussion of constitutional matters. It is not a question of separation by any province, but a question of any constitutional matter. Clause 3 provides:
(1) Where it appears to the governor in council that any question relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a proposed or possible change in the Constitution of Canada is of sufficient importance to warrant obtaining the opinion of electors on that question, the governor in council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained on that question by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.
Therefore, the government will define any question relating to the constitution, whether proposed or possible changes and whether in fact the matter is of sufficient importance. That is the reality of our parliamentary system. This power as to what issue is constitutional and of sufficient importance is left solely in the hands of the government of the day.
This government says that they are simply setting up the mechanics of a referendum and that parliament will be consulted. They then make provision for consultation, but is it a matter of introducing a bill where every aspect can be debated, or of using the normal parliamentary device and procedure of referring it to a committee before which parties or parliamentarians who are affected may come and argue their case, whether it be pro or con? What we have in this bill is the provision that we will magnanimously receive the opportunity to debate a resolution for 40 hours.
The leader of the New Democratic Party was ecstatic. He thinks that this is an amazing opportunity for us to examine the question with respect to the particular referendum. I suggest that that particular provision in itself is enough for people seriously to question this bill. Parliament in effect is being excluded from any specific question that has come foward with respect to a referendum in Canada. We know that the full extent of debate will be utilized by members supporting the government which put forward this legislation. There will be little opportunity for any minority points of view or for any dissent to be brought forward in the context of that kind of procedure.
I suggest that under the guise of bringing forward legislation, ostensibly to deal with the province of Quebec, the government is attempting to arm itself with powers regarding
Referenda
referenda and the concept of referenda in Canada. As a parliamentarian I resent that, because I was elected by my constituents from a particular area of Canada to talk in terms of their aspirations and hopes within Canada. I do not want the interests of my constituents to be diminished or sidetracked, even if the government offers 40 hours of debate in the House of Commons. How many members will have an opportunity of participating in that debate? We will have 288 members in this House after the next election. If one divides 40 by 288 one will get exactly the amount of time available to each member, and one can quickly see that that does not leave very much time for hon. members to speak on this matter.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Two hundred and eighty-two.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He knows that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I stand only second to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) on my figures.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Tories are always wrong.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will deal with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville very shortly, but I want to deal now with the government's intention with regard to this bill. To alleviate any doubt there might be in anybody's mind, I would like to quote from certain speeches made by ministers regarding this bill. In a speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) on the introduction of this bill, he said:
For instance: It could serve to acquaint the large majority of our citizens with the importance and character of proposals for constitutional changes and permit the people to express themselves directly on these proposals. Even if the proposals were supported by the great majority of federal and provincial governments and by the important political parties, such public participation on the process of constitutional change could be very valuable.
Further on in that same speech, he said:
Direct public involvement could also serve to guide the federal and provincial governments, should the process of constitutional revision ever become blocked.
At the conference of first ministers on the constitution last October, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
Once again, what will we do if once again we fail because one of us, or two of us, is not in agreement with the overwhelming majority? Do we just throw up our hands-let some constituent assembly made up of editorialists and professors and legal experts write the thing, we haven't been able to in 51 years, let's give it to somebody else? Or do we consult the people, as a suggestion that has sometimes been made?
The former minister of justice, who is now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), stated before the Senate and House of Commons committee on the constitution possible uses of the mechanism for a referendum. He said:
These options indeed contemplate the use of referenda in lieu of consent of parliament as well as in lieu of provincial legislatures. Second, a strong argument can be made for direct voter involvement in constitutional amendment, particularly when government are chronically unable to reach agreement.
Finally, the Prime Minister at a press conference indicated his use of referenda in terms of constitutional change. Theoretically, this government could, on a very broad and important range of issues dealing with constitutional matters of every type and of extreme importance, proceed to use this
2608

January 26, 1979
Referenda
device as a very large club in terms of constitutional amendment provisions.
What of the interests of minority groups in this country? I was interested to hear the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party who, along with other members of his party, professes to be interested in minority rights. Does his party accept the proposition that the majority point of view shall prevail as implicit in the use of referenda? Is this somehow their idea of protecting the rights of minority groups across this country?
I ask the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, has he been consulted by his leader about this bill? Has the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) been consulted about this bill? Is there unanimity in their party with respect to this legislation? I challenge the hon. member to stand up and say that he has the full support of his party. I would like to know, for example, where the hon. member stands if the Government of Canada, with regard to our energy needs, decided that it will pursue the question of resource control and taxation in terms of constitutional authority and jurisdiction. What will happen then to the province of Saskatchewan if it has a minority point of view regarding the arrangement in 1930, where by the control of all natural resources was turned over to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and this arrangement is rescinded and the resources revert to the control of all Canada? Has Mr. Blakeney discussed this matter with the leader of the New Democratic Party? Is this a matter where they are on all fours, so to speak?
We know the New Democratic Party's position in the coming election. A former member of that party and a man who is on intimate terms with each of its members, Mr. Doug Fisher, wrote an article in which he pointed out that there is absolutely no dout where his party stands in terms of supporting parties in this House; that when it comes to the crunch his party will support the Liberal government and the Prime Minister of this country right down the line. I would like to hear from that party where they stand in terms of this particular bill. Is it just another example of their blind subservience and obedience to the great Liberal party of this country when it comes down to the crunch? I want to hear them in the next election speak about the right to and control of resources. Where will the New Democratic Party stand on that issue?
I know that the New Democratic Party, for example, has very close allegiance with the CLC. I suggest that on occasion the party should be renamed the "New McDermott Party". It is clear that the leader of the New Democratic Party is now relying very heavily on trade union leadership for support in the next election. What is going to happen when the leader of the New Democratic Party goes to Mr. McDermott and says that the government is under considerable pressure to include the right to work as a constitutional right in our country under a charter of rights? There is a substantial body of opinion in Canada that believes the right to work should be included in the constitution. I have met with a number of chambers of

commerce that have made such representations to me, as I am sure they have to many other members. What is Mr. McDermott, the real leader of the New Democratic Party, going to say about that kind of referendum being held in Canada?
What is going to happen if there is a possibility of such a suggestion being endorsed by the majority of Canadians? Of course, then we would have to reconsider. The leader of the New Democratic Party says, "He will fight that. We have 40 whole hours to debate it in the House of Commons. You know what we can do in 40 hours, Mr. Speaker; we have demonstrated we can do it."
There are so many instances of possible abuse under the terms of this bill that I seriously question why any member of the House, including members of the government, should support it. The suggestion or the argument that the bill is limited in scope is preposterous. We are not dealing with a minor question such as whether someone's garbage is picked up in a municipality or whether a school should be built in one area of a province or another; we are dealing with matters of fundamental importance to our country. We are dealing with the constitution, which includes the question of rights, liberties and powers within our government. Let members on the government side remember that the role of parliament is to be a counterbalance against all-powerful governments.
If we in this parliament simply allow this kind of legislation-which arms governments, regardless of political stripe, with powers to involve the country in constitutional changes- to pass, then I say that regardless of on which side we sit we do a disservice to our constituents who have sent us there to represent them.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by dealing with a couple of other aspects of this bill.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Oh, oh.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now we have the cutting and dashing Minister of National Revenue-the world traveller to India at public expense-trying to become involved in his usual way in these debates, speaking from a sitting position.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was talking to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), not heckling the hon. member who has the floor. If he wants to heckle me about travelling at public expense he should look to the performance of his own leader as he stumbled around the world.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister always has the appearance of heckling when he opens his mouth. If that is not what he was doing, then I apologize to him. Now that he has raised the matter I would point out that our leader paid for his own travel arrangements around the world. It was at our expense and was carried out with some greater degree of success than the trip to India that the minister made.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Where he was going to give away our textiles.
January 26, 1979


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to deal with the provisions of the bill if hon. members opposite will allow me to do so. I know they are very nervous about this legislation. In the usual way there has been a minimum of consultation about the bill in the party. Their members are never consulted; their function is to do as the Prime Minister tells them-to come here and jeer and applaud and support him in anything he may decide to do. I feel sorry for them and sympathize with their plight. They may be put out of their misery, however, after the next election, so I hope they enjoy doing what they are doing now.
1 want to deal briefly with a couple of aspects of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The bill will set up the mechanism for referanda in this country. There are some questions that must be asked about this, however.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would merely inquire whether these interventions which were not of substance have been taken off my time. I think it only reasonable, if that be the case, that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair recognized that point and gave the hon. member an extra minute.


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to carry on the debate on a bill which in my opinion will be one of the most important to be considered by the House. It is a legislation which could play a predominant role in the constitutional debate and even in the existence of our country. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the significance of the legislation for us Quebeckers, my constituents in Quebec, and I know that I do not speak only for the Anglophones in Quebec but also for all Quebeckers who believe in a united Canada. It is essential that our federal government be in a position to protect the interests of Quebeckers in the face of the present threat, that is the referendum to be held by the Parti Quebecois. Such is the object of the bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we hope that the debates in the House will rise above partisan considerations.
I was very disappointed to read the comments made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in connection with the bill. I even felt that her comments were demagogic. I would like to quote an example, Mr. Speaker. [English]
At page 2039 of the Hansard for December 12, 1978, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said:
I do not find this legislation before us today to be in that spirit of honesty and forthrightness which this difficult subject demands. I see this legislation as being
Referenda
devious, dangerous and even deceptive. It purports to be an act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada. It is, instead, a blatant attempt to subvert and undermine the responsibilities and duties of the Canadian system of responsible government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the contrary is true. She is looking for non-existent motivations in that bill. As we often say, she is looking for difficulties where there are none.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You haven't been around here long enough.


Donald James Johnston: I expect to be around here a long time.
I must emphasize the point that we in the province of Quebec, no matter which language we speak, are understandably sensitive to this particular issue. We want this law. My constituents are not interested in debating points or in playing partisan politics on a matter of this importance.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the opposition would take the same approach.

During the course of my campaign as recently as last autumn, I found that one of the concerns of the people of the province of Quebec of whatever policitical stripe is what the federal government has done to help in the critical situation in which we find ourselves. This is a serious matter which I can understand members from other parts of Canada perhaps not being sensitive to.
Unfortunately many of the people in Quebec, probably like many other people across this country, fail to appreciate the nature of the federal system. They look to the federal government as having some magical, superior powers with which to deal with such problems and with Bill 101. Of course, that is not the case. Here we have before us a proposed law through which all members of this House can do something as a federal government for the people of the province of Quebec who are at this moment menaced, whose rights dre threatened and who are also threatened with being separated from the rest of Canada, perhaps through the use of a referendum being proposed by the provincial government.
This is one of the few legal steps we can take and one of the few concrete things we can do to demonstrate the fact that we will not let the people of Quebec be the victims of a referendum on a question posed which is ambiguous, unfair or meaningless. I do not believe that this law will ever be used. I have more confidence in my government of Quebec as a resident of that province than to think that the government of Quebec will put forward a question deliberately designed to fool the people of that province into providing a yes answer to a trumped-up question.
The existence of this law is very important to me, Mr. Speaker, and it is very important to the people in my riding. I
80047-24'/$

January 26, 1979
Referenda
suspect the same holds true of all of the people across the province of Quebec. I would be very surprised if Conservative candidates and members of parliament from Quebec were to take the attitude taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands because they are not threatened with separation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is our country too.
An. hon. Member: Who do you think you are?


Donald James Johnston: There are six million people in the province of Quebec, six million Canadians, and they have to be our concern. Most of those Canadians want this law.


An hon. Member:: What about sovereignty association?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but 1 did not interrupt the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Westmount has the floor. I suggest we listen to him.


