1979-01-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the fall of the Canadian dollar has had more impact on the Canadian economy than any budget that has been introduced in the life of this government, but the plight of the dollar has been kept away from debate in parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the government make an immediate reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to allow for a full discussion of the reasons for and the impact of the falling dollar, and that the committee be empowered to call witnesses, including the minister, the governor of the Bank of Canada, representatives of the chartered banks and representatives of the financial institutions which have acted for the government in their foreign exchange transactions.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, the introduction of such a motion for debate at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under Standing Order 43.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), in Toronto during the weekend, with regard to guidelines to control the operation of foreign-owned companies in Canada, is quoted by the Canadian Press as saying:
Very little effort has been made to inform foreign-owned corporations of the rules, and certainly nobody has ever tried to check whether there's been any compliance. The frustrating thing about all of this is that I had a tough Fight in cabinet to get my guidelines approved, and it's all come to nothing.
Also, a senior official in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is quoted by the Canadian Press as saying:
Everyone you ask here about the Gillespie guidelines gives a Trudeau-like shrug and a broad grin, and it seems nobody's given it a second thought since 1975.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a motion, would he please put it.


George Harris Hees: I have just arrived at it, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Shymko):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ensure that foreign-owned companies are advised without delay what their responsibilities are as good Canadian corporate citizens, and that steps are taken by his department to ensure these responsibilities are carried out in a satisfactory manner, so that Canadians may derive the greatest possible benefit from the foreign capital invested in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering that women are still discriminated against in so many aspects of work in Canada, including that within the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of National Defence be complimented on his improvement in the work situation for women in the Canadian armed forces by recognizing, among other things, that women, as well as men, will now have the right to fly with the armed forces and, further, urges the government to remove immediately other sexually discriminatory policies.


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

January 30,1979
5.0.	43


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the CBC must faithfully report all newsworthy items, always adopt an unbiased attitude when broadcasting conflicting approaches to important events, and make a point of maintaining a non-partisan balance between the various opinions expressed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Speaker of the House send a letter to the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to congratulate him for the coverage which was given to the Pepin-Robarts report on the eleven o'clock news last Thursday night and Friday night, and again during a special program where the activities of the week were summarized; to congratulate him, I said, for having wilfully failed to broadcast the views of the Social Credit Party of Canada.
The corporation thereby maintains its high standard of fairness at the expense of the party which represents the official Quebec opposition in the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE FOR WHEAT-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Due to the fact that world wheat price and markets are relatively stable at present, with grain selling at well above initial prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government give authorization to increasing the initial price for wheat by at least 50 per cents per bushel.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Because of the tremendous increase in the cost of energy in Nova Scotia and other eastern provinces resulting from the escalation in the world price of the oil required for generation of electric power, some industrial plants are unable to continue in operation in competition with those in provinces with lower energy costs. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House direct the government to consider the establishment of a new national energy policy which would provide assistance so that the cost of energy to industrial and other users in one province will not exceed the national average cost of energy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Anti-Inflation Board reported that food prices went up by some 19 per cent in the past year.
In order to promote more stability in production and prices both for the farmer and the consumer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to prepare concrete proposals for the coming food strategy conference which will promote greater food self-sufficiency in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 30, 1979


WILDLIFE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the unnecessary and cruel suffering endured by millions of "wanted" fur-bearing animals in this country, as well as countless others of God's creatures who are annually trapped and endure excruciatingly painful deaths by means of the leg-hold trap, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Crosby):
That this House does forthwith instruct the minister of the environment to utilize the full power of his department to ban this inhumane instrument of torture from the forests of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate, in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43, can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, who will know that the value of the Canadian dollar is down again today.
Since there has been no parliamentary opportunity for detailed discussion on either the reasons for or the impact of the fall in the value of the Canadian dollar, I wonder if the Prime Minister would care, today, to make a reference that will allow the appropriate standing committee of this House to examine the reasons for and the impact of the falling dollar? That reference would include an opportunity for the committee to examine all the relevant witnesses and documents.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, of course, it is not correct to say that there has been no opportunity to discuss this. In the first months of the session there were several occasions, such as the speech from the throne debate and the budget debate. There is now before us on the order paper an occasion to discuss this subject in the budget bills of the Minister of Finance. Before mid-March, there will be some seven opposition days when they can put this subject up for debate.
I would welcome such a debate, Mr. Speaker. I am looking forward to seeing how the Leader of the Opposition will
Oral Questions
explain the increased budget deficits that he proposes will lead to a stronger dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to know how he deals with the advice that he has just received from Mr. McKeough, the former treasurer of Ontario. These are very vital questions for the future of the country and I hope we will have such a debate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will begin to worry about advice received from former ministers of finance when that advice comes in the form of a newsletter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What the house will know is that the Prime Minister of Canada has once again denied an opportunity for the kind of detailed investigation of the policy relating to the dollar which would allow us to call witnesses, such as the governor of the Bank of Canada, such as Mr. McLaughlin and a number of others who are expressing great concern about the dollar policy of this country. The fact is that this government has lost about $5 billion in reserves and has no domestic reserves left, leaving Canada in a situation where our entire foreign exchange operations are being financed by foreign borrowing.
My question to the Prime Minister is: since this unnecessary secrecy has led to great uncertainty and has probably led to a dollar that is much lower than it need be, will the Prime Minister of Canada give us an undertaking, today, to open up that secrecy, even a little bit, and require that the government publish on a weekly basis trading figures relating to the Canadian dollar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question is absolutely misleading; I hope members of the House realize that.


An hon. Member:: Poor boy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not only on all the occasions that I have indicated has there been an opportunity for debate on this subject, but if the Leader of the Opposition or one of the other of his finance critics and advisers want to ask questions of the Minister of Finance, of the deputy minister or the governor of the Bank, there is a standing committee on finance of this House and the Leader of the Opposition can attend it, make his views known and ask questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister pretends he does not understand the rules of this parliament and pretends that his government has not denied a reference to the standing committee that would allow this kind of discussion.
Given the dollar crisis that is the most severe in the history of this country, what we are asking for is an opportunity for the truth to be told so that Canadians will have all the information on what has led to the dollar policy and the dollar situation now and will know the reasons why people like the Deputy Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of

January 30, 1979
Oral Questions
Canada are saying that the fall in the value in the dollar is contributing to a least one-third of the inflation that Canada faces.
I want to deal with that matter specifically now. Since that statement has been made by both the governor of the Bank of Canada and by the present Deputy Minister of Finance, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking, now, that he will table in this House of Commons the reports and studies on which the estimates of the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Deputy Minister of Finance were based which led them to conclude that the fall in the value of the Canadian dollar has contributed to at least one-third of the inflation we now face and which could lead to serious new inflation? Will he table those studies, or will he keep that information secret too?


An hon. Member:: And cover it up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is so unsecret that I answered a question yesterday, or the day before, put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I conceded that the falling value of the dollar had indeed increased the CPI. So there is no secret about that. In so far as questioning the governor of the Bank is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously showing that he does not know what is going on. The governor of the Bank of Canada is in front of a parliamentary committee; he is testifying in front of the standing committee on finance of this House.


An hon. Member:: No, he is not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to go there and ask some questions, he just has to do it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not understand the difference between the Senate, before whose committee the governor of the Bank is testifying, and this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What this House wants is the opportunity that the Senate now enjoys, to question the governor of the Bank of Canada, to question the minister and to question other officials-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -who have information on this matter. I ask the Prime Minister once again, will he not make a reference to a standing committee of the House of Commons of Canada to allow us to examine these witnesses and to look at all the reports which must have been compiled in the Department of Finance and in the Bank of Canada, so that the people of Canada will have some idea as to exactly what the implications will be of this calamitous and continuing fall in the value
[Mr. Clark.)
of the Canadian dollar? Will he give us the rights the Senate now enjoys?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Senate is enjoying these rights after the House of Commons has enjoyed these rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The governor of the Bank has been in front of a committee of this House. There are officials now in front of another committee of this House, studying the Bank Act.
The Leader of the Opposition is just beginning to catch on to a problem. He realizes that he did not ask the questions when the governor was here in front of a committee of this House and now he is complaining that the governor is talking to the Senate. We can have the governor come back before the committee when the Leader of the Opposition makes up his mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They are not doing anything.


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR IN RELATION TO OTHER CURRENCIES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, who must know that when the questions that he was referring to were attempted to be asked, they were ruled out of order at the committee.
The Prime Minister seems to want to fill us in on what is happening in the world. Can he indicate why the Canadian dollar, in relation to the American dollar, has fallen 15 per cent in the past two years, while the Japanese yen has gone up 77 per cent in relation to the Canadian dollar, the British pound is up 36 per cent and the deutschemark up 51 per cent? Why has the international market passed such a devastating verdict on Canada to make ours the softest currency of any of the industrialized countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this may call for a long answer, but I will begin to give it. If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will try and explain some of the basics of economics to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When a country chooses to protect its currency by having very restrictive monetary policies which slow down the growth of the economy, it can indeed have a high-value currency. The problem is that this tends to create unemployment.


Mr. Gillies:: Like Japan and Germany.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says, "Like Japan and Germany".


James McPhail Gillies: The point is there is no unemployment in those countries.
January 30, 1979


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says there is no unemployment there. When you can ship your unemployment out of the country, as is the case, for example, in Switzerland or Germany-it was the case when they were protecting their currencies-it is reasonably easy to have a restrictive growth and ship your unemployment abroad. Then you have a strong currency.
In the case of Japan, they do not ship their people abroad; they force the employers to keep them employed, and the workers in the plant take reduced salaries in order that everyone keeps working. There are various techniques that have been used, about which members opposite do not seem to be informed. However, you have to make a choice. If you want to continue creating jobs, as this country has, and it has created 428,000 jobs year over year-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -this means not following the restrictive monetary policies that some of these countries have followed. It has been our choice to make sure that Canada continues to produce jobs at a rate which is faster than any of the industrialized societies.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps if the Prime Minister would continue his lecture, he could tell the House what exactly is the full impact of the falling dollar in relation to world currencies. Yesterday he indicated that import prices go up. Would he also tell us the impact on Canadian-produced articles such as lumber, metals and certain food products which are priced on a North American basis and which have risen on an American dollar expressed basis to a very high price as far as Canadian consumers are concerned? Would the right hon. gentleman tell us about the impact on the Canadian consumer of his choice to let the dollar fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have just answered that. Of course, when the dollar falls, the price of imported products-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Canadian products.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the price of imported goods and substitutes for them tends to differ; they cost more to the consumer. In terms of exports, it means that Canadian goods are more competitive on international markets; that we are selling more on international markets and consequently creating more jobs in Canada. This is one of the beneficial effects of the lower dollar.
Of course, unless we are going into a two-price export products structure, which I do not believe the opposition is advocating, it does mean Canadians will be paying more for goods which are higher priced on international markets.
Oral Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENT


MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE OF FOREIGN-CONTROLLED COMPANIES IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Prime Minister. I note with interest his new-found concern with job creation. In that context, I should like to say, as a preamble to my questions, that in 1975 the then minister of industry, trade and commerce tabled a set of guidelines designed to ensure that benefits to Canada from the performance of foreign-controlled firms would be improved. Among these were increased research and development at home, increased exports and further processing of natural resources: in short, more jobs.
Considering that senior officials in that department confirmed yesterday that absolutely no monitoring of foreign-controlled firms had been done since 1975 to ensure that these objectives were fulfilled, why has the government so completely failed in the stated course of action it established almost four years ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is somewhat contradictory. The Leader of the New Democratic Party speaks about my "new-found concern" for creating jobs. I can tell him that throughout the seventies this government and the Canadian economy have had the best record of any industrialized nation in terms of creating jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a matter of statistical record. I see the Leader of the New Democratic Party shrugs about that. He does not like performance; he just like words about the future. Regarding the future, these guidelines were established by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce precisely in order to contribute to a larger pool of job creation. The figures show he has been partly successful.
The hon. member says there has been no monitoring. Of course there has been monitoring; there has been monitoring of all the firms reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The very statement from which he has read indicates that FIRA has beefed-up its capacity for monitoring the application of such guidelines. As far as other areas are concerned, I take the point that there has not been sufficient monitoring. If some firms say they have not been following the guidelines, and others say they have we shall take note of it and make sure that more and more of them do follow the guidelines promulgated at the time by the then minister of industry.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister says the government has created more jobs than other countries. The reality is that it had to do so because of the higher level of unemployment than other countries-a million short in terms of jobs.


An hon. Member:: Very convoluted.

January 30, 1979
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister has indicated that FIRA rates the performance of newly-established foreign investment. That, as we all know, is inadequate.
The question had nothing to do with that. The question pertains to the existing foreign-owned firms to which the then minister applied his guidelines in 1975 but which are not being enforced now.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that there has been no enforcement or monitoring, and will he therefore admit that his own government's inaction has produced many fewer jobs than it could have?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I find that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is not very convincing when he says "Sure we have created more jobs than any other society, but we have done so because we have had to". Of course we want to create as many jobs as possible but that is what we have done. To say that we had to do it is not any form of praise or blame, because there are many other countries with very high rates of unemployment which should be creating jobs but which are not.


John Edward Broadbent: Like Germany or Japan? Which ones have high unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just spoke about two particular countries which reduced their unemployment figures by sending their unemployed back to Portugal, Spain or Yugoslavia. We do not do that in Canada. Workers come here and they get jobs, but we do not exile them just because they become unemployed. This is not our way of doing things, and I do not suppose it is something the Leader of the New Democratic Party would propose.
We have these guidelines. They apply in the case of newly-established firms which came under FIRA. They apply to the others. If they have not been applied with enough force and stength, I will ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to report on this and to make sure that the guidelines are adhered to. I merely say that the promulgation of those guidelines must have produced some results, since it coincided with the period when Canada created jobs at a faster rate than that of any other industrialized society.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands and Japan all have less than half the unemployment rate of Canada, and they have not exported one worker. The Prime Minister cannot get away with that foolish argument.
I see that the Prime Minister is getting some information from the minister who ought to have been acting on this. One of the major areas of concern about foreign-controlled firms has been the failure to pursue export markets. Would the Prime Minister confirm that the $12.3 billion deficit in trade in finished products in 1978, which meant the loss of thousands of jobs, is the direct result of the government's failure to

implement its own policy which was announced almost four years ago by the minister?


Mr. Horner:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a recent report on how these guidelines are being applied. The hon. member reads from a newspaper article which apparently is based on some conversation with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The very fact that the former minister of industry, trade and commerce issued those guidelines, and the very fact that he is suggesting that they could be implemented with greater strength, is a positive indication and I certainly support him. If there is some falling back on the implementation of these guidelines, I am sure the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will take note and implement the guidelines with greater force. However, they are there, and basically what the Leader of the New Democratic Party is doing is congratulating the government for having had the foresight to bring in these guidelines which will continue to be applied.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
According to an article published in this morning's Le Devoir, Air Canada president Claude I. Taylor has stated that Air Canada rather than the Minister of Transport will make the final decision regarding Nordair and the fate of regional transportation. If that is so, can the minister tell us if he has in fact sent the Nordair file to Mr. Taylor or if he intends to do so shortly, and who will decide the fate of Nordair and of regional transportation in eastern Canada.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has an accurate report of what Mr. Taylor said. Indeed, Mr. Taylor is seeking proposals in relation to the shares of Nordair which Air Canada has acquired at my suggestion.
It is my interest to follow up on the various offers which appear to be ready to come forward, as quickly as possible and to do so without necessarily awaiting the actual transfer of those shares to the government, which had been mentioned earlier. So those offers will come in and will be assessed, I am sure, by Air Canada and the government together.
January 30, 1979


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
James McPhail Gillies: Mr, Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that those countries which have strong rates of economic growth are really working against the wellbeing of the world economy by exporting their unemployment?
If this is so, why did the government agree, at the meetings in London and Bonn, to try to achieve a 5 per cent real rate of economic growth in Canada, which has a "prosperous" economy? How can the Prime Minister possibly suggest that the countries which have strong balance of payments positions are somehow working against the well-being of the world by exporting their unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I never made any such suggestion. I never argued that those who, to quote the hon. member's question, had a strong rate of economic growth were working against the benefit of the world economy. On the contrary, we are all trying to achieve a faster economic growth. I point out to the hon. member that accord-. ing to the OECD, Canada had, on average, a rate of growth over the past ten years which was among the two or three best of all the industrialized societies. I do not see why the hon. member should ask the question he asked.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, without pursuing that particular argument-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the Prime Minister is so preposterous that it is hardly worth considering.
In the last two or three years, Canada made commitments at London and at Bonn to try to achieve a rate of 5 per cent growth. We are going the other way. Why are we following a high interest rate policy, which will slow our rate of economic growth?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, many times the Minister of Finance, myself and other ministers have said what is obvious,
I think, to most observers of industrialized societies, including all those who met at Bonn, before that London and before that Puerto Rico. There are two difficulties at hand in our free market societies: one is high unemployment and the other is high inflation. We realize that if we fight just one, we can be successful, but then we lose on the other.


John Edward Broadbent: You are losing on both.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All I am saying is that Canada, on the over-all balance, has performed better than most.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The record is there. The House was reminded of it again by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance in his speech last night, if hon. members want to look
Oral Questions
at Hansard. The record is there. I am just saying that one country, like Germany-Switzerland is an even better example-can concentrate on fighting inflation and that can be done by having a tight monetary policy. There can be success, provided unemployment does not follow from that tight monetary policy.
Switzerland does not have to be bothered about unemployment because hundreds of thousands of unemployed have been asked to leave the country. That is all I am saying. In Canada we do not do that and we do not want to do that. That is why we cannot think just of protecting the dollar and fighting inflation at the cost of creating high unemployement. We have to have a balanced approach to these problems. Obviously, the opposition will not be able to solve them because its answer is to increase the deficit.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me to be preposterous that the Prime Minister should be reading the economic situation in this way. The reality in Canada is that we have high unemployment and high inflation, and we are not fighting either one satisfactorily. We have a high interest rate policy which is causing a low rate of economic growth. The policy of supporting the dollar is hurting us in terms of inflation. What evidence does the government have that it had to move to high interest rates in order to keep the dollar at the present level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says we are not fighting either. Does the hon. member want us to increase the deficit? If he does, it will have the effect-and it is advocated by the New Democratic Party-of stimulating the economy in the short run at any rate. I believe that is what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is proposing.


Mr. Gillespie:: Not today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, he was yesterday, anyhow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, decreasing the deficit creates more jobs, but also it adds to the inflationary pressure. That is why the government does not want to do that. We do not want to add to the inflationary pressure. We are sorry there is a great deal of unemployment in Canada, but we realize-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: At least you are sorry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But we realize that our economic management has created more jobs, at a faster rate, in Canada than in any other industrialized society. That is a fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
2696

January 30, 1979
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


REMARK BY MINISTER CONCERNING FIRING EMPLOYEES TO SOLVE PROBLEMS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General regarding the chaotic and unacceptable state of affairs in the Post Office for which the Postmaster General is blaming the workers and not management.
It has been reported that the Postmaster General recently stated that he could make the Post Office run efficiently if only he could fire 500 workers. What is the background for that statement? Does the Postmaster General have a list of the names of these 500 persons and the unions to which they belong? Or was this just public posturing in order to cover up the ineptness of Post Office management?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should understand better the context in which I replied to a question asked by a newspaperman: "How many people do you feel you could get rid of, if you want the Post Office to work smoothly?" I stated that if I had my way to do something about it, maybe 500: I could have said 100, or I could have said 1,000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lamontagne:: I think hon. members of the opposition should have copies of some of the letters I have received from citizens across Canada.