Donald James Johnston: Often in Quebec and elsewhere in this country I find a misconception in that we have grown so regional in our thinking. Some people outside the province of Quebec seem to have grown insensitive to the fact that, as I have said, there are over six million people at the moment who are faced with a referendum. This referendum will be conducted by a provincial government. Surely we are not to deny the federal government the right to conduct similiar referenda on any subject of constitutional importance.
I do not understand the basis for the objections of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Sasfeatoon-Biggar, which I have read, but I will come back to that in a moment.
The fact is that today we often focus attention on Alberta. Alberta is a region. What is important about Alberta? Why we care about Alberta is the fact that there are approximately 1.8 million Canadians in that province, according to the 1976 census. There are approximately 2.8 million Canadians on the island of Montreal and there are as many Canadians that are faced with this menace from the province of Quebec as there are Canadians west of Ontario in the western provinces, including British Columbia.
Let us not lose sight and perspective of what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a very serious and real threat. It is very important to us in the province of Quebec that this law is put in place and put in place soon.
I noticed that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in his comments made on December 12 said that we should not move hastily. I do not think haste should be used in the adoption of any law of this importance. I think we should all work together in a non-partisan way to produce a law that

is going to afford the kind of protection to Canadians who live in the province of Quebec which they require.
This bill is consultative. This bill permits the Government of Canada to take the pulse of the Canadian population. This bill cannot bring about fundamental constitutional change. This bill could be referred to, as we often refer to the Quebec referendum bill, as a sophisticated public opinion poll. What more can be read into it than that? Is the opposition saying to us that we are not to know what the Canadian people feel about particular constitutional issues? Would they also like to muzzle private polls, Gallup polls, and Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen polls which I receive regularly, to find out what business people are thinking in certain areas of the country and communities? That is what this poll is for. Are we to deny the people of Canada the right to express their opinions on matters of this kind?
I would be quite in agreement with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands if this situation were to be in any way binding upon parliament. I agree that that would be a denial of the parliamentary democratic system. I am sure everyone would agree with that, and the leader of the New Democratic Party stated it categorically during the course of his comments.
I find this debate quite extraordinary in that I find nothing in this bill other than the right of the federal government, after very substantial debate, in fact more debate than is allowed under the referendum bill of the province of Quebec, to put a question to the Canadian people or to one part of the country for their opinion. It can relate to anything contitutional, but it is certainly not going to change the entrenched provisions of any of our constitutional laws, particularly when it is not binding on this parliament. So there is nothing devious. There is nothing dangerous. I find it extraordinary that the Canadian people should be denied this right.
Accordingly I feel that the debate is somehow getting off track and into areas of partisan politics where it should not be. It is not that kind of legislation. I might also say that the consultative process is very important. However, there may be other ways we can go as well. This kind of referendum bill is certainly one of them.
I felt on this whole question of constitutional debate that we should have involved the muncipalities. I regard municipalities as having an important voice. I know that the Canadian Federation of Municipalities believes it has an important voice and should be speaking on constitutional issues and be at the negotiating table. In a very few years approximately 80 per cent of this country will be urbanized. The powers and the responsibilities of our municipalities are very great. In 1976 municipalities spent 23 per cent of government expenditures in Canada. They should be involved in a very real way. So this is another area of consultation that we should be looking at.
I say the more consultation with our constituencies, the better. That is why I go back to my riding to find out what the people are thinking. Apparently the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar prefers not to know what Canada is thinking. I want to know what Canada is thinking on these constitutional
January 26, 1979

issues. I like to know what the mayors and the aldermen are thinking and what problems they have. The more input we have, the better. In the particular issue before us the immediate problem we have is a situation in the province of Quebec which is threatening.
In conclusion, I as a member from Quebec want to underline the significance of this legislation. I ask the opposition parties to share the concern of their fellow Canadians. I cannot emphasize the importance of not permitting this debate to degenerate into bickering and partisan politicking. I ask them to reconsider their views and the impact they can have.
I see nothing in this bill that can in any way be detrimental to the parliamentary democratic process. I prefer that a structure exist that can deal with all constitutional questions and the financing of all referenda so that provision will not have to come up if a referendum is indeed to be debated in this House. It can be debated now and the mechanism put in place so that it will be there for all of us.
At the moment we are dealing with an issue in the province of Quebec. In the future who knows what issue we will want to take the pulse of Canada on in this area of constitutional reform, which is so terribly important to all of us.
With those comments I will terminate my intervention in this debate. I repeat, my point of view may be somewhat different from that of members of the opposition. I put before them the point of view of someone directly involved with the problems of the Quebec referendum. I see nothing in their arguments that lead me to believe that this bill should undergo any alteration whatsoever. I am a listener. I do not believe I am partisan. However, in the arguments I have heard, as we often say in Quebec-
[ Translation]
There is nothing there.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled. I am also extremely happy to follow the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston). I would like to have seen the text of what he said because I cannot believe what he was saying, that this arm, tool, instrument or sword will never be used. Then why involve this House in a debate?
If as the hon. member for Westmount has indicated-and it is obvious from the way things have been developing-the problem of the separation of Quebec is the focus or feature that this government wants to attack, why the hell have they not been honest enough to say so?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Why have they not produced a referendum in the terms that they feel will be required to be used?
The other absolutely incredible statement made by the hon. member for Westmount was this: "Why are you going to
Referenda
deprive us of the instrument to make a sounding across Canada, so that we can disregard it?" They are not even going to use it when they get it.
Do they not know what Canada wants? I know what Canada wants. Canada wants to stay together. I take a back seat to no one in this House or in this country on my record for this country as a whole from coast to coast to coast. Now, put that in your buzz saw and buzz it a bit! I have proved that three times. The first time I proved it was the time when one member in particular in this House could not prove it. I was prepared to put on a uniform and prove it. Thank God there are more of us around this House who did that.
I also proved it when I proudly represented this country abroad up to the point when my pride in my country began to wither in the face of the policies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his minions behind him. I had to resign. I could not represent the policies being negotiated by this Prime Minister and this government.
The third time I proved my desire to keep this country together was when I took the oath of office as a member of this House to represent my constituency. If anyone here feels they have to go beyond this oath, they should be ashamed.
Let us make no mistake. This is one of the most important debates facing this country. It is certainly the most important debate that has taken place since I have been in parliament. Let there be no doubt that we are embarked today on constitutional reform and institutional reform as well. That is certainly the way we are proceeding.
I ask myself this: should any government with the record of this government be given the right to introduce constitutional amendment or institutional reform of this general, sweeping nature and significance when, (a) it is in the final days of its mandate, and (b) it has such a dismal record of performance, bringing this country to its knees? During its ten years in office, this government has managed to drag this country down in a manner that no one would have thought possible ten or 11 years ago.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The task force said it yesterday.


Donald W. Munro: As my colleague said, the task force said it yesterday. I wish to read from page 16 of the task force document which was praised yesterday by the Prime Minister. In the fifth paragraph, on page 16 of this document, I read the following words:
Another factor concerns the central government itself. Fifteen years ago-
That was 1963. Let's remember what happened in 1963:
-it stood high in the minds of a large number of Canadians, and was widely regarded with respect and a feeling of loyalty. Even those who felt little loyalty to it at least respected its efficiency and competence. Today, that is much less true; "Ottawa", as we found on our tour, is for many Canadians synonymous with all that is to be deplored about modern government-a remote, shambling bureaucracy that exacts tribute from its subjects and gives little in return.
I could not have said it better myself.

January 26, 1979
Referenda


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, when I called it one o'clock I was being challenged to read on in the quotation I had already started. I see no reason why I should not read on. I was referring to the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity. The first part of it describes how Ottawa, in the minds of so many, is synonymous with all that is to be deplored about modern government. I continue with the quotation I was reading:
We recognize that this is an unfair stereotype, and that in another 15 years the pendulum may have swung back to the other extreme;
I emphasize the word "may". If this government were in power for another 15 years there would never be a chance- there wouldn't even be a pendulum to swing.
This view of such a widespread appeal today is one of the significant elements which must be borne in mind in any attempt to improve our situation.
We must recognize that. This government does have a deplorable record.
Let us just turn our attention for a few minutes to 1967. Look at our history as it has developed from that time. In 1967, when we were at the peak of our self-confidence and enthusiasm, there was nothing which we in this country could not do. We were, perhaps, a trifle overconfident; I am prepared to admit that. There was not, perhaps, that dash of humility we needed to temper our approach to the future. Maybe that is why we are in trouble today. We lack humility, like certain other people we know in the House who have none of it. Yet genuine enthusiasm existed in those days.
There was enthusiasm to spare about the future, and with good reason. Our material resources were virtually limitless. Perhaps we lacked matching human resources in terms of quantity, but that really meant we would be longer developing that future in the days ahead of us. The only way in 1967 was up, we thought. Now look at us. Only 11 years later unemployment weighs heavily upon us, inflation destroys our earnings and makes us despair of the future. The Auditor General, an officer of this parliament, can see that parliament has lost control of its expenditures, and our national community lies in shreds before our eyes.
We had everything going for us in 1967, and now nothing is going right. We are hopelessly in debt and getting in deeper daily. What have we to pass on to the generations that follow but a monstrous burden of debt? This government has brought us to this pass and it has the nerve to suggest that it should be entrusted with a mandate at this late stage in its career to

reconstruct and reconstitute the institutions of this country in such a broad, general manner, institutions and an economy that have been mauled so grievously.
I think it is time we took a very close look at this particular bill and its terms. The first thing that will strike us is that it does not set up machinery for just any kind of a referendum. It is not designed to find out what I or anybody else in Canada think about the death penalty or about abortion. In fact, such matters are specifically excluded from its ambit, the whole thrust being constitutional reform and constitutional terms. Therefore, it is by way of being a constitutional bill.
It is also aimed, as we shall see, at the Quebec referendum. We heard that pretty clearly from the hon. member for Westmount. But how sharp is the aim, Mr. Speaker? That too we should look at. In essence, the bill proposes a new dimension for political consultation in Canada on matters relating to the constitution of this country. As such it would be introducing, as I suggested, far-reaching institutional changes in our political structure.
Another feature which I hasten to bring to your attention is that the bill bypasses provincial legislatures, provincial governments and provincial electorates on matters which are within the provincial sphere of interest and jurisdiction. In this connection I think it is worth citing an extract from the communique issued on April 14, 1978 by the western premiers conference in Yorkton. It starts out by saying that:
Last week the federal government introduced in the House of Commons the Canada Referendum Act. Section 3 of the bill provides a referendum can be held on "any question relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a proposed or possible change in the Constitution of Canada."
While the western premiers agreed that it may be desirable for governments to have the machinery to conduct plebiscites on certain matters from time to time, they strongly caution against any attempt by the federal government to substitute this machinery for the settlement of constitutional questions long recognized by constitutional practice and precedents as requiring the approval and consent of every provincial government.
Are we going to override the mandate of one of the constituent parts of this country?

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask why the Prime Minister is intent on going so far in generalities. The main constitutional issue of concern to Canadians at this time is undoubtedly that of the splitting up of our country, which is the aim of the PQ movement in the province of Quebec. Let us recognize that fact clearly and simply. The only referendum question that the government needs to pursue is therefore that of separation. So why introduce such a complicated bill as Bill C-9 and include in it a clause worded as follows, and I quote:
Where it appears to the governor in council that any question relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a proposed or possible change in the Constitution of Canada is of sufficient importance to warrant obtaining the opinion of electors on that question, the governor in council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained on that question by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation . ..
Why dodge the issue? Why indeed? The constitutional question which we will need to answer in the next few years is
January 26, 1979

the following: Are we going to live in a federal system, as one country coast to coast, or are we going to let this territorial, federal and political entity be split up? That is the question. That is the question which the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston) put a moment ago. So let us have a bill which would allow this question to be put to the Canadian people across the country. But let us not come into the House with this multiple choice thing which the government is offering in the form of Bill C-9.

Bearing these particular considerations in mind, we have to examine what sort of constitutional questions are raised or could be raised by a referendum under the terms of this bill. I bet there are many people over there who have never read the bill, and I think it is worth citing clause 2 of the bill, which reads as follows. It defines the Constitution of Canada on which questions could be posed in the following terms:
-(a) the customs, conventions and enactments that comprise the Constitution of Canada,-
It is worded in an elliptical sort of way because it defines it in its own terms. Customs, conventions and enactments are worth remembering. Also:
-(b) the political and judicial institutions and processes of Canada,- are defined in this clause. In other words, a referendum could be taken on any of these matters if any of them or several of them should be "of sufficient importance" in the eyes of the government to warrant consultation.
We are bound to ask ourselves a few questions, such as what is meant by customs. I am not talking about the customs tariff, or anything like that, but rather about customs under the constitution. Is majority rule meant by that? Is it federal-provincial meetings? They are customs, not law. But what about conventions? What conventions might be submitted to a referendum? Would there be a referendum on how to amend the federal constitution? That is still being worked out and there is barely a convention in sight, although there was one once. Would there be a referendum on how to appoint a cabinet? Would there be one on how to select senators and judges? Those are conventions. As to enactments, even enactments can be submitted to a referendum. Would the various acts creating the provinces be submitted to a referendum? What about the Supreme Court Act and the Canadian Bill of Rights?
Then we come to the second portion, political institutions. What political institutions does the government propose to submit to a referendum? Would it be the general election or freedom of the press? What about judicial institutions such as courts of law? What about judicial processes? What does the government have in mind? Does it have in mind trial by jury or the right of an accused to be represented by legal counsel? Is that what the government is trying to do, submit these to
referenda?	...	.
That is what it is trying to do in this bill. The bill has a shotgun approach. While it is true that none of these questions can be put to a referendum before being debated in the form of a resolution in this House, with limited debate of 40 hours,
Referenda
governments with majorities such as the present one have been known before now, and within my recollection of only six years in the House, to force through legislation or a resolution in the face of widespread political opposition in parliament and across the country. Does Your Honour remember capital punishment?
Bill C-9 is being touted as the Liberal government's response to the Quebec referendum proposal. If such should be the case, let the Prime Minister and the government be honest and say so. Why has Bill C-9 been cast in such general terms? Why is it not aimed specifically at the potential threat of separation which Mr. Levesque and the Pequiste movement in the province of Quebec are doing their best to cultivate in that province to the detriment of my country? Why does it not say what it means to say? From my reading of Bill C-9, it seems to have adopted the shotgun approach rather than the single shot approach to a very worrisome question. I do not deny that it is a worrisome question. At this stage in its mandate, I am wondering whether the government has a licence to carry any kind of firearm, whether it be a shotgun or a rifle. Let the government go to the country. Let the issue be specific and go to the country. Therefore, I am wondering whether Bill C-9 is nothing but an exercise possibly in blackmail.
According to the hon. member for Westmount, it is a pure exercise, and the results of it will never be used; we can ignore the results. We are not here to exercise our virtuosity in debating useless bills which will not be used. We are here for a specific purpose, that of setting conditions which will permit the country to develop to its full potential. Yet this sort of nonsense comes before us. It is proposed in the name of one minister when the other minister, in whose name it ought to be, was not in the House to talk to it. He was not in the House when it was introduced, but I am glad to see him present now.
When anything is said concerning federal-provincial relations, who carries the can? It is not the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid). Who presided over the discussions in Vancouver? It was not the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. It was the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), and he is a sham. The entire matter is a sham.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I should correct the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) because I know he would not want knowingly to make a mistake. There was no one chairman of this meeting in Vancouver. It was co-chaired by the Minister of Justice of Canada and the attorney general of Saskatchewan.
Also I may add that when the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) was the minister of justice of Canada, he was a co-chairman. The rules set out by the premiers provided that the co-chairmanship would be the Minister of Justice of Canada and the attorney general of Saskatchewan.