Mr. Jarvis:: We sent them to you.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: They were delivered by hand.


Maurice Lamontagne: They would see the reaction of people. They would see that nine out of ten letters I received approved of that statement in the context in which it was made. Another thing I want to tell hon. members: my job is not to blame management; it is not to blame the workers; it is to see that both do the job they should do for the Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Lamontagne: That is the way I must take my responsibility. If management does something bad, it will be blamed. The same applies to the workers. I can tell hon. members that the reports I have received from different media-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary, the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Postmaster General is all excited about; he is the one who brought out this statement. The letters I have received indicate that people are receiving their mail late and that they are ashamed and disgusted with the service they are receiving for which they are paying an exorbitant price. There are further unchallenged reports which indicate evidence of pilfering,

drinking, smoking pot and goofing off at the Gateway sorting plant in Mississauga.
These are very serious allegations of disorderly conduct bordering on lawlessness and obvious lack of control on the part of postal management. What steps are being taken in order to bring these matters under control? Or is the Postmaster General content to just sit and condone this type of action?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to register the fact that I take exception to the statement that we are sitting around doing nothing. Some members on the other side of the House are blaming us for harassment and persecuting the workers because we have put them on notice of dismissal and have fired some. Again 1 say that we have to be firm about these people doing what the hon. member has just mentioned, but also we have to be fair and abide by the rule of law in our democracy. As I said to the newspaper, it is a long process.
I should like to refer to a lady in the Toronto Sun who wrote to me and said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hull.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very pressing question to ask the President of the Treasury Board.
As thousands of public servants have been notified that as of April 1, 1979 they will no longer receive the bilingualism bonus, and as a great number of them earn small salaries and will be seriously affected in their family budget, and as there are all sorts of rumours going around concerning them, can the minister reassure these loyal servants of the state and tell them if he intends to offer them some form of financial compensation so as not to unjustly penalize those whom I would call the poorest of the poor in the public service?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct in pointing out that the bilingual bonus plan will be terminated, as my predecessor indicated, on March 31, 1979. However, Treasury Board has put in place a basis whereby the salary and the bonus as of that date will be compared with the individual's salary a year later. If there has been any shortfall-in other
January 30, 1979

words, if the income is less than it was on March 31, 1979- they will be compensated for any shortfall.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS AT GATT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to get away from these philosophical subtleties of the Prime Minister which contain no information and simply are false.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to get right down in the barnyard and get the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently there is unanimity among the Liberals that that is where he should be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care about that. Simply, I want to ask him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: My question is a very simple one. What is the reason why Canada, of the 95 nations engaged in the talks concerning GATT, is the only nation which refuses to agree with the others? What is the reason for that? What change of ideas will take place in connection with the representations made by Canada's representatives at GATT in this regard, so that we will not lose the opportunity of selling wheat?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -I should like to inform the right hon. member that I feel right at home in the barnyard, and I feel right at home in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My father, being one of the great traders of Saskatchewan, taught me well the art of sitting down, trading
Oral Questions
and negotiating trade for Canada. With that premise, 1 feel confident that Canada's position regarding multilateral trade negotiations is a very good and strong one.
In the negotiation of anything, there may be times when we are the odd man out. We are not now. We are holding out for the best possible arrangements for Canada. I feel confident the negotiations are in good hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what are the representations Canada is making that are contrary to those of all other member nations of GATT? What are those points that would indicate Canada's political power and strength is being shown there, as described in some of the literature put out by the department?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to describe where we are at odds with the 95 other countries. If the right hon. gentleman was referring to the International Wheat Agreement, for instance, we want the highest possible floor price which will trigger the movement of grain into surplus reserves. Necessarily, we want a fair but fairly high maximum price which will trigger the movement of these reserves into the market.
We are continuing these negotiations. The size of the reserves is also up for negotiation. Certainly, we are doing our best in that particular instance to maximize exports of western grain to the widest number of consumers possible in the world around us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree with the views expressed by the president of the importers' association that Canada is dragging its feet and is causing a situation to develop in which our wheat markets are going to be lost, and lost completely, because of the stupidity of this government?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree. I see the demand for wheat growing in the world, and I see a very good position for Canada to command its traditional share of that growing demand for wheat in the world.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members to join with me now in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the United States Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Cecil Andras.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
80047-29'/2

January 30,1979
Oral Questions FINANCE


COST OF LIVING INCREASES DUE TO HIGH PRICES-EXCESSIVE PROFITS OF CERTAIN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I would address it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Statistics Canada yesterday released figures showing an average weekly wage increase of a little over 6 per cent, compared to a 9 per cent increase in the consumer price index last year. Since this represents an annual wage loss of $365 for the average worker in Canada, I want to follow up on a question posed yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that corporations which were represented at his Friday meeting have experienced astronomical and scandalous profit increases over the last year. For example, Noranda Mines had a 117 per cent increase. I have these figures, which I will make available to the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister is aware of these profit increases, will he inform the House why he did not ask the corporations concerned to reduce their prices so that Canadians do not have to face high cost of living increases over the next few years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may have missed the answer 1 gave to a similar question posed yesterday by a member of his party, I indicated to the contrary, that this kind of point was discussed at a meeting I had with business leaders. I indicated in this House that the government had suggested that when profits are forthcoming, the companies should consider benefiting the consumer or reinvesting those profits to create more jobs. This is a suggestion which will be carried forth by this government.
In so far as the earlier statistics given by the hon. member are concerned, of course they are right if he just takes last year. If he takes the period of three years during which controls endured, he will see that the workers' wages over that period were above the increase in the cost of living. Indeed, if he looks at the past ten years, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance reminded us yesterday, he will see that real disposable incomes in Canada went up 52 per cent which, incidentally, is about twice as high as they went up in the United States over the same period.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister does not tell us what commitments he received from those corporations to reduce their profits over the next year. This is even more crucial in view of the fact he is asking for the same commitment from wage earners, that is, to lower their wage demands over the next year or so.

I should like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the Anti-Inflation Board announced yesterday-this was reported in The Citizen-that food prices increased 19 per cent over the past year and, further, in view of the fact that the food industry has registered an increase in profit and one of the companies represented at that Friday meeting, Burns Foods Ltd., had a profit increase last year of 198 per cent, will the minister tell this House what action he intends to take to control high profits in the food industry which, of necessity, must have an adverse effect on food prices?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about this rapid increase in food prices and we are considering some new initiatives in that regard, but they cannot be announced in the House at this time.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. The minister will remember that an announcement was made in his name that the environmental assessment review panel studying the location of a new Eldorado Nuclear refinery in the province of Ontario was to have reported to the minister by now.
My question to the minister is: has that report been made to him and, if so, when will it be released? If it has not been made to him, why has it not, and when does he expect to receive it?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to receive the report in a couple of weeks. There has been some delay in the preparation of the final version of the report. As soon as I receive it, I will be making it public.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the finding of the AIB that the increase in food prices of 3.8 per cent over the month represents an annual increase of 19 per cent, will the minister tell the House what has become of the plans for a food strategy on the part of the government?
Given the fact that it is almost a year since the conference was convened for this purpose and we have heard nothing
January 30, 1979

about it since, does the government have a food strategy and, if not, what does it propose to do about this?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is not one year since the hon. member heard of it last, unless he has not being paying attention to what has been going on. As a matter of fact, we have had three conferences with different levels of society- the provincial governments, the private business sector, consumer groups and many other voluntary organizations.
We have been developing a food strategy with the other five federal departments and with the many provincial departments concerned. Because there are so many levels of governments involved in respect of food, including provincial departments of consumer affairs, industry, trade and commerce, agriculture and fisheries, this is taking some time. It will take some time before the results of a global food strategy can be seen in the economy.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: I believe Statistics Canada falls within the minister's jurisdiction.
Statistics Canada is presently conducting a survey of family expenditures in 1978. This study is the most massive invasion of personal privacy ever conducted by any government of the western world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: The minister laughs. It asks very many personal and private questions about incomes, about debts, about banks balances, clothing purchases and such personal items as toilet paper consumption, sanitary products, perfumes and hair tints.
Is the minister aware of this survey, and will the legal sanctions that exist under the act be applied against individuals who refuse to answer these question? I ask this because many people are very upset about the very personal nature of many of the questions being asked.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that question. I believe this is a voluntary survey, but I will look into that aspect.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, it is not a voluntary matter at all. Every twenty-eighth person on the list of those who receive family allowances is being interviewed by Statistics Canada, and the interview takes something like V/2 hours to complete.
Order Paper Questions
Will the minister look into this matter, and if what I have said is true will he order Statistics Canada to stop the survey and refer the matter to another committee of this House so that we may look at it in its full context?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, if I stopped the survey, it would not be necessary to refer it to a committee of the House. I said that I would look into the whole question, and I will.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 185, 195, 614, 615, 628, 678, 679, 686, 730, 738, 739, 745, 746, 786, 791, 845 and 902.


Mr. Howie: Was the Department of Regional Economic Expansion required to pay any portion of the $2.7 million loan guarantee to the Bank of Montreal made in respect of Bricklin Canada Limited and, if so, what amount was paid or may be required to be paid?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Yes, $2,699,000 has been paid and at the present time a further claim in respect of accrued interest and receivership costs for $133,000 has been received. The department's liability for this amount has not yet been legally determined.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, what amount was paid by Canada to the Maritime Provinces for the development of the Land Registry Information Services?
2.	How many persons were employed on the project on March 31, 1978?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. For the fiscal year 1977-78, DREE paid $5,916,956.72 to the Council of Maritime Premiers for the Land Registration and Information Service.
2. 245.

January 30, 1979
Order Paper Questions EXPENDITURE CUTS


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	In determining where cuts in expenditure would occur in the various departments and agencies, what criteria were adopted to decide which operations were not of sufficiently high priority to justify their continued existence?
2.	Does an inter-departmental committee of any kind exist to supervise the proposed expenditure cuts to ensure that only low priority items are eliminated from the budget, or reduced in size and, if so, who is on the committee and what are its terms of reference?
3.	Did the committee prepare any studies or reports and, if so, will they be Tabled in the House?


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The review of efficiency and effectiveness of federal government spending programs is a continuing process involving not only the departments and agencies concerned, but also the central agencies such as the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Office of the Comptroller General, as well as various interested groups of Canadians who have a specific interest in the programs. It is on the basis of their collective understanding of the performance of all government programs, combined with the priorities of government and the outlook for spending within the restraint policy that ministers make their collective decisions about which expenditures must be reduced.
2.	No inter-departmental committee was established to review the expenditure reductions.
3.	Since no committee was established, there will be no report.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	In deciding to reduce expenditures in areas of developmental research, did the government consider the impact of such reductions on future economic growth, resource development and export opportunities?
2.	Was a study prepared examining such factors and, if so, will the government table it?


Thomas Lefebvre: 1. Expenditure reductions were undertaken only in those areas of developmental research that were considered to be of lowest priority in order to minimize detrimental ramifications. However, these limited cuts in research and development were more than offset by new thrusts in this area announced by the federal government earlier in the summer. The additional research and development expenditures are to be directed to higher priority projects.
2. Since there was no task force or special study group established, there will be no report tabled.


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): Did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion subsidize the Dufresne Forest Products Company of Val d'Or and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what were the reasons and projects warranting the subsidies (c) what specific conditions were attached to the subsidies?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Yes. (a) An incentive offer under the Regional Development Incentives Act, in the amount of $579,200, was accepted by the company, (b) Setting up a sawmill for which the eligible investments total $1,696,000. (c) The specific conditions for granting this subsidy are in accordance with the Regional Development Incentives Act and Regulations.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Is the RCMP planning to amalgamate the Highway and Town of Steinbach detachments and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the expected number of officers planned for the detachment once amalgamation has been completed?


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Epp: Is the government planning expansion of the RCMP Highway Detachment Building located at Steinbach, Highway No. 12 and, if so (a) what is the capital spending (b) on what date will construction (i) begin (ii) be completed?


Roger Carl Young: No.


Mr. Howie: How many community courses were funded in Fredericton, New Brunswick by the Department of Employment and Immigration for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, there were 57 full-time institutional occupational training courses purchased under the Canada Manpower Training Program in Fredericton, New Brunswick.


Mr. McKinnon: Does the Department of National Defence classify the Soviet Tupolev bomber, NATO designation "Backfire", as a heavy bomber?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: no longer uses the term "heavy bomber". The term currently in use is "long range bomber" and the Soviet "Backfire" could be classified as such.

January 30, 1979


Mr. Howie: Was money allocated to the Department of National Defence under the current round of the Federal Labour Intensive Programme and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what amount will be spent at CFB Gagetown and on what projects will persons be employed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: There is no Federal Labour Intensive Program currently in effect in DND. The last program terminated September 30, 1978.


Mr. Howie: On November 1, 1978, how many (a) civilian permanent (b) civilian temporary (c) military personnel were employed at CFB Gagetown?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
594. (b) 221. (c) 3,061.


Mr. Howie: What amount was paid by DREE in the Fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, under the Small Industries Financial Assistance Programme?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: In the fiscal year 1977-78, DREE paid $1,041,400 under the Small Industries Financial Assistance Program in New Brunswick.


Mr. Howie: In the Province of New Brunswick, do any counties qualify for assistance under the Small Industries Financial Assistance Programme and, if so, which ones?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Yes, the counties of Restigouche, Gloucester, Northumberland, Kent, Madawaska, Victoria, Sunbury, Queens and Charlotte qualify.


Mr. Howie: On November 30, 1978, how many persons were registered for work at the Fredericton, New Brunswick manpower office?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There was a total of 8,098 persons registered for work at the Fredericton, New Brunswick employment office on November 30, 1978.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: As of November 30, 1978, how many persons were receiving unemployment insurance from the Fredericton, New Brunswick office?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 5,003.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of Communications 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?


Mr. Crawford Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: How many loans were granted by the Farm Credit Corporation in the fiscal year 1977-78 and how many were granted in New Brunswick?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation advises:
Number of loans approved Fiscal year 1977-78
Under the Farm Credit Act
Canada	7,066
New Brunswick	92
Under the Farm Syndicates Credit Act Canada	105
New Brunswick	2


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 521 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 521 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 30, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Elzinga


Mr. Epp: Did the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) give any aid to the World Council of Churches in (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970 (d) 1971 (e) 1972 (f) 1973 (g) 1974 (h) 1975 (/) 1976 (j) 1977 (k) 1978 and, if so, by year (i) in what amount (ii) what projects were approved (iii) what was the purpose of each project and what amount was approved in each case?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the fact that my order paper questions Nos. 65 and 66 have now stood on the order paper since January 26, 1978, which is now over one year ago. I would like to indicate that I am sure all members of the House would appreciate it if the hon. parliamentary secretary would do his job and answer these questions.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we take all questions seriously. At this time of the year the average rate of answers to questions on the order paper is advantageously comparable to the rate during the same period last year and Canadians are aware, Mr. Speaker, that we usually answer more than 90 per cent of the questions on the order paper during the year, which is excellent.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong to believe he is being persecuted. It is not the first time he has taken the floor but in the past he was very well treated by parliament, and I would ask him simply to stop setting himself up as the Don Quixote of the Progressive Conservative Party, and particularly to use the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Papros-ki) as Rosinante.



MR. ELZINGA-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 223

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order dealing with question No. 223, which I have had on the order paper for some three sessions of parliament. The government has had three years to work on this question, which simply deals, as I have shared with the parliamentary secretary before, with special and annual passes that are granted to the presidents of Crown corporations or government

commissions and how often they have used these special passes.
I was hoping that the parliamentary secretary would have had an opportunity over the Christmas break to examine the question and come forward with an answer. Might I get a commitment from him now as to when I will get an answer?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 29, 1979, 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.
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, last night, I started my speech very late and pointed out that I could make only preliminary remarks. But even those preliminary remarks I did not have time to complete. I was more specifically commenting on the speech made earlier by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). He said yesterday that there was no national unity problem and that our difficulties were rather of an economic nature.
Yesterday, I said what I thought of the perception the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has of matters of national unity, but I should also like to mention that he insists that the most important issue today is one of economics. I do not disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. Economic matters must command the attention of the government. However, I want to remind the hon. member that we deal with those matters in due course and that this government can easily act simultaneously on several fronts.
That national unity is a major problem at this time cannot be denied. We have in Quebec, as I pointed out yesterday, a government intent upon dividing Canada, that is, upon separating one of the Canadian provinces from confederation. If that does not constitute an important problem for Canada, I wonder what does. Personally, I feel that even though it is true that national unity must not be the only matter with which we must deal, it certainly is of considerable if not capital significance in economic matters. Consequently, that national issue must be discussed and we must do everything possible to solve the problems facing us at this time.
I believe the government has made an effort in that direction by introducing in the House this legislation on referen-
January 30, 1979