Donald W. Munro: I am glad the record has been put straight. We realize where the sham lies. Apparently the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations had no part to play in the meeting in Vancouver, any more than he has here. However, I hope he and the Minister of Justice will

January 26, 1979
Referenda
be given opportunities by the government House leader to take part in the debate. I hope they will have something to say when they participate. Perhaps the Minister of Justice is drawing up the list.
I must ask myself whether this is a purely cosmetic exercise, a gesture aimed at keeping attention focused on one part of Canada's problems, for example, by saying to Mr. Levesque, "If you try anything with your referendum, we will do you one better". I remember singing a great song which has a wonderful tune: "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better". This particular bill does not do anything better; it does it a great deal worse.
Are these big stick politics likely to be effective? Have we not had enough confrontation? Has nothing been learned by the government arising from the Kingston meeting held by my leader? At that meeting co-operation and consultation were the spirit of the day, not confrontation. Must we put up with this any longer? Is confrontation the correct approach to constituent governments in a federal system? That is a basic question. Once again attention is focused on one particular question. In any event, it is time to look at something somewhat broader than the Quebec issue. That was all the hon. member for Westmount could talk about, but there are other issues in Canada which are vitally important.
Quebec is not alone in seeking a redefinition of the terms and conditions of its association with its fellow provinces and with Canada as a whole. Unlike the other provinces, Quebec has thrown in another word, "sovereignty". The sovereignty notion was put there by Quebec alone. The rest of Canada rejects sovereignty. Canada is one country. It is my country, and I will see that it stays one country.
Dealing with "association", the second part of that doublebarrelled operation we hear so much about, it is a different matter. Every province in the country wants to have a look at the terms of association with its fellow provinces, the federal government and the federal authority. That is fair enough, and that is what constitutional reform is all about. How many hon. members have looked at the word "constitution"? It is a simple word. It merely means how our country is constituted. It is not very well constituted now, partly because of the confrontational tactics of the Prime Minister and the policies and failures of the government. The constitution of the country deserves re-examination, but it will not be done through a referendum on broad terms like this one. I hope the government is really serious and is not just bringing this bill forward as part of its electoral campaign, which I suspect is the only reason.
This morning we heard about other bills which the government has in mind, such as the Electricity Inspection Act, Bill C-13. Boy, that will be a dinger! At no time did I hear the government House leader say Bill C-9 would be on the floor of this House until it goes to committee. I was wondering, as a matter of fact, whether the government House leader was going to come into the House after lunch and say we will go to the electricity bill this afternoon. We do not even know that on Monday or Tuesday it is going to be seen.


An hon. Member:: It will be called Monday.


Donald W. Munro: It will be called Monday? They are going to impose closure on Monday, I guess.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on; get serious.


Donald W. Munro: I am deadly serious. I have never been more serious in my life. My country is at stake and this bill is not going to save it. This bill could destroy it. It goes over the heads of the constituent members of this House. What a ridiculous suggestion, that I should get serious. I do not like that kind of talk from any side of the House, and I like it even less from people who cannot stand up on their own feet and get away from that man who has led this country into the morass. When are those lemmings over there going to get away from that man who has led them to the cliff? Is there not a man over there who will stand up and be counted?


An hon. Member:: Now get serious.


Donald W. Munro: Read the bill. I am serious; you are darned right I am serious. I have spoken about what this government has done to your country and mine. It is your country just as it is mine, so stand up and be counted.


An hon. Member:: Say something original.


Donald W. Munro: Boy, you did not do very well the other day with originality, did you? I know what it was in the past to proudly represent Canada abroad in the diplomatic service. Now I see that service torn apart, completely and utterly demoralized.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Donald W. Munro: It is true, unfortunately.


An hon. Member:: What does this have to do with the bill?


Donald W. Munro: It has a great deal to do with it. This government has brought my country, its public service and its diplomatic service into disrepute.


An hon. Member:: It is the best diplomatic service in the world.


Donald W. Munro: It was. How can they sit placidly by and allow a government with such a disastrous record as this one seek powers under this legislation that could spell the end of the country, a country which 11 short years ago on its one-hundredth birthday-


An hon. Member:: Don't yell.


Donald W. Munro: I do not think you have anything to tell me about how to represent Canada or how to be proud of my country. No one over there would dare do that. Eleven short years ago we stood proudly outside this building on this country's 100th birthday facing the world with confidence and hope. Look what has happened. I despair sometimes
January 26, 1979

in attempting to reach my colleagues across the floor. Are they blind? Are they charismatized? That may be the right word. I reckon it is. They are charismatized; they are bedazzled. Have they no way of looking into the future in light of what has happened to us in the past? These are troubled times, they are worrisome times, and I do not like anybody over there asking me to be serious. I am deadly serious.
This bill is not needed in this form at this time or at any time. It is a dangerous bill. Let the representatives of Canada, those who were elected to speak for Canada and the Canadian people, stand up in this House and be counted, demanding explanations from this government as to why such sweeping powers are even being sought. If a specific issue is of concern, as we have been told, then let the referendum legislation be cast in terms of specific issues. Then we will look at it.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 respecting referendums in Canada is designed to set up the necessary procedures for holding a vote on any controversial constitutional matter. Let us not delude ourselves: this bill is meant strictly to deal with the province of Quebec. For a long time now, at least Social Credit members have been calling for referendums, not necessarily on constitutional matters but on other matters which, to our mind, are every bit as important. We repeatedly called for a referendum, for instance, on capital punishment, but the government refused; it has never been willing to consult the Canadian people as a whole on such an important matter. Still, doubtless pressed by events, probably those of November, 1976, in Quebec, the government has grown alarmed and has decided to have a referendum policy; it has chosen to introduce a bill designed to thwart, if possible, the aims of the separatist government, or that claims to be separatist, in the province of Quebec.
It was especially after the election of November 15, 1976, that we heard a great many public figures make numerous speeches, statements and take a stand on national unity. However, instead of creating more national unity those same people, through most of their speeches and often their actions, managed to provoke even greater national discord because, Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing ever-growing misunderstanding between some Canadian provinces, or at least between one and the rest of the country, between one of the founding nations and the other; it seems that instead of looking for means to placate opposing views, an effort is being made to stoke the fire and stir up even greater dissension. Now, Mr. Speaker, impassioned statements or stay put speeches will never lead to the agreement and the harmony we wish for Canada.
There has been a great deal of talk about national unity. As far as I am concerned, national unity is a myth. When they talk about unity, they mean uniformity, a single option, a common voice. To my mind, we should stress, rather, national
Referenda
harmony. To that end, some representatives of various nationalities and religions could be made to work together towards the self-fulfilment of every Canadian citizen. This might seem like quibbling, Mr. Speaker, but such is not the case, since harmony means much more than unity. For example, a musical group consists of 20, 25 or 30 musicians playing together and producing pleasant and harmonious melodies. But it is clearly impossible to get the same sound out of them. So, in a country like Canada which is no longer made up of only two founding races but of many other ethnic groups which have even improved the very spirit of our country, Canada, I think we must try to live in harmony rather than attempt to achieve a kind of unity designed to cast everyone in the same mould.
Mr. Speaker, according to the drafters of this bill which would allow Canadians to take a personal part in the shaping of a renewed Canada, this is not the only answer, there are many others. But to have the Canadian people speak up, well, we do not know exactly what the government will do once Bill C-9 is passed. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it will be, since the government has a majority. Even if all opposition parties opposed it, the bill would eventually be passed, but it is not the only way to allow Canadians to participate in the preparation or the drafting of a new constitution. Some meetings can be held at the government level; in fact, some are held at least once a year. There will be one in a few days. Now, Mr. Speaker, the first ministers who will meet in Ottawa at the beginning of next month are delegated by the population of their province precisely to negotiate, to discuss and reach a consensus on what the Canadian constitution should contain, the constitution that will replace the British North America Act under which Canada was administered since its foundation.
This measure stems mostly from the government's wish to get some working mechanism or means of propaganda, rather, similar to that used by the Quebec government in the present controversy over the country's future. According to rumours and to statements from the present Quebec government, it will benefit from a powerful propaganda machine to sell its position on the future of the province.
The purpose of Bill C-9 is precisely to give the federal government means of propaganda similar to those the province of Quebec has, probably to counterbalance that great debate which will be taking place when? We do not know exactly yet. The date of the referendum in the province of Quebec has not yet been set. We are told that it will be in 1979. If the federal election is called early this year, in early spring, we will probably have that referendum in the fall. We saw, particularly last year, that there was a fight going on between Quebec Premier Levesque and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as to who would hold the federal election or the referendum first. It seems that the Prime Minister is losing the battle because his

January 26, 1979
Referenda
margin of manoeuvre is much more limited than that of the premier of the province of Quebec.
So, Mr. Speaker, despite that more or less legitimate objective the government hoped to incorporate four basic principles in drafting the bill. They wanted above all to impose financial controls to ensure a fair and open debate. Furthermore, the bill was to give the referendum process the same level of integrity as the election process. Third, it was intended to respect the federal nature of Canada without giving the federal parties or groups any advantage over their provincial counterparts. Finally, procedures should be as simple and as clear as possible. And in the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will try to determine to what extent the government has managed to incorporate those objectives in the wording of Bill C-9 respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada.
The government limits the scope of referendums only to constitutional matters. It proposes a major legislation paper in which a large number of procedures are discussed in detail. For example, the limits on referendum expenses, the eligibility to vote in the referendum, the air time given opposing groups and federal and provincial parties-in short, the government is about to set up sophisticated structures relating to the referendum. Unfortunately the government restricts the areas where that new legislation will apply. Yet that consultative process of the people could put an end once and for all to several other debates of national importance including, for example, the question of the death penalty that I mentioned earlier.
The result of the referendum would not in any way oblige the government to respect the opinion expressed by the public. That is clearly spelled out in Bill C-9. Mr. Speaker, what would happen if the answer to the referendum of the government of Quebec were to be positive and the one to the federal referendum in that province and on the same issue were to be negative? None of the speeches we have heard so far from members of the government referred to that possibility. What would ,he federal government decide then? Which referendum would prevail over the other, the provincial one or the federal one? Who would decide on that? The Supreme Court? If it is to be so, I think we already know what the answer would be. Mr. Speaker, these are questions we have a right to ask because it is obvious that we are heading toward two referenda. The Quebec government will hold a referendum. The federal government will also hold one on the same subject, and probably in the same province, since I believe that it is up to the province of Quebec to determine its own future within confederation. It is not up to the people of British Columbia or Newfoundland to decide whether Quebec should leave confederation or not. I believe that should be left to the people of Quebec. And if the people of the rest of Canada insist that Quebec remain in the Canadian confederation, I believe that it is not by making speeches, but rather by taking concrete action that they will convince Quebeckers to remain in Canada.

My colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), has stated this very clearly yesterday when he commented on the Pepin-Robarts report on the Canadian constitution. He warned the government. He told the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what should be done to make Quebec or any other province of Canada wish to remain within the Canadian confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that under Bill C-9, the results of the referendum would in no way force the government to act according to the views of the public. The referendum remains an opinion poll. The government could arbitrarily choose to be bound or not by its results. This means that the government could continue to apply the policy established before the referendum. It also means that if the government had decided before the referendum to take any step necessary to prevent Quebec from leaving confederation and if the people of Quebec voted for separation from the rest of Canada, the federal government could decide to take other action, to use force or to call in the armed forces, for instance. Even if the results of the federal referendum were negative, the government would not feel bound by this decision and could take the action it had decided on before the referendum. And this in spite of the views expressed. We can therefore have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of a purely advisory referendum.
The question asked in the referendum must call for an answer expressed as a "yes" or a "no" as this will simplify the summing up of the votes and reduce confusion among voters. Subclause 3(3)(b) provides for the possibility of asking a question presenting several choices. On that point, Mr. Speaker, I think we should agree that in the event of a referendum the questions must be worded clearly to allow for an answer by "yes" or "no" which indicates clearly to the government the decision which the voters have arrived at in taking part in the referendum. The residents in the province of Quebec are now left wondering. They have yet to know what will be the question in the referendum or how it will be worded. Will it be a brief, clear and plain question or merely a question asking for authorization to negotiate sovereignty association?
Mr. Speaker, an answer at this moment to such a question would be very embarrassing because it would look very much for instance like a vote requested by labour unions before negotiating collective agreements. A union usually asks for a vote of confidence. It asks for the support of its membership. It requests the right to call a strike in order to be in a strong bargaining position before management. Having obtained the right to call a strike, the union then comes up with so many demands that management has to turn them down and it is then that the union will start a strike.
So if the question on the Quebec referendum is put this way, after having obtained an affirmative answer, namely a mandate to negotiate with the rest of the provinces or the rest of Canada, the government of Quebec will then present so many
January 26, 1979

conditions that the rest of Canada or the provinces will have to say no. It will then be very simple, the separation of Quebec will have become a fact. There lies then the danger of having one or several controversial issues in the context of a referendum.
A multiple-choice question offering different alternatives should be put to the people, something the ballot paper must be very clear about. These alternatives ought to allow each elector to vote for or against one of the choices. In all likelihood this would certainly complicate the language of the question. If it were chosen at the time of a referendum, it could undoubtedly extend the debate in the House beyond the 40-hour limit. The referendum question must be approved by the House at the end of a debate not exceeding 40 hours.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that such an important question dealing with the constitution and whether a province should remain within the Canadian confederation requires a very serious debate, and I wonder if a 40-hour debate is adequate to allow all political parties to clearly and fully express their points of view and submit their arguments.
On a number of occasions the opposition parties were accused of filibustering when they tried to extend the duration of certain debates. Well, Mr. Speaker, these efforts may very often have served to provide the public with an opportunity to react and convey to their elected representatives their opinions on the subject under review. When the debate is too short, the public is deprived of this opportunity.
According to Bill C-9, referenda may be held in a province, in a number of provinces, or in Canada as a whole. The government itself will decide the limits of each referendum. I feel that this is dangerous, and we are aware of the risks which people have run in the past with a subject like this.
One should only remember what happened on the occasion of the plebiscite in 1942. We all recall that during that period the province of Quebec in particular was squarely against conscription for military service overseas. People in Quebec were all the more opposed because the government of the day had promised time and time again that as long as it was in power it would not let Canadian sons shed their blood outside the country.
Remember that during the war of 1914-1918 the Conservatives had endorsed conscription and had been booed by the Liberals at that time. In 1939, however, it was the other way around while the Liberals were ruling the province. In 1935, Mackenzie King and his ministers, especially his ministers, all strong men of Quebec, won the election after campaigning against the involvement of Canada in a foreign war. We know how quickly the Liberal government was to declare war on Germany later in 1939. It even did so before Britain. One will remember how the then Liberal government wanted to participate in the war but it had its hands tied up. So Mackenzie
Referenda
King considered holding a referendum in 1942 to release himself from his promises. But the plebiscite was held nationwide, in the nine provinces of Canada. Naturally, eight provinces voted for releasing Mackenzie King from his promises while the province of Quebec voted to hold him to them. So obviously the plebiscite was won by Canada as a whole.
In a referendum on the constitution or on whether Quebec should separate from the rest of the country, if all Canadians are asked to decide such a matter, it is obvious the nine provinces other than Quebec will undoubtedly vote to have Quebec stay. So it seems to me it is useless to spend money to hold a referendum. We already know the answer. The experience of 1942 should make us careful. This particular aspect of the bill will have to be fully debated since it could be used covertly to manipulate public opinion in such a way as to obtain a vote approving the government using the referendum. The legislation should clearly state in what instances every Canadian province and region would be called upon to participate in the discussion and the vote.
The right to vote and the registration procedure would be the same as in a federal election. Several clauses of the referendum bill are closely patterned after the Canada Elections Act while in some respects they are more specific. Mr. Speaker, that part of Bill C-9 is perhaps the most judicious. The expenses for a referendum and the contributions by an individual, a group or a political party must not exceed $5,000. Only registered political parties and referendum committees can make contributions and referendum expenses in excess of $5,000 during the campaign. That part of the bill is unfair to small political parties and minor referendum groups. We should take this into consideration.
Through this exemption, this government accepts to depart temporarily from the principles announced at the outset which are freedom of speech and right of association. It appears clearly that the groups which will have access to unlimited funds for their campaign will be able to publicize their views more efficiently than those with a more limited budget. It is the same situation in a general election. Throughout the political history of Canada we have seen that the political party with the biggest financial support was always the winner. So the situation would be the same in a referendum.
Bill C-9 also deals with broadcasters who shall put broadcasting time at the disposal of registered participants as they do during an election. Half of broadcasting time would be allocated to federal parties on a national scale while the other half would go to provincial parties in every province. This part of the bill might be prejudicial to the democratic process of informing the voters in two ways: first by restricting the broadcasting of a specific opinion, for instance that of the Parti Quebecois, to the province of Quebec and, second, in the case of a debate in which provinces would express partial opinions, the federal government would publicize its views throughout Canada while provincial views would get only

January 26, 1979
Referenda
partial regional coverage. In both cases, the federal government would be highly advantaged in the debate. In that game, Mr. Speaker, the federal government would take the lion's share.
Mr. Speaker, in drafting Bill C-9 it is obvious that the federal government has made sure it will be dealt all the winning cards to obtain the answer it wishes to get. Mr. Speaker, when a question is that important I think that the people of the province of Quebec should be free to give the answer they want to give, to answer freely after due consideration of the consequences of their decision for the future of the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada. It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that Quebeckers should decide because if a decision is imposed on them we will never reach our objective of national harmony.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on December 11 last, on the first day devoted to the study of Bill C-9, the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), in a brilliant speech, referred to the opposition of the Progressive Conservatives to this legislation, saying it was absurd and an abdication of their responsibilities towards Canadians.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have heard two other speakers: first, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who, doubtless inspired by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald), served up more or less the same arguments, haphazardly and pell-mell in a mish-mash that does not even deserve to be dwelt on any longer since I shall soon be discussing the arguments of the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, official spokesman of the party.
It is however the third speaker on the side of the official opposition I would briefly refer to, because I wonder in particular what meaning some people are giving to the concept of parliament discussing our great national issues. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), in an effort no doubt to emulate Jeremiah, heartedly exposed us Liberal sinners. I assume he also includes members from the New Democratic Party because they in their wisdom support the government proposal now before us. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich came to the House with his Pandora's box from which he exhibited in succession Saint John's apocalypse, the misfortunes of the Jews in Israel, the most unbelievable horror stories and half quotes. In his highly emotional conclusion somewhat devoid of substance, I thought I noticed a trace of temper, to put it midly, that in my view was not up to the normally elevated spirit of our proceedings here.
Let them address to possible shortcomings in the bill, I'm all for that. Any legislation is always perfectible. This one is no exception, as we have no hesitation in recognizing. Indeed our institutions call for multiple readings. There is the consideration in principle, then second reading at which stage we are

now. But there are also other steps in which a bill can be taken apart and expurged of ambiguities or possible problems, which is perfectly normal and healthy. We have the committee stage for that purpose. It has been suggested for instance that a 40-hour debate is not enough. Well, this can be discussed. Maybe it could be 50 hours, maybe something else. This is no reflection on the principle beneath the bill.
It has been suggested that the ambit of the bill is too wide. Well, this can be discussed in committee to see how it could be narrowed, if we were to take that view. I have no difficulty in envisaging this, and I am perfectly willing that this be discussed. But it is quite another thing to look for intentions, to suggest as did the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich-not only that this will not solve the Canadian problem, on which he is absolutely right and I do not believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) in any way suggested this legislation would solve the Canadian problem, but that the enactment of the bill would bring about the falling apart of Canada. I believe this unjustified projection is going too far.
The hon. member in my view has a long record of service to this country. There is no doubt about that. He served in the Canadian Forces, and he also served in the external service. But then again I did not quite understand the references to sagging morale in our external service. This remains to be proven. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Duclos) stated earlier, our external service is among the best in the world and recognized as such. So much for that. Despite his record, the hon. member feels endangered as an individual by this legislation. I wonder why? This piece of legislation clearly flows from the Canadian government's constitutional authority. Some said the opposite but without providing the least shred of evidence, without undertaking any demonstration of the fact, on the contrary.
Since the Canadian government has the right to introduce such legislation, it can do so one way or an other. The minister and the government decided to draft what is commonly referred to-this expression is unknown in the House or perhaps it has not even been used here in the past-as a general law. That was because the other solution open to us, namely a bill which would deal directly with the issue of the referendum announced by the government of Quebec, was perhaps more difficult to choose at this time. Indeed the form in which this referendum will take place is already known in its broad outlines, because Quebec has also passed such a general law, but its content is still a matter for speculation. I therefore see nothing wrong in the fact that the government wants to provide itself with an instrument with which in due time it will be able to present to the Canadian people or even a part of it, namely a province, a question which will be the subject of a 40-hour debate in the House of Commons, as well as a 40-hour debate in the other place. For those who may not be fully knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure, 40 hours is a lot of time. This represents several days of debate

without the possibility for the government to use closure. Some have said that rather than set the duration of their debate to 40 hours, why not then use the means provided in the present standing orders and thus follow the democratic process as we already know it. It is precisely because if we let the democratic process function as it presently does, these guarantees requested by certain members are not as broad as those contained in this bill because hypothetically one can imagine that in the midst of a debating day at three or four in the afternoon, the government could decide to impose a fixed schedule.
It could well for instance say that we still have two more days to debate the issue and then it will be referred to the Senate for the matter to be expedited. On the contrary, 40 hours in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, without the possibility for the government to curtail these proceedings, to limit the right of private members to intervene, this seems to me quite reasonable. Well, we will have an opportunity to talk about it again. Finally, after the opposition have presented its arguments, provided they are more constructive, we may then decide that this delay must be extended. That is quite possible. It will be up to the parliamentary committee to make a decision about it.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not provide that the question will have force of law once it has been answered by the population in a referendum. Not at all. We are dealing here with a consultative referendum. How does a consultative referendum differ, a mechanism already used in other jurisdictions with the same parliamentary system and the same traditions as ours, whether it be Britain and most of all Australia? I might be told that Britain has used the referendum process in very specific terms through a legislation which was dealing specifically with joining the common market. All right, I agree. But Australia, Mr. Speaker, does have general legislation on referenda which allows her to hold popular votes on constitutional matters. Well, how curious! And it works. It even works rather well and the provinces, the constituent elements of the Australian federation, have never been heard complaining about how those popular votes were working. On the contrary, it is the federal government itself which is complaining, despite the fact that their legislation is more extensive than ours, that the constraints imposed by public opinion and consultation are such that the federal government has its hands tied with those proposed changes to the Australian constitution. What is the idea of trying to make us believe that Bill C-9 will radically change the parliamentary process and corrupt our institutions?
Let us be serious, Mr. Speaker. Once again, if certain provisions of the legislation can cause confusion, we could discuss them in committee. But what is there about the principle of this bill which prevents the Progressive Conservative opposition from supporting it? There is something rather strange in this regard. We talk about consultation. I recall very well that last March, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sent a
Referenda
six-page letter containing his general proposals for popular consultations to the Progressive Conservative, New Democrat and Social Credit leaders. Did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) show his disapproval at that time? Indeed not. The Leader of the Opposition is obviously too busy demolishing and criticizing everything indiscriminately to give a specific answer on these political issues. Indeed, since then, he has started to make certain suggestions, with the result that we have seen, especially since his return from a great voyage around the world in 80 blunders, as it was called in the headlines of some newspapers.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, when the bill was first introduced during the last session, did we hear opposition spokesmen make any great statements about the government's plot to destroy our Canadian institutions? No, Mr. Speaker, not at all! And once again, when the bill was introduced last October, was there any disagreement on the other side of the House? I listened to the speeches and I did not hear any. It is only after the bill was first introduced in the House that the opposition discovered their sacred mission to prevent the Prime Minister of Canada from overthrowing the government. What nonsense! Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was shocked when the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said: "We have been given a tool in the hope that we shall not use it". He made a terrible scene. However, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I hope we will not have to use this bill in answer to a referendum in Quebec, and I repeat once more, Mr. Speaker, that those who will not face the facts understand nothing about the situation.
Why should we give it that tool? Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House two years ago, I am one of those who believe that referenda are dangerous if used inconsiderately. I continue to believe that in the first place our parliamentary system was not structured to provide for systematic public consultation, and on the other hand people are not familiar with this kind of consultation, as for example in the Swiss federation. So it is a system which should be used purposely and with great care. I am the first one to recognize it.
Any legally elected government has some constitutive elements of the Canadian federation. A government of an important province in the Canadian federation has dedicated itself to the separation of Quebec and that is in its program, but with that in mind it has promised to hold a referendum to consult Quebec residents. That legislation is now in the books of the National Assembly. The premier of that province has said repeteadly that he will hold one. Perhaps it should already have taken place since they promised in 1976 that it would be held within two years, but as I do not want to be partisan I will say that it will probably take place within a short period. And that is where, Mr. Speaker, as Quebeckers and as Canadians, we will have to face a very serious problem. If only the political philosophy of the Parti Quebecois-a philosophy which like any other political philosophy keeps changing with