dums. At this point of the debate, I feel it is important to clear up the situation. We see the opposition rising against this legislation on the referendum on the pretext that it could be abused. I note the opposition refuses to acknowledge that we have set out in the bill some limitations to the use of the referendum once enacted. One of those limitations lies in the fact that its life is limited to five years, a period during which we hope to have been successful in settling our national unity problem and perhaps even carried out a constitutional reform we could put before the people and on which we could hold a referendum. On the other hand, the opposition refuses to acknowledge that we have limited the referendum to constitutional matters only. They refuse to acknowledge that, yet fail to spell out what they think is something other than constitutional matters. And they state we could abuse that political instrument to the point where we would be legislating by referendum.
In this regard, I have a comment I would like to make about the speech delivered last night by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. He is opposed, and rightly so, to our legislating by referendum, yet he recommended last night that we legislate by public poll. Here is what he said in substance: There is no need for any referendum. Governments enjoy the power to conduct public polls even more important than those conducted by the Gallup Institute, in order to know exactly where people stand on a question like national unity.
I must say I found some boldness in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi when he called upon this House, with tears in his eyes, to show better respect for democracy. Which is more democratic, Mr. Speaker, legislating by polls or, from time to time and in extremely limited circumstances, putting to the people a referendum on a central issue of concern to them? What the opposition would like in fact and what they imply when suggesting they are against the referendum is that they are against the idea of asking the people's views on constitutional reform. I for one feel that if we were to obtain the provinces' agreement on the current constitutional negotiations, the outline of the resulting constitutional remodelling should be submitted to the people through a referendum, and this is why we are putting the legislation forward.
What must be realized is that the bill had its inception in circumstances that were quite special, namely the election that occurred in the province of Quebec on November 15, 1976. Those political circumstances called for unusual political responses. The referendum bill is one of those unusual responses that also meets a specific need I shall be explaining in a moment, and that is also designed to address the larger question of constitutional reform.
Listening to the opposition I see they lack the flexibility, the kind of imagination that would allow them to easily turn around in tighter political situations. They lack the understanding, the basic sense of strategy that would allow them to
Referenda
join us in accepting this proposal to give the authority to hold referenda, either in the country as a whole or in the province of Quebec only, for a limited period and on constitutional matters only. Under the circumstances the reason becomes apparent why in the race for power they can never make it at the finish line: they are incapable of what I would call elementary analysis of a political situation. If they were now to make a cold-headed review of the facts, they would look at this proposal with a minimum of objectivity. But the truth is Progressive Conservatives have had no understanding whatsoever of what goes on in the province of Quebec, as we have long since realized, but they do not quite grasp what is going on in the rest of the country either. We had examples in the suggestions made recently by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), who was only echoing statements made much earlier by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
I suspect that this type of statement was suggested to the hon. member for Rosedale by Mr. Payette, the candidate whom the Progressive Conservatives have just recruited and, I warn the opposition, whose political options are not very clear. Following the statements of Mr. Ryan who quite properly took offence at what the hon. member for Rosedale said, I would say to the hon. member, an ex-mayor, that he should have taken the time, when he was mayor of Toronto, to make a few visits in the province of Quebec, especially in the city of Montreal; then he could have understood what is happening there, he could have improved his political education so that he would have been a bit more mature when he came to the House and he might have known better than to make such statements.
This was a rare occasion for him to fraternize with the people of Montreal, with Quebeckers, and to get informed on what is really happening in the province of Quebec, but he did not do so and now he sits here in the federal parliament without knowing the real problems of Canada and without having grasped the national dimension of these problems. What is the actual situation in Quebec which justifies this legislation on the referendum? I am going to sum it up briefly because I do not want to dwell too much on it and above all because many of these things have already been said. When it was elected, the Parti Quebecois promised the Quebec people it would hold a referendum on the independence issue. Soon after, realizing that this measure was not quite popular, it began to say that it would hold the referendum within a year. It then stated that it could no longer put a definite date on it. Finally it declared that it might even wait until after the coming federal election.
One can easily say that the Parti Quebecois is just procrastinating and those who analyse the situation will see quite clearly that if the Parti Quebecois hesitates so much it is because it knows quite well that it will not win the referendum. So what is it doing in the meanwhile? Well, for the Parti Quebecois it is crucial to gain time, because it has devised a strategy whereby in gaining time it could project a moderate image of itself before the people and make them believe that it
2704

January 30, 1979
Referenda
is now quite in favour of outright independence, and it could make all kinds of gestures which would tend to mystify the population. Furthermore, it is quite consciously creating some ambiguity around one of several questions which could perhaps turn out to be contridactory and which could be asked when the referendum takes place. The last invention devised by the Parti Quebecois in order to confuse the people has been to declare itself as following the path and the tradition of all the heads of parties in the province of Quebec and of all the former premiers of Quebec up to this day. It claims merely to be acting in conformity with the traditional attitude of the province of Quebec.
Yet, though it claims to be consistent with the previous stands of the province of Quebec, to the best of my knowledge the preceding governements have never advocated the separation of Quebec from the rest of the country. Yet such is the goal of the Parti Quebecois. This is what it has been saying within the province of Quebec but at the same time Mr. Rene Levesque goes to Washington to explain that his goal is independence for Quebec and to try to convince the public there that such a move constitutes no threat for the United States or the rest of Canada. He therefore adopts a federalist approach when he addresses his fellow Quebeckers or at certain federal-provincial conferences and on the other hand he takes a separatist approach when speaking abroad. It is exactly the opposite that is true. The Quebec government breaks totally with the Quebec tradition while claiming it is simply following up Quebec's demands. They change their goal completely, saying: We separate. Such is our aim. The province of Quebec will never fulfil itself as long as it is not its own master and has full control over its territory, a territory which covers what is now the province of Quebec. Therefore, they change their goal while saying that nothing has changed, and they add to the general confusion on purpose. Indeed, if the Parti Quebecois fosters such confusion among the people, it is because it is up to something. They would have the people believe that they have given up their original option, or at least that it is not as urgent now, and they pretend to negotiate, at times they negotiate and are willing to talk, at other times they withdraw.
A minister makes a statement and a day or two later it is denied or corrected by Rene Levesque himself. From time to time, it is Rene Levesque himself who sends up a trial balloon and one of his ministers, namely, Mr. Morin, tries to catch it back when he realizes that it was not well received by the public. The previous Quebec governments used to demand more autonomy, more specific powers on certain matters, greater financial means to meet their requirements and more scope to set their own priorities.
Such were the demands made by Mr. Levesque's predecessors, but Mr. Levesque does not follow the same line and has definitely broken away with Quebec traditions. On the contrary, he distorts the rules of the game and the image of

Quebec at the negotiating table and at the constitutional conference table.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) on a point of order.


Mr. Matte:: Would the minister allow me a question on the statement she has just made?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I will do so with pleasure at the end of my remarks if I have time left.


Thomas Lefebvre: It is not a point of order, it is just nonsense!


Jeanne Sauvé: I think that Mr. Levesque participates in constitutional discussions just for the sake of appearances, which is rather clever, until the situation he manages to create gives him an opportunity to walk out. Then, he will go back to Quebec and say: You see, I tried to negotiate in good faith but it just did not work. I made every effort to reach an agreement with the federal government but it proved impossible.
He is deliberately cheating. And he also impedes progress. This is the most serious problem the federal government is now facing in its constitutional negotiations. He deliberately stands in the way of the negotiating process while denouncing its slow progression. Of course, you can never expect a quick outcome so Mr. Rene Levesque can say: You see it takes too long, it is not possible to come to an understanding, one province wants something and another wants something else. So it is hopeless, the whole procedure is wrong. Then he pretends to take part in discussions so as to be in a position when he can eventually rationalize his unwavering determination to release the province of Quebec from its federal ties.
I believe that Mr. Rene Levesque is too shrewd and so are some of his advisers to burn his bridges in case the referendum he is reluctant to hold on the future of Quebec would not be a success. In this way he could have it both ways. He wants to leave the door open. He was very careful for instance not to take a definite stand with his colleagues from the other provinces. He did not tell them: You know, I have definitely given up the idea of separating Quebec from the rest of the country. To my knowledge he has never said that in federal-provincial conferences. So it is obvious he is playing a game, not a very honest game which is far removed from the political openness which he is bragging about. Throughout his political life he has been saying that politicians must be transparent. Well, he is far from being transparent right now. He is trying to drag us all into his dilemma and confusion. Time has come now-and it is ever more urgent as time goes by-for all politicians to grasp the problem involved, to define the issue at stake, to determine the aims of this country and to come up with a clear question, and for Mr. Rene Levesque-who advocates another alternative-to state what are the advantages and the disadvantages so that the population would be well informed. He should demonstrate how his alternative might be viable and indeed he should show the road to follow. And that is not all. He should tell us exactly how that option can become reality because even though theoretically feasible
January 30, 1979

in practice it will raise a great many problems. He must inform the population about the problems they can expect to face. People must understand the risks involved in that endeavour, the delays inherent in such a process, the unstableness that could follow in Canadian political and social life, particularly in the province of Quebec because finally Quebeckers will have to foot the bill, to restore their social, political and cultural life in a totally modified political context.
I accuse Mr. Levesque of refusing to inform the people. He will agree to consult them only when he is pretty sure that they are so confused by the hotchpotch of words and options that have been proposed that he has a chance of getting a positive answer. What does Mr. Levesque do, talking at length as he does about the true sovereignty of the people? Mr. Speaker, the people are sovereign only when they make their own choices, and especially when they can do so fully informed. Let him give back to the people of Quebec this basic sovereignty which consists in being adequately informed to answer a question which will decide their political future.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we need this referendum legislation so that we can replace the provincial government if it does not hold its referendum as promised. This is a promise that it made to the people in Quebec, but with all the delays, we may wonder whether it will eventually keep its promise. And if the economic and social situations in Quebec continue to deteriorate, will someone not have to act to clarify the situation? And if the Quebec government fails to do so, the federal government needs this political tool which will enable it to consult the people in Quebec about their own future.
It must be kept in mind that we wish Quebec to hold its own referendum. We believe that it is its responsibility; since the Quebec government has brought up the matter of a new option, it must consult the population and we hope that it will hold this referendum. If it does not, however, and if the situation continues to deteriorate, we want to have the means to intervene. Moreover, if the province of Quebec holds its referendum, the question could be so ambiguous that the answer would make no real sense and nobody would know if the people have voted yes or no. This is what happened in the provincial election when the people were told: Vote for us and we shall give you good government and talk about independ-ance later. The people voted on this ambivalent proposal and found themselves with a government which was not satisfied to give them good government-if it is any good-but which also wanted to promote its option of independence for Quebec.
So, if this question is ambiguous, somebody else must be in a position to ask a more precise one to give Quebec citizens the possibility to state clearly what they want and to make a clear choice as to their future. But this is not what is happening and those who are aware of the Parti Quebecois backroom manoeuvres know only too well that since it was elected it has been carrying out surveys on a question and even on several questions. It is testing what the question should be. It attempts to devise what question will bring in the highest percentage of "yes" answers, whatever its degree of clarity. This does not
Referenda
bother them too much. They are trying out questions. And the people are confused and worried. In some cases, and I have seen examples of it recently, a certain anxiety starts to show up. Not so long ago, I paid a visit to a group of senior citizens of my riding.
I met someone who asked me: But what is going to happen if the referendum is deferred? And suppose it is not held? Here is how she put it to me: If I am against independence, how do I answer? Is this proof enough that people are confused? She knows what she wants, she is against independence, but she said: I will not know what to answer. Well, this shows me just how confused people have become.
I have just said in French, Mr. Speaker, that I met a representative of the senior citizens at a meeting in my constituency. That person exemplified the kind of confusion in which the population finds itself with the kind of publicity and manoeuvres the Parti Quebecois is up to in the province of Quebec. This person came to me and asked me: "If I am against independence, how can I answer the question?" That was enough to give me the message that the population has become extensively confused about what is going on. That person knew what she wanted to say. She wanted to say that she was against independence. With all the questions floating around that might be asked on the referendum, she was afraid she would not be able to answer in conformity with what she believes. That is the kind of confusion that has been systematically created by the Parti Quebecois. It is our duty to do something to help the population see clearly how things should be handled in this kind of situation.
The Parti Quebecois is obviously playing games, camouflaging its real intentions by using words like sovereignty association, which they do not even attempt to define in the course of their speeches. That senior citizen who is somewhat removed from the political scene is understandably in a state of confusion. It is our duty to enlighten such people. However, for someone like the hon. member for Rosedale to be taken in by the kind of ploys used by the Parti Quebecois is not understandable.
The hon. member does not see through the exercise of the conditioning of the people. That forces me to the conclusion that some of the leading members of the opposition are politically naive when as members of this House I would expect that they would be politically grown up. It is inexcusable that politicians would get taken in by this kind of manoeuvring and manipulation. It indicates something very serious-the total ignorance of that party about what is going on in the province of Quebec.
Last night we heard a remarkable speech by the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), an Anglophone who perceives the situation very well. He explained it to the opposition in a way that I thought was admirable. I recommend that members opposite read his speech. From an Anglophone point of view, it was an exact description of the situation in the province of Quebec, the dangers we face and the reasons why we need this referendum.
80047 30 >A