January 26, 1979
Referenda
time-were perfectly clear, Quebeckers would not hesitate to answer a clear question.
Then you could say that there is no need for us as Government of Canada to ensure that consultation of the people is carried out properly, for if the question is clear, so would the answer be in the case of a "yes" or a "no". I do not want to enter into the debate of whether after winning the referendum, assuming that it did one day, the government of Quebec can or cannot carry out separation. Some, after examining the books and for purely legal considerations, say "no", they do not have the right while other eminent constitutional experts say "yes", they have the right.
In any case, let us be realistic about the facts, Mr. Speaker. If there was a clearly expressed opinion by the people of Quebec saying "We no longer want to be part of the Confederation of Canada," there would not be much we could do about it. There is absolutely no question about it, and I am among those who believe that the people of Quebec have progressed enough, have enough self-confidence, are aware enough of their responsibilities and duties to make a wise choice, and I will fully respect that choice, Mr. Speaker.
But having said that, the government is a government. I have no intention here, and God forbid that I should, of putting the government of Quebec on trial. But a government is a government, and like any government, the government of Quebec wants to win, and that is perfectly normal. The Progressive Conservatives are a political party and they want to win. The New Democrats and other parties want to win. We are a political party, we want to win. The Parti Quebecois is a political party and a government which wants to win, and that is normal, that is in the logic of things.
Supposing that the Parti Quebecois wants to win and holds a referendum, as the Gallup polls show-a poll is a poll; you cannot make more out of it than what it is-but we are making assumptions and let us hope that the majority of Quebeckers will not be in favour of the so-called separatist option, if there is such an option at this time, because they are not sure-either sovereignty or sovereignty association. There is then an obvious dichotomy between the interests of a government which has to win, they want to win, and a population which is not ready to support an option. This dichotomy leads to the conclusion, namely, that the question, if they must win, if they want to win, must be as nebulous as possible. They cannot ask the question: Are you for Quebec sovereignty? Only one question, like that, because they might very well lose. They cannot ask the question: Are you for the independence of Quebec, with eventually an association? No, they would also lose. These questions are clear, the answer would also be clear.
However, these same polls show that there is in Quebec as in other areas of the country a well-asserted desire to renew the Canadian federation, to give back some authority to the constituent elements, to reform the institutional structures.

Mr. Speaker, this is an easy way out. It will eventually allow them to ask a question if they wish and here again, I do not want to be unfair to the present Quebec government, to phrase their question in such a way that they would get a majority of "yeas". But would those answers be really a victory? Of course, they would see it that way but their opponents would not, they would object that the question was so vague as to make the answer quite worthless, and claim they have no terms of reference to proceed with the separation but only a hypothetical mandate to renegotiate, God knows what. And the Quebec government would say to that: "We have won our referendum!" And they would come here to Ottawa and say: "I want this and that, give it to me I have received a mandate from my people."
What are we doing here as Canadian goverment and as members of parliament? Do we take for granted that the support given to the secessionists is a "carte-blanche" allowing them to go as far as they please?


An hon. Member:: You can still negotiate!


Claude-André Lachance: Oh yes, you can always negotiate and the leader of the Progressive Conservative is good at that. This is no problem for him. He has no authority to do so but he still does.
Our attitude is quite different Mr. Speaker. We fell that the Quebec people ought to decide their own future freely. Once they have decided, we will take our responsibilities. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) contends that sovereignty association is just one and same thing. Sovereignty is not bad; it is the association which is important. It is not independance they want, but sovereignty-association, a revamping of the Canadian federal system. Mere presumptions, Mr. Speaker! Nobody knows the actual content of this sovereignty-association. The separatists have never defined it. This may be a new kind of federalism, or a confederalism like some Parti Quebecois experts have said? But two Pequiste members are now talking about a system whereby, although they suggest there would no longer be any Federal or Confederal Chamber, there would be an association freely agreed to, similar to the European Community arrangement or to the Northern Countries Council set-up, which would allow us to continue just like before, whithout any further problems or difficulties. But those are mere the oricians! And again, this is not part of the proposed program of the Parti Quebecois. Even if that were the case, it would mean a radical move from what is now facing us. Is that really what we want, Mr. Speaker? Is that really what Quebeckers want? It will be up to them to decide. But let them decide. Let us not anticipate on that decision even before the question is put. It is unbelievable.
At all events, it is nevertheless natural and sound, and a minimum of caution requires that the Government of Canada provide itself with the appropriate tool to clarify if necessary a situation which could become so blurred that nobody would
January 26, 1979

make it out. But what is wrong with that? What is unusual in that situation? We are told that the scope of the bill is too broad, that it deals with all constitutional matters, but if this bill referred directly to the question of Quebec and the Parti Quebecois, the members of the opposition would say: You single out a particular problem within a province without knowing what is going to happen in that province; you make projections about future events. So, if we did otherwise, they would tell us to do the opposite. And since we do the opposite of what they suggest they accuse us of doing the opposite. Just try and make something out of that!
The NDP has understood what we want to do with this bill. We do not want to destroy our democratic institutions. It was never intended. Anyway, I can assure the House that if any government, this one or any other, took it upon itself to misuse this bill and tried to exert undue influence on the Canadian people in defiance of the House of Commons, there would be such a public outcry that such a government could not function and would be rejected.
Have the Progressive Conservatives so little confidence in the Canadian democracy that they see a threat to our institutions in this legislation which provides the government with a tool to find out what the people think? I have more confidence than that in the people of Canada. I have too much confidence in our parliamentary institutions to suggest that such a piece of legislation will undermine their very foundations. It is unthinkable that one could make such a mountain out of a molehill, and I really mean it. The New Democrats, who do not always share our views and very often criticize and flatten us with all kinds of arguments, but it is all quite fair, have understood the real problem at issue here. But the Progressive Conservatives are so concerned with base electoral considerations that they are blind. Well, Mr. Speaker, we shall proceed with this bill and we will make sure that the question that will be put, either in Quebec or in another context, will be in the best interest of the Canadian people as a whole as well as of Quebeckers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Merci, M.
l'Orateur.

I wish to say a few words on the bill before us today, Bill C-9 dealing with referenda. I want to begin by saying that the speech made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of this party, was "right on" when he gave the position of his party with regard to the bill before the House today. He made it very clear in the debate that we supported the bill before us. He made it clear that we are supporting it because the bill concerns the referendum on the constitutional matter only, and he made it also very clear that we believe the federal parliament needs the power to conduct a
Referenda
referendum in the province of Quebec if indeed the question posed by the Parti Quebecois is not clear. It seems to me that we would be very remiss indeed if we did not give this institution the power to conduct such a referendum if the referendum question in the province of Quebec is not clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It seems to me that the Conservative party members are very mixed up and rather inconsistent.
I go back to the speech made in the House by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). She spoke about the Parti Quebecois and said:
It is already quite clear that the Pequistes are loading the dice as well as stacking the decks.
If they are loading the dice and stacking the decks, then I do not see why we should want to deny the House the right to have proper legislation allowing it to conduct a referendum if we think the referendum question in Quebec is not very clear. If the referendum question is clear, that is another matter, but what happens if the Parti Quebecois, when the referendum in Quebec is held in October or November, asks for the power to negotiate sovereignty association and wins? What do we do then as the federal parliament? I ask that question very seriously. I think we should have the power and the right to put a very clear question to the people of Quebec: Are they in favour of becoming independent? The Conservative party may say "nonsense" to that, but I ask them: Who speaks for Canada? I think we all do. We are all a part of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not say this with any particular slant against the Parti Quebecois; I recognize they are well meaning, intelligent, capable people. That is one of the reasons why I think they might do very well in the referendum that will probably be conducted next fall. They are brillant politicians, brillant communicators. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands says they are stacking the decks and loading the dice. They are doing all these things, yet she would have parliament deny us Canadians in general the right to ask Quebec a clearcut question. I do not think that is right. I think we, as Canadians, should have the right to do just that. We are all Canadians.
The hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston) in his speech said this was a real problem where he comes from and that they are concerned about independence. Then a member from Alberta said we are all Canadians, we are concerned about that too. If we are concerned, then why not make sure that this institution has the power to conduct a referendum to clarify things? I think that is fair and straightforward. That type of legislation has been in effect in many countries in the world. In Great Britain, for example, there have been referenda conducted on constitutional matters.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 26, 1979
Referenda


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There was a referendum on Great Britain joining the Common Market. They are now talking about referenda in Wales and Scotland to determine their future.


Donald W. Munro: No, those are special bills.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This is a special bill also, one dealing with the constitutional package. The Leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Clark) gets very mixed up. We know the reputation of the leader of that party, but still I do not think they should always be mixed up because they want to follow their leader. I noted that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) was crying and saying what would happen if the government were to introduce this legislation and hold a referendum during an election campaign.


Donald W. Munro: No, a referendum on elections.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is right in the bill. At page 8 of the bill we find clause 6 which reads:
(2)(a) no writs of referendum shall be issued during a general election;


Donald W. Munro: I did not say that. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or a point of clarification. I did not suggest in my comments-and the record will show that-that a referendum might be conducted during an election. I said the question might be put on general elections in Canada as a principle.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the hon. member does not know what the purpose of this legislation is, then I am really surprised.
We are faced with possibly the greatest crisis in this country, the fact that an important part of the country will be faced with the question about splitting away and becoming independent. The bill before us now will give the federal parliament the power to conduct a referendum in Quebec or in any other province, or indeed if there is a new constitutional package, to conduct it right across this country. That is all this bill is talking about. Some members of the Conservative party think that is funny. I would like to know where they stand.
A few months ago the leader of that party was quoted as saying that if Mr. Levesque gets 60 per cent or over of the vote on sovereignty association, he would sit down and negotiate it with him. I understand he said it in French, but he still said it.
I have seen journalists who have talked to people who were at that particular meeting. I believe it took place in Riviere-du-Loup. That is what the Leader of the Conservative party said. He did not know what Mr. Levesque meant by sovereignty association, but by God he was ready to sit down and negotiate it. He is saying what Levesque is saying: "Negotiate two sovereign countries."