January 30, 1979
Referenda
Instead of listening to that speech and taking from it what would be profitable, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi called the bill a political insanity. He pleaded, practically with tears in his eyes, that we should abandon it. He called for co-operation on both sides of this House to address ourselves together to the important issue of the day, national unity. I say to him, join us in a constructive measure which is designed to substitute for the Parti Quebecois, if they do not fulfil their promise of holding a referendum, a measure designed to fight any attempt to put to the people of Quebec a question that might be so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
Someone must have contingency plans if this kind of thing occurs in the province of Quebec. The federal government must have some kind of political instrument whereby it can do something with regard to clarifying the situation. I will not let the situation in the province of Quebec deteriorate to the point of no return. Before that 1 will go to a referendum. It is very important. I am convinced that the people of the province of Quebec do not want their province to separate from the rest of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: The situation in Quebec-and this is having an effect on the rest of the country-could become unbearable. Therefore, there would be immense advantage to holding a referendum on the question of national unity. That is the meaning of this legislation.
I cannot understand why the opposition does not accept this measure. I can see that they might find some fault with it, but we are prepared to discuss that. However, they refuse even to consider that this is a measure which is needed at this time. I am surprised this point escapes someone like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who comes from the province of Quebec. Rather than relapsing into political expediency, with the opposition seeking to contradict us at all times, I thought he would have used his offices as a Quebecker to influence his party. After all, he is a senior member and must have some influence in that party. However, he let himself be superseded by one of the recently attracted political stars. I am sure the opinions voiced by the opposition originate there rather with someone like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who has been living in the province of Quebec for a long time. I say to the hon. member, never abandon your position in a political party. Never abandon it to anyone else. Holding your position in politics is of the essence.
I appeal to members on the other side to join in giving the government this instrument which could be used to dissipate the confusion which is being systematically nurtured. The Parti Quebecois know that if they are clear, they will be defeated. Our task as federalists has become increasingly difficult in Quebec with the accumulation of these ploys, contradictory statements and misuse of words which are constantly being hurled at the people. We must keep clarifying the issues, pointing out the manner in which everything is being done at the present time.

I plead with hon. members, do not add to this confusion. Try to see through this constant manipulation of the people which, in my view, is a most sinister abuse of democracy. If you follow the scene closely and apply some political judgment to your analysis, you will find that this referendum bill is indispensable. It is an indispensable response to the circumstances and crises which this country faces.
[ Translation]
Because we want to know, Mr. Speaker, that while the process of amending the constitution is going on in Canada, the process of disruption has already begun in Quebec. However, being unable to anticipate the consequences of the venture, the government of Rene Levesque stalls, dodges the issue and fosters confusion, postpones its deadlines, launches a vigorous propaganda campaign to seduce Quebeckers and make them believe they can be both Quebeckers and Canadians in a separate Quebec. In that context, it is urgent that the government of Canada take it upon itself to set the people straight and to shed light on a political manoeuvre which clearly appears today to be a death-trap and a risky gamble on the future of Quebeckers.
Because of those manoeuvres, we had to react and to provide ourselves with an instrument at least equal to that of the Parti Quebecois. So a referendum is necessary. We will hold a referendum if necessary, but not necessarily a referendum. [English]


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in this debate. However, after having sat through it yesterday and today I feel compelled to do so. The word "distort" has been dropped often in this debate by way of an accusation by one or other hon. members on the opposite side. Sitting here listening to the speeches during the parliamentary days since we have been back, the greatest distortions have been coming from the other side.
The hon. lady who just resumed her seat and other members opposite have said that we do not really understand the situation in Quebec. Is it because we do not live there? If that is the case, I can equally say that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) does not understand the Yukon because he does not live there. Nor does he live in the province of Quebec. However, I do not say that. One does not have to live in a province to understand what is going on there, any more than one has to live in another country to understand what is going on in another country. It helps, certainly, but I do not suggest to the hon. lady or to any other member opposite that they do not understand the Yukon because they have not lived there. I have been fortunate enough to live in every province and both territories of Canada, but I do not say I understand the country because of that good fortune.
This distortion has been brought out by each successive speaker on the government side, and at the same time they say they are not using the national unity question as an issue in the forthcoming election campaign. All their speeches have been
January 30, 1979

focused on the question of national unity and very little time has been devoted to the dangers inherent in this bill itself. I might say that the main factor-1 am glad to see the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), I believe it is, in his seat because he served in the last war-that caused me to seek the Conservative party was what happened in this country in 1942; I shall have one or two things to say about that in a moment.
Speaking of distortions, the hon. lady says we are against public referenda in Canada. Yesterday I saw she was in her seat when our leader spoke on the subject and made it clear that we were not against a referendum on the question of unity or any question concerning Quebec. We are not against it at all. But we did make it quite clear-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did this yesterday in a very eloquent fashion-that the question should be a specific one and that parliament should decide on that question.
The hon. lady says it is logical to ask Premier Levesque to make his question clear in the referendum, that it is logical we should insist on that clarity so that the people of Quebec will not be confused when they come to vote for or against. I agree. But if it is logical to demand this of Premier Levesque, is it equally logical for us in the opposition to demand that the government make its question equally clear before we are asked to pass judgment upon it? So when the hon. lady and others over there say we are against referenda, that is false; it cannot be dignified by any other description. And when hon. members over there say that because of the dangers we see in this bill, and our position in opposing it, we do not trust the people of Canada-I hear this from the NDP, too-that is equally false. It is simply not so. If it is sensible to hold a referendum on the question of unity then, surely, we should know the question; and that has been the practice on previous occasions in this country when a referendum was held. We say: Bring in a simple bill and write the question into the bill. We want a clear question formulated.
Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau)-I believe that was his riding; it was either him or the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette)-spoke on national unity. I sometimes think that members over there, when they are speaking on questions as vital as this one affecting the nation have tunnel-vision which prevents them from seeing the 40 per cent of Canada above the 60th parallel. He said he got angry because we on this side were not concerned about the question of unity. Well, if he experienced anger with respect to the debate which is going on today over unity, imagine my frustration and the frustration of those who live in the Yukon. Here are people fighting to get out of the country and there we are in the Yukon fighting to get in. Does the government of the day hear our pleas? Is there any question of holding a referendum to seek the opinions of those in the Yukon wishing to join confederation? I should say not. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) takes exactly the opposite view.
For this reason I was disappointed in the report of the Task Force on National Unity because there was not one single reference in that report to those Canadians in the Yukon, to
Referenda
those Canadians whom I represent-and I come from the most westerly city in Canada. There is a brief reference to the travels of the task force; they say they travelled from St. John's, Newfoundland to Yellowknife. That is as far as the reference goes. We were not totally absent, though, because the coat of arms of the Yukon was displayed on the front cover of the report. That was some small consolation; we were remembered, somehow, but I do not think it was in the minds of those responsible for compiling that report.
The minister who has just spoken says she cannot understand why we do not accept this legislation. She, and speaker after speaker from the other side, have accused us of opposing everything, making a broad, generalized accusation that we are somehow a party of chronic opposition and chronic filibustering. She has forgotten the pipeline legislation of last year and how, if it were not for this party, that legislation might not even yet have seen the light of day in this House.
They distort not only the position taken by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr.Crombie) and the Leader of the Opposition-that rug has been pulled out from under them, now- but they have tried to make an issue of this reference to negotiating sovereignty association, separatism, or whatever. I might remind them of the remarks made by their own leader as recently as December 20, 1977. They were indignant that we or anyone would even consider negotiating a question of separatism with the people of Quebec, yet in an interview with Bruce Philipps on December 20, 1978, The Prime Minister was asked this question:
But there is no real, legal way to separate, is there, Prime Minister? It is not provided for in any law that I know about.
To which the Prime Minister replied:
No, it is not. That is why there cannot be any unilateral declaration of independence. But in the same way there was no law in Britain permitting any of its colonies to separate. When the reality of a colony no longer wanting to be a part of the British empire arrived, well, the Brits just passed a law. What I am saying basically is that if ever Quebeckers by an overwhelming majority decide they no longer want to be a part of this country then they are going to sit down and negotiate with the rest of the country how they can be kept in.
That was said by the Prime Minister. Yet they are accusing us of somehow bargaining the country away by saying exactly the same thing. Of course, we will talk with the people if the referendum which is to be held, presumably in Quebec, is passed by a majority. It is either that or allow the country to do down the tube, and that is certainly not want I intend to do.
I want to touch on something which is quite important in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition laid out the dangers inherent in this legislation with abundant clarity. I, like others on this side who have expressed opinions, am very disturbed by this legislation. It means the end of responsible government in this country. In a moment or two I am going to quote verbatim the words uttered in the 1942 debate by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). At that time he coined a phrase: "Not government by legislation, but government by plebiscite". That is the direction we will take if this referendum bill is passed.