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not what he said.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, it is. I am glad the hon. member said that, because I was about to indicate that the Leader of the

Opposition then changed his mind. I was not surprised that he changed his mind because he does so often. Now the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he really did not mean that, they will have discussions and talk. What is the difference between negotiating and talking, negotiating and having discussions?
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) appeared on CTV's "Question Period". He made it very clear that we should sit down and negotiate sovereignty association, and that it would be very silly not to sit down for such a purpose. It was not until the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), whom I admire very greatly, was able to get the hon. member for Rosedale in the corner and give him a spanking that he promptly went before the press and said, "Well, I really did not mean that."
Coincidentally I turned on the television and saw the hon. member for Rosedale. He said that he used four words interchangeably: negotiation, discussion, talking, and another word. In my mind they are similar words, yet the hon. member said, "Now I am not going to talk about negotiation. I will talk about talking and discussions". Apparently that is the position of the Conservative party. During the Christmas recess people were approaching me and asking how a federal party could say such a thing, and whether Conservative members were about to sit down and talk about something of which they knew nothing. I indicated that I would not be surprised, given the present Leader of the Opposition. I said, "You can see him now on his world tour." That is the position of the Conservative party, and it does not surprise me.
The bill before the House is a very clear one. It will last for five years. One would think the sky had fallen in if one listened to the remarks of members of the Conservative party. Perhaps they do not know what the bill is all about, perhaps they have not read it. The bill deals only with constitutional questions; they will not ask about the price of rice in China. The bill contains a sunset clause. It will go on for a period of five years and then it dies. Perhaps Conservative members do not realize this.
It is only advisory in nature and a consultative mechanism. As the hon. ember for Westmount said, it is really nothing more than a public opinion poll. Do Canadians not have the right to say what they feel through a referendum on a matter as basic as the constitution of Canada? Do Canadians in the province of Quebec not have the right to say yes or no to a very clearcut question as to whether they want to be independent or remain a part of Canada? Perhaps the people of Saskatchewan should have the right to say yes or no to a certain constitutional package. Perhaps one area of the country should not receive special treatment, as has been suggested by some Conservative members. The bill requests a direct yes or no answer to a very clearcut question. It does not have to apply necessarily to the entire country. It can apply to one province or region of the country. If we are dealing with whether Quebec wants to remain a part of Canada, indeed that is what will happen.
Some members have expressed concern about the fact that 40 hours of debate is not long enough. Surely that is a quibbling question. We must remember that 40 hours repre-
January 26, 1979

sents between eight or ten days of consideration in the House of Commons. I realize it takes Conservative members a long time to say anything, but ten days should be long enough. Once the bill leaves the House of Commons, it goes before the Senate for consideration. Where the 40-hour maximum applies as well. Thus, we are looking at approximately 20 days of consideration. There are only five days in a parliamentary week, so we are talking about four weeks. We will have more than adequate time to consider the wording of the particular question which will be put to Canadians.
An amendment could change this particular clause. Perhaps members of the Conservative party would like to have 45 hours or 50 hours for consideration of the bill, but it seems to me that the 40-hours limitation is not a good enough reason to oppose it. When the referendum is conducted, it will be conducted in the ordinary manner in which an election is conducted in terms of franchise, voting, enumeration procedure, ans so on. The contributions made for the referendum campaigns on either the yes or no side will be limited to approximately $5,000 per contributor. There will be government subsidies for groups on both sides, similar to those provided under the Canada Elections Act. Also some free time will be provided by the broadcasters of the country. Those parts of the bill are very important.
In a question as important as the one which will be facing the country, we as a parliament should have a device to go and ask a very clearcut question if we think the situation must be clarified. The entire question of the unity and the future of Canada is a very, very important one. A debate such as this provides us with an opportunity to express our views as to why the country should be united.
Recently the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity completed a major study. It made a number of observations and recommendations concerning the country and various items in the constitution which require change. We do not accept all its recommendations, but some of the matters to which it referred are very important and should be accepted by the House.
[ Translation]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Pepin-Robarts commission. As I said in English, it has prepared a sound report and I agree with many of its recommendations. But, Mr. Speaker, Canada is a wonderful country which was founded both by the French and the British 200 or 300 years ago. Long before the British and the French ever landed here, there were many Indians living in this country, who actually are the very first Canadians.
We have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of having many ethnic groups in Canada. For instance, in the west there are many Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, Chinese and some Swedes like myself. Moreover, Canada is a very vast country; as a matter of fact, the distance between Vancouver and Halifax is greater than between Halifax and Paris, France, or Halifax and
Referenda
London, England. Canada is also a land of plenty with only 23 million people living in five regions which are very dissimilar: British Columbia, the prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there exists a deep misunderstanding between the five Canadian regions, between eastern and western Canada, between our consumers and our producers, between Quebec and the other provinces, but the deepest misunderstanding is to be found between Quebec and the other provinces. There is a significant cultural difference between them but, Mr. Speaker, the problems that prevail in Quebec and in English Canada are generally the same. We all have the same unemployment problems and the same Prime Minister. Therefore we have many very similar problems. It is for reasons such as those I do not wish this country to break up.

It seems to me sometimes we tend to exaggerate the differences a lot more than we should. Of course there are differences, but there are many similarities as well. Many of the differences in language and culture can be turned into tremendous assets with positive results for all of Canada.
I believe we have the flexibility we need in the constitution as it is now, perhaps with some amendments, and we have talked in this party of the different amendments that should be made to the constitution to make it very clear that the resources come within provincial jurisdiction, giving more power in communications to the provinces, and powers in respect of immigration given to the province of Quebec and perhaps others, and so on. I think that with those types of changes all parts of Canada have enough flexibility.
The province of Quebec, for example, does have the right, as it should, to make sure that French is the official working language of that province. Do they have that right? Our leader has said on several occasions that he supports the general principles of Bill 101. I do not think there is any party in the House which would deny that. Sure, there are some "i's" to be dotted and "t's" to be crossed that some might disagree with, but in general Quebec has that right just as other provinces exercise the right to have English as their basic language of work except, of course, New Brunswick, which is probably the only true bilingual or French-English province in confederation. These things do exist and I think we have flexibility.
I think the big thing that is lacking in this country is not a decentralization of power, which the Leader of the Opposition wants us to have, but a more even distribution of development. For so many years so much of the development has been concentrated in southern Ontario. I suppose if there is a spoiled brat of confederation it is the southern part of the province of Ontario. The freight rate structure has been geared in the main to aid that region.


An hon. Member:: That's boloney.

January 26, 1979
Referenda


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Someone says that is boloney. He must be from southern Ontario. The tariff structure has been devised to help in the main the industrial heartland of this country, which is southern Ontario.


An hon. Member:: How about Oshawa?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are talking about southern Ontario and that is, of course, part of southern Ontario. I know the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) might think Oshawa is in the north, but it is really down in the south. Anyway, I know the Leader of the Opposition needs some geography lessons but I always thought the entire caucus had more brains than he and I am very much surprised to find that we have somebody here who does not know where Oshawa is.
Then we have government policies which I think probably have centralized this country to a great extent in places such as southern Ontario. Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean by that. We have concessions to big companies through taxation, supported by the Conservatives. Most of those concessions go to the large companies, and most of the large companies are situated in the province of Ontario. Most of the public servants are in the province of Ontario, and until recently most of the buildings housing those public servants were in Ontario also.
There are even some government inconsistencies. DREE was established to get rid of some of the inequities and disparities in this country, to help Newfoundland, part of Quebec, the northern part of the prairies and the like. Of course we support the objectives of an organization such as that. Then we have other government plans such as the Export Development Corporation that channels government money into the promotion of our exports. As it happens, of course, most of our manufacturing takes place in areas like southern Ontario, so we have government money coming right back into those areas.


An hon. Member:: Take it easy on southern Ontario.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not criticizing southern Ontario. It has been smart enough to have shrewd politicians, shrewd businessmen and shrewd people for all these years, and has obtained that development. What I am saying is that the time has come when we must have more balanced development across this country.
Of course, I think that is happening in western Canada. Through our resources it is exerting its muscle like it has never pxerted it before, and will continue to do so. I think the balance of power in this country is starting to shift. There should be more development in western Canada as it relates and pertains to our resources. I think in Edmonton, Yorkton, and all over, that development must continue and must be accelerated. We must have more development in the Atlantic provinces.
There are a lot of things that could be done in the Atlantic provinces which are not being done. We have relied on the old program of offering a company a large carrot, but once it has gobbled the carrot the incentive to stay and expand is gone. We must develop things that are indigenous to the areas, the fishing industry, and the lumber industry. Other commodities

that are produced there should be processed and manufactured in the Atlantic provinces.
In Quebec all we have to do is look at the unemployment rates to know that large areas of that province have not received their full or fair share of national development money and national development policies.
My friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and others, talk about northern Ontario as being the real colony of the south, the colony of Toronto. That seems to be the forgotten region of the entire country in many ways because it is part of Ontario. There is no reason why there should not be more development there with more equal distribution and dispersion of the growth in the province of Ontario. These are the things I think have to be done.
We cannot solve the problems in respect of unity entirely by changing the constitution. I do not think we are going to make the country stronger by a tremendous decentralization of power. The premier of my own province has said that is not the solution. We do not want to set up ten quasi-sovereign states. I suggest that would really balkanize the country completely. I do not see how you create more unity by giving a tremendous amount of power to each of the ten parts. As Mr. Levesque said yesterday on television in New York, talking about the old French proverb, if you whet the appetite you become more and more hungry. I think that is what will happen if you have a real devolution of power toward each of the provinces. I do not think that is necessary.
If we want to create equity in this country and help the outlying regions and the people who have not been helped in the past, we need a strong enough central government to distribute income and opportunity right across the country. You cannot do that by creating a system in this country where you have ten provinces given tremendously more power than they have now. I think that is the way the Leader of the Opposition wants to go. At least that is what he talks about, certainly when he is in the west, and that is what he talks about on many occasions in this House without, of course, clearly spelling out precisely what he means.
I see that I have only two or three minutes left. Let me say there are many people who have suggested that if Quebec wants to go it does not matter anyway because the rest of the country will stay as it is. I think they are dead wrong. As the report of the unity task force has said, we should not use economic arguments to keep Quebec in. Quebec has six million people and lots of resources, and perhaps they could do well on their own. Many people seem to think if Quebec goes it will just fall apart and suffer tremendous economic ills while the rest of the country would merrily carry on. I want to suggest that if Quebec goes that could be the end of the entire country. It could be the end of what is left of the entire country as well.
I am sure it would be tremendously advantageous to the Atlantic provinces to have closer ties with the United States. That would make tremendous sense. I see some members nodding their heads. I can tell you, coming from the west, that there would be a tremendous move among the people of the four western provinces, certainly in the three most western
January 26, 1979

provinces, to become independent. Why should we continue to attach ourselves to the province of Ontario from which we import all kinds of manufactured goods but, in turn, to which we export very little? Why should we continue massively subsidizing the province of Ontario? I suggest that within five or ten years we would see the whole country totally balkan-ized, with perhaps three or four different units, a couple independent and a couple perhaps amalgamated with the United States. May I call it four o'clock?


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and who are not in or are prepared to withdraw from the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market and to everyone at age 65, to be increased to $350 per month, for this basic amount to be escalated each year by an amount that will enable pensioners not only to keep up with rising living costs but to share in rising living standards, and also to provide for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
He said: I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, once again to have an opportunity to present a motion that calls for substantial improvements in our old age security program. When I ask for improvements, it is by implication to be said that over the years we have done fairly well in building up a program for our older people which is certainly a lot better than was the case a few decades ago. I not only admit that we have done fairly well, I am proud to assert it, for I have been involved in a good deal of the story.
It is a story which gives me great pleasure to tell and I tell it fairly often, but I must not repeat it on this occasion because I would use my 20 minutes and still not finish the story. Even so, I might give one or two highlights to indicate my long interest and attachment to this question. As I have said before, it was actually on the very day that I was born, June 18, 1908, that the House of Commons of Canada first debated a measure having to do with pensions for ordinary Canadians. That was
Old Age Security
the bill which established the Government Annuities Act. I am told that I was born at about four or five o'clock in the morning, but it was not until that afternoon that the House of Commons debated the legislation. So, pensions in Canada and I got started on the same day.
I was also very much aware of the bargaining and the debating that went on in 1926 when the first old age pension bill was passed in this House of Commons and then defeated in that other place, which seems to be on the way out. Everybody is now recommending its abolition. The result of things that year, the bill in the early part of the year and an election and another bill later in the year, was that the first old age pension as such came into effect in Canada in the early part of 1927. That was a pension of $20 per month payable at age 70 under a very, very severe means test. When I first came to this House as a member in 1942, that was still the state of the old age pension, so I have been involved in all the changes that have taken place since, and I am happy to say that many of those changes have been exceedingly worth-while.
We have made things infinitely better for older people today than they were in the days of my parents or my grandparents, days that I remember quite well. Even though we have made these improvements-and I am not taking time to tell the story of the prodding and the pushing that it has taken to get them-the fact of the matter is that there are still further improvements to be made. I am not deterred at all by the argument that this is a time of restraint. I do not feel that that is any reason for leaving until some later year or decade the question of doing something to improve the position of our senior citizens.
Our senior citizens face needs today, even under our improved legislation, and it is my view that this parliament ought to be giving attention to those needs. I realize that this particular parliament, the thirtieth in Canada's history, is in its dying days and that the chances of getting something before there is a dissolution are not great, but I hope that by keeping the flag flying we will get something done on this important question before 1979 is over.
My motion, Mr. Speaker, covers most of the things that need to be done in terms of pension. Perhaps I should address myself to those items in the order in which they are mentioned in the resolution. In the first place it proposes that pensions under the Old Age Security Act and under the Canada Pension Plan should be available at age 60. I emphasize the fact that in neither case do I contend that these pensions should be universal at age 60 the way they are at age 65 but, rather, that they should be available to all those who are out of or are prepared to leave the labour market. In my view that is the only test that should be applied. I do not see the validity of a means test at that age, and even worse than the means test is the marital test that applies to the spouse's allowance which is available to some Canadians now between the ages of 60 and 65.
I know about the campaign to permit people to work beyond age 65. I am a living example of one who believes in that line of thought. What bothers me is that the campaign to provide