January 30, 1979
Referenda
What the hon. member for Gloucester neglected to point out yesterday and what the hon. member for York East neglected to point out, when they accused the Leader of the Opposition of not having read the bill and when they trotted out the safeguards they thought were contained in the bill so that no abuses could occur, was the fact that if this bill is passed, it will permit the cabinet to frame questions, and it will permit the government with its majority-and this legislation is more likely to be abused by the present majority than by any other political party I can think of-to lay on the whips and ask questions regardless of the opinion of anyone else in this House. That same danger was inherent in the 1942 legislation.
It is no comfort whatsoever to say that whenever a question is framed, if ever, on whatever issue or problem, it will be brought before the House of Commons and allowed 40 hours of debate, which is closure in advance. It is no comfort whatsoever to me, and I am sure to others on this side, to be told that this is a safeguard. That is simply phony terminology. Thirty-five hours is the advance closure in the Quebec legislation, as I understand it. No other country in the world which has legislation authorizing referenda imposes any limit on debate. That point was omitted from the arguments yesterday, and this is an extremely dangerous provision in the bill.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would permit a question.


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


Herb Breau: Does the hon. member believe that the 40-hour limit proposed in this bill is the most serious part of the bill, and would he agree to support this kind of legislation if there was no time limit on debate?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. I did not notice whether he was in the House at the beginning of my remarks when I spoke about the sweeping powers granted by this bill being dangerous. The danger is not just the question of the 40-hour limit. We are not opposed to referenda, but we want to see a specific bill, such as those which were brought in in 1942 and 1898. We want to see a specific question. Then we would have our say, and the bill could pass with the government's majority. That is what we want to see. This bill is bad and it is dangerous. It is explosive.
However, the government did not stop at imposing a 40-hour limit on debate in this place. It imposed advanced closure in the other place. That is provided for in clause 5(3), which limits debate in the other place to 40 hours. That is going pretty far down the road toward totalitarianism, and it should be taken out. With its majority, the government is going to pass this bill anyway, and it is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation. It will be rammed down our throats in any event, but it is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation to hit this place since 1942.
I pointed out to the hon. member for Gloucester that the 1942 legislation brought in by the then prime minister was couched in the same terms. The right hon. member for Prince

Albert will remember that. That legislation asked for a blank cheque.
Another point of which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) reminds me is that we are being asked to believe that there is such great urgency about this legislation that we must succumb to advance closure which would limit debate to 40 hours. Yet when we were involved in a global struggle to maintain the freedoms for which that war was fought, in the middle of all the urgency of a worldwide conflict there was unlimited debate. That was not even attempted to be taken away by Prime Minister Mackenzie King of that day.


Henry Perrin Beatty: This government has made Mackenzie King look good.


Erik Nielsen: And that is some feat. Because of the fight which was led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and others in the opposition of that day, Mackenzie King saw the lack of sense in what he was doing. I will read some excerpts from that debate. They are to be found in Hansard for February 25, 1942. The right hon. member for Prince Albert said the following:
I have in my hand a copy of the bill. Why does it not incorporate the question to be asked of the people? This bill as placed before parliament will have but one result. It will change the constitutional history of this dominion, in that it will permit the Prime Minister at any time from this day on to submit a plebiscite on any matter whatsoever to the people of Canada, with the authority of this parliament.
That is precisely what we are being asked to do today.
It is so worded, Mr. Speaker, that it is operative beyond the war. It is so worded that the Prime Minister can continue to submit plebiscites at any time and without restriction. Let me ask this question. Why was not the method followed this time similar to that adopted in submitting the plebiscite of 1898? In my opinion this bill represents a milestone along the way that will destroy responsible government. The Prime Minister has said in effect that a great harm was done to the principle of responsible government in 1940 when he promised that there would never be conscription for overseas service, and now in effect wishes to undo the harm so that responsible government may be restored again.
That was from page 835. At page 836, drawing a distinction between the 1898 legislation and the 1942 legislation, the right hon. member said, and I quote:
To illustrate the difference I should point out that under the measure as it now appears before parliament, the Prime Minister and his government do not have to submit any questions to the people, whereas under the plebiscite of 1898 the question to be asked was in the statute. The other major difference is that the government may submit as many questions as they choose when they choose. They may place a plebiscite on any question before the people at any time in the future. There is no control whatsoever .. .
When the statute was passed in 1898 there was nothing evasive in the attitude of the government. The question was put in the statute. The regulations as to voting were contained in the statute.
After the shellacking Prime Minister Mackenzie King had received from the right hon. member for Prince Albert with regard to the irresponsible nature of the bill which was brought before parliament, and after the right hon. member pointed out to Mackenzie King the harm it would do to responsible government, the prime minister of the day said the following as it is recorded at page 837:
I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend-
January 30, 1979

He always said that, but he always did.
-but may I say that I did make it quite clear to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when he referred to the same matter that I could see no reason whatever why the question itself should not be inserted in the bill. I hope it will be by the committee.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Why not make this a special bill?


Mr. Mackenzie King:: That is all it was intended to be.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Apparently the Prime Minister did not get his ideas across to the draftsman of the bill.
Perhaps the government has made a mistake here. Mr. Hanson continued:
If this bill becomes law, if it is passed in its present form, we are going to have in Canada government by plebiscite, not by responsible government.


John George Diefenbaker: But this is the bill upon which we are asked to vote. If we pass this bill we allow the government to submit a plebiscite at its will, at any time and on any matter whatsoever, and against that I protest.
I imagine the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) remembers that debate and the reaction that we overseas had to that debate.
The hon. member for Gloucester says he gets angry. I get angry when I think back to those days, when I think of what the present Prime Minister was doing at the time this debate was going on in parliament; riding around Montreal on his motorcycle with a German helmet and condemning Canada-


Mr. Collenette:: A cheap shot.


Erik Nielsen: It is the truth, it is the truth.


An hon. Member:: A cheap man.


Mr. Railton:: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Erik Nielsen: I am not ashamed of my conduct during those days, but that right hon. gentleman should be; he should be.


Samuel Victor Railton: I am not ashamed of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Erik Nielsen: It is time these things were said. It is time members opposite were reminded of it, because that is what we are dealing with in this bill.


Samuel Victor Railton: That indicates what kind of man you are.


Erik Nielsen: He was riding around Montreal complete with German helmet, extorting Canadians in Quebec not to support the Canadian government war effort-the Canadian war effort-because "it would be supporting a British imperialistic war".


An hon. Member:: Terrible.


Erik Nielsen: But I and many others in this House-


David Michael Collenette: Whom are you quoting?


Erik Nielsen: The present Prime Minister.


David Michael Collenette: Table the quote.
Referenda


Erik Nielsen: Well, I have it in my files. If the hon. member-


Samuel Victor Railton: Table the document.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member wants-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Rae:: Did the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) use the word "extol" or "extort"?


Erik Nielsen: Extort.


Bob Rae: Extort. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member opposite who has been interjecting-I forget his riding-also should remember that is where the two years of age was lost, in that period of time. Yes, I get angry. I get angry to think for the second time now we have this kind of legislation before us.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I do not trust this government any farther than I can throw it with respect to the implementation of this kind of wide power.


An hon. Member:: That goes for you too.


Erik Nielsen: I would like to throw it somewhere, I can tell hon. members.


Herb Breau: What power?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member for Gloucester was not listening yesterday-


Herb Breau: I was.


Erik Nielsen: One of the reasons for my unrest about this bill is that it would allow the government-


Herb Breau: Parliament.


Erik Nielsen: This government. This government has the majority. Parliament cannot do a damn thing about resisting this bill, and the hon. member knows it. All we can do is speak and try in speaking to arouse in the hearts of responsible members opposite-


Samuel Victor Railton: You are still in the barnyard, right on a pile of manure.


Mr. Crouse:: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) is still interrupting.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member for Welland wants to take part in the debate, I wish he would do so on his own time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Welland rises on a point of order.

January 30, 1979
Referenda


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to say, when the honour of my leader is being impugned, that the hon. member opposite who is speaking is adopting a nasty, mean attitude, and that he is standing on top of some very dirty material in the barnyard.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is not a point of order.


Samuel Victor Railton: We do not come to parliament to listen to this kind of thing.


Mr. Paproski:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Spurious points of order. We got it from the hon. member for York East yesterday who smuggled in comments through spurious points of order. Let me tell the hon. member that it was not I who was going around urging Canadians not to go overseas. I went. It was not I who was riding around Montreal in those days. I was over there, if the hon. member wants to talk about honour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) rises on a point of order.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I find that kind of comment unusual. Having been one of those who served and came from Montreal, I do not remember anything like that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I just do not happen to, and I happen to have been reading French and English at that time there. So 1 think maybe we should be careful about making remarks about individuals.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Do you deny it?