January 26, 1979
Old Age Security
for people to be allowed to work longer years can easily lead to the suggestion that the date for the payment of the pension might be made later than it is. In my view it should be made earlier, as I have said, at age 60. Certainly there are many people who are in the kinds of jobs where they can work many years beyond age 60, 65, or even beyond age 70, but the kind of people I represent in the railway shops, packing plants, textile establishments, steel mills and so on in the city of Winnipeg, are in hard, backbreaking jobs, such that whenever I meet these people, especially at election time, they say to me that staying at work until they are age 65 is very difficult. The thing they plead for most is to get that pension age down, at least on the basis of its being available. So I press this matter.
I remember the long struggle to get the age down from 70 to 65 and the years when we were told that it could not be done, but v/e finally got it, even if it took a year at a time to get it down. I suggest that it could now be put down to age 60 and that that is an objective to which this parliament should commit itself.
There is the fact that with so much unemployment in the brackets of younger people it makes sense to let some of the older people who want to retire do so, to open up jobs for those younger people. I am not asserting that this by itself would solve the unemployment problem, but it does seem to be silly to ask the younger people to live on unemployment insurance or welfare when they want to work, and to require older people to stay in the shops and factories to age 65, when they would much rather have the chance to retire and enjoy the remaining years of their lives. Again, 1 stress the importance of that aspect of the motion, namely, that pensions should be available at age 60.
I have said it before and I say it again: I am not arguing for pensions to be universal at age 60 the way they are at age 65, but in my view anyone who is out of the labour market or who is prepared to leave the work force and wants the pension, should be able to get it. That would include housewives at home. So far as women between the ages of 60 and 65 are concerned, especially those who are not spouses-those who are single, widowed or divorced-surely this is the more humane, the more decent way to meet their needs than by that terribly discriminatory spouse's allowance we have at the present time. I press that aspect of the legislation with extreme vigour, Mr. Speaker.
Most of the rest of my motion calls for an increase in the amount of the pension. I have put in a particular figure of $350 per month. That has to be seen in relation to the fact that at the present time the old age security payment, in other words, the basic pension, is $167.21 per month and there is available on top of that a guaranteed income supplement of $137.28 per month, which comes to a possible maximum of $304.49 per month. For persons at that point I am not asking for as much of an increase as I should like to ask. I am simply suggesting a minimum figure. I hope no one in this debate will

argue I have the wrong figure in there, unless he wants to argue that it is too low.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, you can get almost any figure you want for the poverty level. The committee of the other place that dealt with aging some years ago has, from time to time, through its chairman, Senator David Croll, updated that figure. The Canadian Council on Social Development produces figures on the poverty level too, so it varies. Municipal bodies of social workers produce them also. I would point out that they range all the way from about $5,000 per year to $8,000 per year for a single person, and from $7,000 per year to $12,000 per year for a married couple. I suggest that to anyone who considers the cost of living today, those estimates of the poverty line are not at all high.
It is a fact, of course, that there are some other things available to older people, thanks to the legislation we have been able to win in this parliament and our legislatures, such as health and medical care, senior citizens apartments, and so on. When one looks at poverty levels based on the figures I have given, and when it is realized that the total amount payable under old age security and guaranteed income supplement combined is only $3,648.00 per year for a single person and only $6,756 for a married couple, one realizes that we are still asking most of our older people to live at or below the poverty line. I suggest that is something this parliament ought not to be doing; we ought to be a humane body of men and women and we ought to meet the needs of our older people.
It is argued, of course, that the pension is being indexed according to the rise in the cost of living. Almost every time we raise the issue we get that answer from the government. I want simply to make the statement again that we often make, that the indexing is always several months behind because of the way it is computed. It is also based on a general index and not in relation to the things that senior citizens have to buy. Neither does it conform to the principle I suggest in my motion, namely, that senior citizens should have the right to keep up not only with the cost of living at the point that they retire but should be able to keep up with the rising standard of living which is made possible by the economy they helped to build.
I say it is not good enough to tell us there is this kind of indexing. It does not even keep our older people up with the cost of living, let alone their right to be part of the Canadian family in every sense.
There are those who talk today about lots of older people being wealthy. An organization that I shall not name, because I am shocked at what it said, has suggested this week that perhaps we should abolish universality-we should no longer continue to pay old age pensions and family allowances to everyone. The implication is that there are older people who are wealthy and do not need their old age security. Mr. Speaker, there are statistics which show that 60 per cent of our senior citizens, 65 years of age or over, qualify for part or all of the guaranteed income supplement. You do not qualify for that unless you have little or no other income, Mr. Speaker. That accounts for 1,200,000 of our two million senior citizens.
January 26, 1979

By virtue of the fact that they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement they are already living far below the poverty line.
Above that 60 per cent, that 1,200,000, there are another
800,000	senior citizens. The implication is that they are all right. Mr. Speaker, they are not. I would say that half or more than half of those people are still living at the poverty line or just above it, which is not decent, dignified living.
There may be 10 per cent of our senior citizens at the top, but not more than that, who are receiving enough other income that they do not really need the pension. I suggest the way to deal with them is to raise the income tax on all persons in the upper brackets. Let us not ever go back to the indignity and confusion and bureaucracy of the welfare approach that was involved in means testing pensions as I knew it when I first came to this House of Commons.
I know it is argued that we have more sophisticated ways of doing these things today. It is not as cruel and severe as it was years ago. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I say to you out of some experience of knowing what the life of older people was like 50 years ago, and knowing what it is like today, that one of the best things the Parliament of Canada ever did was to put old age pensions on a universal basis; to make them a matter of right and to make them a matter of dignity.
There are older people today, even the ones who may be having a tough time economically, who are better off in terms of dignity and self-respect than was the case for most of our older people 40 or 50 years ago. Let there be no talk of any return to a means test for old age pensions. If there is any worry about the few at the top who make too much and do not need it, it can be taxed back.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is making some very good speeches about the changes that need to be made in our income tax system in order to get more for those who need it and take more from those who are at the top and do not need it. I go along with that completely. Let us not have the indignity and confusion, the unfairness that existed with the means test as we had it years ago. Once we start talking about the level at which the pension would not be paid, we are in trouble.
I see that I have used my 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker, and that I must sit down. I thank the House for the attention given me as I have made this speech-I do not know if it is the one thousand and fiftieth or the eleven hundredth time I have made it over the years. I am proud of what we have done in the Parliament of Canada to improve things for older people. Let us not stop now just because some people call for restraint. Let us recognize that the older people of this country are part of the Canadian family and that they deserve the best we can do for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am very pleased to follow the hon.
Old Age Security
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As usual, he has made an impassioned plea, this time on behalf of senior citizens. It is the same kind of plea he has been making since he has been in the House of Commons.
I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this motion today, since it comes at a time when the Government of Canada has just taken some actions to improve the benefits provided to senior Canadians under the Old Age Security Act.
I think, before we directly examine the terms of this motion, it might be appropriate to look at the new changes to see what we are doing, why we are doing it this way, and how much it is going to cost.
In January of 1979 the guaranteed income supplement for old age security pensioners is going to increase by $20 for each household receiving the benefit. More specifically, unattached pensioners, and couples where only one is a pensioner, will receive $20 a month. Where both husband and wife are pensioners, or one is a pensioner and the other is receiving a spouse's allowance, each will have an extra $10 a month.
The other change is a refinement to the spouse's allowance program which will permit the extension of this benefit for six months after the death of the recipient's pensioner spouse.
These changes indicate that the government, indeed that all members of this House share the concerns for older Canadians which are expressed in this motion by the hon. member, although practicality, especially in view of the current economic situation, required a much more modest approach. I think it is particularly significant, in debating the present motion, that we remember this $20 increase will be made not on the basic old age security pension, but on the guaranteed income supplement which is made available to pensioners with relatively low incomes. By doing so, we are ensuring that the money that is available for this increase will go to those who need it most. We could have used the same money to make an across-the-board increase in the basic benefit, but the increase would have to have been smaller, and it would have done nothing to resolve the special problem of the pensioner living alone. Using the guaranteed income supplement, we have given as large an increase to this group of pensioners as we have to pensioner couples who have the advantage of being able to share expenses.
One other thing about these new amendments which is important in discussing this motion is cost. The guaranteed income supplement increase will cost about $290 million, and that is a pretty large sum. To find that much money required some hard decisions about reducing expenditures in other valuable programs, so as to avoid higher taxes or increased borrowing.
But that $290 million is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of the hon. member's proposals, which are so large that even it whole departments of government were eradicated we could not find the money. We would have to raise taxes or public borrowing to finance these proposals. I hope to get back to this point later, if time permits.

January 26, 1979
Old Age Security
We have before us a motion which really incorporates a series of proposals which have been made from time to time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I wish to thank him for putting forth all these ideas at once because it gives us the opportunity to discuss the implications of them as a group. As I understand it, the hon. member has asked for five separate items, at least one of which is not entirely within the power of the Parliament of Canada to grant.
First, he wants eligibility for old age security at 60. This would be subject to some test of non-participation in the labour force, and I am not entirely sure how this test would work or whether it would apply only to those between 60 and 65. I am not sure whether the hon. member would want us to cut off from benefits the many persons over 65 who are still in the labour force on at least a part-time basis. Statistics Canada's figures indicate that 182,000 persons over 65 were labour force participants in March of 1978. On the other hand I see no reason to discriminate between the 60 to 65-year-old old age security pensioner and the over 65s on this ground. I do not know whether the hon. member would go as far as some countries, like Belgium and Finland for instance, in enforcing this retirement provision. Those countries apparently deny pensioners the right to work once they start receiving their pension. I do not know if we would ever want to go that far in Canada. There is no doubt that it is less easy for Canadians over 65 to find work than it is for those under that age, but thus far the door has not been shut altogether. Individual employers may set retirement ages but the nation as a whole does not compel Canadians to stop work completely.
Secondly, the hon. member asks that the same thing be done to the Canada Pension Plan, again subject to non-participation in the labour force. This is a task that might be even more difficult to achieve than a reduction in the eligible age for old age security.
It is not just that the Canada Pension Plan is a federal plan subject to provincial consent, so that we would need provincial accord. There is also the difficulty of paying for the benefits. One member suggested in the last session that we could somehow produce the money for all these proposal by slashing other programs, but neglected the fact that the Canada Pension Plan is a contributory program. The cost of the early benefits under the Canada Pension Plan would have to be borne by the contributions of Canadian workers and employers. The current controversy over the funding of the Canada Pension Plan has largely resulted from a lot of misplaced criticisms about the contribution rate. It has always been clear that this must rise from 3.6 per cent to around 8 per cent over the next 50 years if benefits are to continue to be paid, and this does not seem to be an exorbitant price to pay for the type of solid coverage that the Canada Pension Plan provides. However, when you add in the cost of retirement benefits at age 60, then the costs of this plan start rising at an alarming rate. It is true that the major portion of the cost will have to be borne by future generations of contributors, but surely their interests must be of concern to us as well.
Next, the hon. member wants to see the basic old age security benefit raised to $350. I do not want to dwell too much on this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, because I think that all of us want to see senior citizens receive as much as possible and the cost is the only factor with which we have concern. There are some arguments that could be made as to the effects on retirement savings that a jump in old age security benefits might cause, but I am sure that every member of this House would vote for an increase in old age security benefits if only it did not cost anything. But it will cost. The current basic old age security benefit is $164.74 a month, and the budget for this benefit, not counting the supplement or spouse's allowance, is over $4 billion a year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is a month behind.


William Kenneth Robinson: Raising this benefit to $350, even without all the extras the honourable member asks in terms of eligible age and removal of income tests and such, would raise the annual budget over the $9 billion mark a year. In other words, it will more than double the price tag of this program, not just for one year but forever. Having raised the benefit, we could not turn around and decrease it again, except perhaps in some circumstances too dire to be imagined now.
Next, the hon. member wants to abolish the income test on the guaranteed income supplement, and by implication incorporate this benefit with the basic old age security payment for all pensioners. Again, cost is an overwhelming factor which has been mentioned, but this whole proposal must be seen in light of the hon. member's basic objection to the income test, which I hope I will have an opportunity to speak on further, because it seems to me to be a very important concept.
Lastly, the hon. member wishes to set up an automatic indexation of these revised benefits by some measure of the Canadian standard of living rather than by the consumer price index as is currently the case. This idea differs markedly from the current system of indexation, which is intended only to maintain the real amount of benefits. If we were to increase benefits automatically by a larger percentage, one that increased the real value of benefits, we would be increasing the real cost of the program over a period of time. This proposal has been made from time to time, and because of the potential cost implications it is one that we would have to weigh carefully indeed.
It is apparent from what I have said earlier on this motion that there are a number of disturbing aspects to this long list of proposals. Certainly the overriding thing has to be the sheer monumental cost of the hon. member's suggestion, and we have had a pretty thorough discussion in the past of what this would mean to the Canadian taxpayer.
But there is more than simply cost involved here. Some of the things implied in this motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre amount to a fundamental alteration in the approach that would be taken toward income for the elderly and for other Canadians as well.

January 26, 1979

For example, the hon. member has proposed that we remove the income test which is currently applied to the guaranteed income supplement. What he is proposing really amounts to raising the old age security benefit and abolishing the guaranteed income supplement altogether. In other words, he is suggesting that we abolish the feature of the program that is designed to direct the benefits to those with the lowest income. He appears to be saying that there is something wrong with a program being designed so that funds will be directed to those most in need.
The guaranteed income supplement was introduced about 12 years ago, and I do not wish to take hon. members through all the changes that have been made since then. But I do want to emphasize three points about the original program. The first is that if the same funds as were available for the supplement had been added onto the old age security program without an income test, the benefits provided would have been much smaller. In today's terms, if the $1.25 billion now being expended on the supplement were divided evenly among all OAS pensioners, this would provide each with an extra $50 per month. Each would have about $215 per month. But a pensioner who has only old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to live on would have about $65 less than the $280.29 available now, with the income-tested benefit. In any real situation the cost effectiveness is always going to be important. Universality is also important, however, and a program like OAS which combines a universal benefit with an income-tested supplement may be the best compromise. That is what we have today.
The second point is that the program was and still is not means-tested, if we define a means test as an examination of both income and assets. Instead, the supplement was concerned only with the income of the individual as defined by the Income Tax Act. This avoided the stigma that is commonly associated with programs which examine the assets of the individual. It meant that a pensioner with a low income, but in possession of a few assets such as a house or car, would not be forced to become destitute before being eligible for this benefit.
I know the hon. member is aware of this difference and prefers to call the income test a means test, but we should remember that the major drawback to a means test, as most people understand the term, is the examination of assets. Under the guaranteed income supplement this problem simply does not exist.
The third point about this program's design is that it was originally a temporary measure, designed to supplement the income of pensioners only where they did not have a chance to contribute for ten years to build up a full pension under the Canada Pension Plan, which came into effect in 1966. However, the supplement was so successful and its value was so obvious that rather than being phased out starting in 1976, the program was made permanent. There is a lesson here, Mr. Speaker, and it is that programs like the supplement do have a
Old Age Security
legitimate role to play. Many people are saying that, rather than being abolished, the guaranteed income supplement should serve as an example to be remembered in designing programs for other deserving and needy groups in our society.
There has been mention, for example, of a guaranteed income for other groups, perhaps through the vehicle of a tax credit system. I would remind hon. members that any proposed tax credit would almost have to be income-tested in very much the same way that the guaranteed income supplement is income-tested. The rate of tax-back on a tax credit might be lower or higher than the $1 for every $2 applicable under the supplement, but the principle would be the same, that is, the greater the individual's income from other sources, the smaller the proportion of the tax credit that would be retained by the individual as disposable income. We all know about the new child tax credit in this regard.
Despite whatever governments may do, it should always remain the right and the responsibility of the individual to plan and build toward his or her own retirement needs as he or she perceives them. The idea that the government knows better than the individual and can do better than the individual in the field of retirement planning is not one that we could easily endorse or justify.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who just resumed his seat, I cannot fail to applaud and commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the pertinacity with which he comes at this problem and the evident concern he has shown throughout the years for the elderly. He takes a very human approach to this problem. He is ever making these urgings.
In times when the Canadian economy is flourishing it is able to meet at least some of the demands that are put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by others. He urges, for example, that a pension be available at age 60. It is not quite clear whether these people would take the pension at age 60 if they wanted to go on. I rather suspect that is not so. At 65 it would be there for them as well, even if they remained in the work force. That is one approach, I suppose.
The hon. member complained about the means test, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson) has said. In the extension of the guaranteed income supplement and the qualifications to obtain it, there is a process of a means test which I suppose is actually an incomes test. That is fair enough. I do not see anything undignified about that.
If we were able, we in this House would all want to ensure that the elderly of this country live in full comfort for the rest of their years. We would also like to feel that in their working years these people would be able to provide for that on their own, setting aside and not just frittering everything away. That is one of the unforeseen side effects of this cradle to the grave operation in which we have been involved.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree that a tendency has developed on the part of, unfortunately, a great many people to believe they do not have to save,

January 26, 1979
Old Age Security
the state will look after them, they will be all right, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will look after them when the time comes. They believe that when their time comes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will urge that their pension be increased. That is not the ethic that belongs to the Canada that his mother, father, grandmother and grandfather knew. It is not the ethic that brought me into the world.
My forebears had to look after themselves out of their own resources and to look after others in the immediate family, such as cousins who had the misfortune to lose one or the other of their parents. That happened in my family. The ethic of that generation is being lost not wholly but partly as a result of the feeling that the government will look after them so they can spend everything they have. They believe there is no need to save. That is unfortunate.
The hon. member's motion is very complex. I will not necessarily deal with all elements in a connected fashion. One element of the motion is that the pension he is suggesting should be indexed by other than the cost of living index. The present cost of living index does not really apply to the elderly. I have urged that there be a special cost of living index for the elderly, one which is more related to their buying patterns and habits. That is something we ought to implement.
There was a change in the cost of living index, the base, the formula, the basket, or whatever you call it, on which the cost of living index was devised. It took place just about two or three months ago, but it did not meet this particular need.
I have learned that in Britain there are two indices applicable to the elderly. One is apparently applicable to couples over the age of 65 and it relates to the pattern of their expenditures. They may or may not own their own home, they may be living in homes for the elderly; they don't buy clothes to the same extent as younger people and not many of them buy ski equipment, yet that element, sports and recreation, is included in the present cost of living index. It is nonsense. There is another index, and I was surprised to learn of it. It is an index which is applicable to single people in Britain who are on pension. Pensions for them are indexed according to a single person's index. I think it is high time we had our statisticians looking into this matter.
When I heard that the index was being worked on I had very high hopes that there would be an index which could very well be applicable to the elderly. It has not been done and I regret this very much. In passing, and since I am talking about the British pension system, I do feel that I would like to emphasize once again here, unrelated as it may perhaps be to the motion before us but still relevant, the plea of those of us who are deeply concerned about the lot of the British pensioners in Canada who are not getting any indexation of any kind in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: The reciprocal agreement has not yet come through. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary

would carry our message of concern to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in this regard.


An hon. Member:: We are working on that.


Walter David Baker: You have been working on it for years.


Donald W. Munro: I know each country blames the other, but surely there is a way of getting down to it. There aren't that many pensioners in that position. I learned that the agreement between the Italians and the Canadians was concluded the other day and I know this will be a great joy to those who lost their sons during the war. I do wish we could get it cleared up so that those British parents who came over to live near their families-their sons or their daughters who had emigrated here-should get the benefit of the increases in the British pension. However, that is a matter which will arise on another occasion.
We tend to overlook the fact that not everybody needs the pension. Many members object to a means test. The suggestion is that if certain people do not need a pension, if they have sufficient assets to make themselves comfortable in their later years, you can tax them like the devil and take those assets away from them. But what you are doing is simply redistributing income. If someone wishes to refuse the pension, if he doesn't need or want it, why should he not be able to assign it either to someone who does need it or make it quite clear that the money is going into the general pot?
As I said before, I hope there is not a single person in this chamber who does not want to ensure that those who are in need in their later years should not be in want. All of us want to make sure that their needs are catered to, to the extent that is possible. Many of us here, either because of our family circumstances prior to coming into the House, or because of the enterprise we were engaged in before we came here, or maybe because of family circumstances since coming into this House, might feel prepared to forgo the pension which might be available to us from the CPP or the OIS. Why should we not be able to make clear that we wish this pension to be available to someone else who is in need?
I am reminded of one comment made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which tickled my fancy. He said: "Pensions ought to be available to wives who are not in, or who are prepared to withdraw from, the labour market." There ought to be more wives around here prepared to comment on that remark. Wives are in the labour market whether they like it or not, as far as I can see, from the time they become wives. Husbands who are in the labour market should be able to contribute that portion of a pension for their wives so they can draw a pension in their own right. Why not?


An hon. Member:: Cutting into universality.


Donald W. Munro: All right, I know about universality. But is there a man in this House who would not be willing to pay twice his contribution in CPP payments in order that his wife, at the time of her reaching retirement age,
January 26, 1979

would be able to receive payments from the CPP? 1 hope not. But I am not going to go around the House asking the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the husband whose income falls in the low income brackets and who cannot afford to pay a premium for his wife?


Donald W. Munro: I am talking about those who are able and willing. Let's distribute the income. That's what we are doing anyway. I am prepared to share what I have with those who have less, and I think a lot of people feel the same way.
There are a few other provisions which have not been included in this and which 1 would like to see. For instance, I would like to see tax measures which would waive certain taxes on those who have reached the age of 60 or 65. I think of capital gains taxes, for example. I will not say 60 or 65, even, at the moment, but I have in mind those who are up in years and have retired from the work force. They have saved up a little packet. They may have put it in Canada Savings Bonds, though I hope they put it in something a little more promising that that. They should be allowed to cash those savings without having to pay tax on half of the gains they made. There might even be consideration given to relieving them of other tax or allowing them a special tax rate in their circumstances. These are ways which could be used to ease the lot of those who are in the later portion of their lives.
I have mentioned the business of indexing pensions in Britain. I heard someone say across the way here that there is no law compelling people to stop working. I think there is such a law applying to public servants requiring them to stop work at 65. A friend of mine who was in the militia came to me saying he had reached the age of 60, and a young girl in the orderly office called him in and said: "You are 60, you are finished, hand in your uniform and get out." Why should he? He still has the desire to go on working, contributing to the training of the young folk who want to be in the militia. Why should he have to leave? This is sheer nonsense.
So unfortunately there are some laws which I think should be examined a little more closely. There are people who want to go on working, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does. I wonder why he is not taking his pension. I will tell you why he is not taking his pension-


An hon. Member:: He is waiting to form the government.


Donald W. Munro: You think he is waiting to form the government? It is going to be a long time.


Walter David Baker: He will be in the Senate by then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be so sure.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not even that organic union is going to take place.
Old Age Security


Donald W. Munro: They might even offer a Senate place or some other merited position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought you were my friend.


Donald W. Munro: Let me come back now to GIS for a minute.
There is another measure which I think we should consider because I think this motion opens up a great vista of improvements for the elderly who deserve our attention. I wonder if there is not some possibility of removing an increase in the limits of earnings permitted to those with pensions without suffering a reduction in their pension. Surely this is a means of alleviating their lot in a time of high inflation. Of course this is what is worrying the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and it worries me too. I see people going around a shopping centre picking up a little piece of meat and seeing it is beyond their means. Even ground meat is becoming too costly. When they look at the price of homogenized milk or two per cent milk or skim milk, they find it is beyond their means. The same is true for bread. These are very serious problems.
I wonder if there is some means whereby we can refer the subject matter of this motion to a committee where we could break it down into its various components and see if there are not some other ways still open to us, in these times of restraint on the one hand and inflation on the other, to improve the lot of the elderly, those who are no longer in the work force, those who are prepared to leave the work force, and the handicapped. Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to move a motion that the subject matter of this motion be referred to the appropriate committee for further study and examination and that it return to this House with the committee's recommendations? I think we are all earnestly and keenly aware of the problem and we would like to do something to help. If the motion is in order, I would be very happy to move that the subject matter of this motion be referred to the appropriate committee.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in the closing minutes on this private member's motion No. 6 put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I thank him again for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject. Surely if there is any justice, that member will be recorded honourably in Canadian history at least in this area for being one of the great champions of our older Canadians-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But-


Frank A. Philbrook: There is always a "but". In giving due credit to the hon. member let me clear up a number of misconceptions which often arise with regard to such suggestions as those contained in the motion, not that there were any misconceptions on the part of the hon. member when he formulated these proposals, but I think they are in the minds of many members of the public. Since time is so short, I will not attempt to go
80047 25

January 26, 1979
Old Age Security
into them in full detail, as I would have, but, to point out the first one. This system is based very solidly on three tiers or areas: the old age security program, the Canada Pension Plan, and private pension plans.
Another misconception is that these benefits should go beyond basic needs and by themselves provide whatever level of security and comfort in retirement might be desired.
Another misconception is the belief that any and all improvements in the system must come in the public sector. That refers to the third tier, particularly in a country which believes in a free society, the responsibility of its citizens and the ability to provide for oneself, with all the flexibility that that suggests. Perhaps it is time we realized that not only is it possible to expect improvements in private pensions but there may be more room in this area, much more room, to make improvements than there is for increasing public benefits which result in an increased burden on the taxpayer directly, or increased costs indirectly. The registered retirement savings
plans, for example, have been brought in in recent years and, although greatly used, are not used to full advantage. Yet everyone seems to have given up on these sources of additional pension.
In closing I would like to say that, as hon. members are aware, the amending formula in our Canada Pension Plan requires that changes in the CPP of the type recommended in this motion be approved by the Parliament of Canada and by two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the total population. In addition, there are other difficulties. I wonder how easy a task it would be to convince the provincial-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, January 29, 1979