Erik Nielsen: All the hon. member has to do is to read his leader's own writings. The press-


David Michael Collenette: Table it.


Erik Nielsen: I could fill the table with them. Time magazine of 1965, for one. Go ahead and look; they will be in the archives, the evidence.


David Michael Collenette: Do you have it here today?


Erik Nielsen: No, I do not.


David Michael Collenette: If you do not have it here today, you should not quote from it.


Erik Nielsen: It is burned on my mind from the number of times I have read them.


David Michael Collenette: Place it on the table.


An hon. Member:: You cannot stand the truth.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of National Defence knows that what I am saying is true. He knows that what I am saying is true.


An hon. Member:: Stand up and deny it, Barney.


Erik Nielsen: In any event-


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member knows he has gone too far; he is hesitating.


Erik Nielsen: I have told only the truth. The truth hurts.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: In view of the interjections it must hurt, and the truth usually does; the truth usually hurts.


David Michael Collenette: We heard you yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: That is fact and it is true. I could go on in that vein-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Erik Nielsen: -but I want to stick to this bill. I am speaking in terms of what went on with exactly the same legislation in 1942. The prime minister of that day saw the dangers, and the bill went to committee. It came back from committee and all the generalities had been stripped from it. It came back from committee as a specific bill, with a specific question in it. That is what we on this side are prepared to support. There is no rush to put this bill through. When Mr. Levesque gets good and ready to put his question, then is the time to bring a bill before parliament with the question the government wants to put. That is when we should be asked to vote on it.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: But to ask for these sweeping powers at this time is sheer nonsense. The hon. member for Gloucester asked me about these sweeping powers, and I was about to tell him about one of my very vital concerns respecting the broadness of this bill. It is that the government can decide, because it is a constitutional issue, to put a referendum to the people of Canada, or indeed to any individual province in Canada, respecting whether our native people have any such thing as aboriginal rights. They are a minority-


Herb Breau: You have to put that to parliament for approval.


Erik Nielsen: This bill is not putting things to parliament. It is a bill for putting questions to the people of Canada or to any other province, the population of any other province.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Draw the hon. member a picture.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite have said that we do not understand the bill, but judging from the comments of the hon. member for Gloucester, it is painfully obvious that he not
January 30, 1979

only has not read the bill, but has not even listened to the debate.


Herb Breau: I have read the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Under the provisions of this bill, the government could put that very question by referendum to the people of Canada or to any particular province.


Herb Breau: If approved by parliament.


Erik Nielsen: It will be approved by the government, not by parliament. The government has a majority and what it decides to do it is going to do. It does that in this place and in every single committee because of its majority. Do not try to snow us, or, as the hon. lady describes it, confuse the issue, by saying parliament is doing this. We are not doing it; we are opposing it. Hon. members opposite are doing it. It is wrong, dangerous and should be booted out if there is a possibility of such a question being put to the people of Canada in respect of native rights by way of referendum. That is dangerous, and for that reason alone it should be booted out, because there is that possibility. To do the proper thing we should follow the course we followed on two occasions in Canada, in 1898 and in 1942, when specific questions were set forth in specific bills.
Once again, to emphasize by repetition, let me say that, apart from the province of Quebec with its legislation, this is the only jurisdiction in the world that is putting advance closure on the debate on a question, whatever question the government decides to dream up, not only here but in the other place as well. That to my mind, sir, is right next door to a totalitarian state.
[Translation\


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in this debate which is of great importance and which will mark an altogether significant step in our collective and political life. Let us not kid ourselves, the sole reason why this bill is before us is the victory of the Parti Quebecois on November 15, 1976. While this bill concerns every Canadian, it is of special concern to Quebeckers for they will have to take a decision on the constitutional future of Quebec.
Quebec is like a giant who has just woken up, a province which now entertains doubts about its history, its culture, its social organization and its political institutions, wondering as well why it should belong in Canada such as it was established in 1867 by the Fathers of Confederation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Quebec has woken up and possibly this awakening will bring a second breath, a new vigour to the idea of a real Canadian confederation. If members of the Canadian federation want to keep Quebec in, they will have to accept it as a fascinating and full-fledged society.
Referenda
The Task Force on Canadian Unity has just published its report, where it talks, of this awakening, in the chapter intituled The Anatomy of Conflict. It says, and I quote:
For the longest part of Quebec's history one theme dominated the cultural life of the collectivity. That theme was survivance, or sheer survival. This overriding concern for the maintenance of the way of life of a people coloured the relationship between Quebeckers and their compatriots.
But, Mr. Speaker, only an insensitive observer of the life of the province could fail to note a substantial shift in approach in which that community's concern for survival is now expressed by the thoroughly contemporary and dynamic pursuit of its own development.
Mr. Speaker, those remarks were made by a task force which was created by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself and which described itself as being federalist. Such a quotation is a good illustration of the confusion which prevails in Canada today and of the long way we have to go if we are to restore national harmony. The Task Force on Canadian Unity proposes a new federation, and even though Quebeckers feel that those recommendations do not go far enough, yet these reflect a state of mind which is more conciliatory and not based on childish fights. One cannot talk, Mr. Speaker, of that state of mind which is suggested by the task force without wondering about the federal government's state of mind when it comes up with this bill concerning the holding of a referendum on matters relating to the Constitution of Canada.
When I talk about the federal government's state of mind, I refer to its real intentions in relation to the possible holding of that referendum. In any case, if this bill is passed, hon. members of this House may not have to wait long before they get into a debate on a referendum question. This bill does not concern Quebec alone, but the federal government might indeed use it in any litigious matters between the central government and the provinces.
In spite of the constitutional conferences, the present frame of mind is much more directed toward confrontation than toward dialogue. All this is understandable since one side wants sovereignty association and the other seeks centralized federalism. Canada needs a constitutional readjustment and this is the spirit which should prevail. Since 1945, provincial responsibilities have kept increasing. Just think about the importance of natural resources, education, public health. And yet the flexibility of the British North America Act is often limited in terms of subsidies to the provinces.
Always in the same spirit, the election of the PQ is a reaction to an old constitutional arrangement which goes back as far as 1867 and which does not reflect today's reality. I sincerely think, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have to renegotiate seriously the Canadian confederation before holding a national referendum. Otherwise we would be putting the cart before the horse. Can we demonstrate our seriousness to the Canadian people when there were no serious negotiations? I shall accept a national referendum when we have had serious negotiations

January 30, 1979
Referenda
and when the Canadian people as a whole, and particularly the people of Quebec, have before them really concrete proposals.
Assuredly, Mr. Speaker, the Parti Quebecois government is going to hold a referendum within one year; it will seek approval to negotiate the conditions of sovereignty association; this is not a good deal for the federal government and it would be most unfortunate if Quebec should separate from Canada. It does not mean however that the central government should not reform the constitution to make it more favourable to the well-being of Quebec and other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to warn the government that its lack of responsibility as far as national unity is concerned could turn out to be very expensive for Canadians. Indeed, by acting in an obstinate fashion, the federal government would help considerably the all-out supporters of separatism in Quebec. In the present context, Bill C-9 would betray the interests of Canadians and provide a dangerous opportunity for propaganda. We have heard about national unity for several years, especially since November 15, 1976. I consider that this word, Mr. Speaker, is mere propaganda because it assumes uniformity and thus does not correspond to the Canadian reality.
Canadian unity does not exist and has never existed, because there have been too many different groups. However, there are groups in Canada that are willing to share their common interests. The central government's role is to channel the common forces in the best interests of all communities. I should like to remind hon. members that national unity implies cultural homogeneity and sometimes a Unitarian government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, such is not the case in our country.
Before asking Quebeckers whether or not they are in favour of sovereignty association or whether they prefer our present federalism, it would be in the interest of the central government to make serious proposals instead of minor reforms such as those proposed in the former Bill C-60. Canada has to be rebuilt in order that our ten provinces and our two territories may fight for a common cause. I believe Canada must form a marriage of convenience, and if this country is to grow, it is essential. All parties concerned should be able to fulfil themselves. There cannot be a really viable Canada and a legitimate partnership unless the two contracting parties have freely agreed to it and unless each party recognizes that it is clearly in its interest to share its existence with others.
Until such time as circumstances change, any partnership such as Canada must recognize the right of all parties to the contract to very flexible formulas for amending its constitution. After 110 years, each and every one of the provinces has the right to examine its situation in relation to confederation and to renegotiate sections of the constitutional act. To date, the Quebec government alone has expressed its intention of holding a referendum on the constitution.

I therefore ask the federal government and hon. members to respect the spirit of the Canadian confederation and wait for the results of the Quebec referendum. I feel that Canadians must express their views on the constitutional future of the country after a provincial referendum. Provincial governments and many Canadian citizens are displeased with the present federal system. The current distribution of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments no longer reflects reality. The federal government machine has become too cumbersome and we have to submit to regulations that border on inefficiency.
I have here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a letter from a citizen who lives in Radisson, on James Bay, and who is having problems with the unemployment insurance system. I would like to repeat to hon. members some of his quite enlightening comments about the present system. Here is what he says:
Why should I be against federalism? Perhaps because I am now convinced that I am supporting a costly, ineffective, system which is so overburdened with legislation, regulations, paper work and bureaucrats that it cannot deliver the opportunities promised when I adhered to the system.
Why should I be unable to obtain benefits for which I have been paying premiums for years?
Is it unreasonable to believe that the part I play in a project as remote as James Bay will make me lose the benefits to which I am entitled?
As it can be seen, this citizen is not pleased with the government and he is not alone. In closing he writes, and I quote:
To relieve you from the painful task of reading my indignant comments, I will tell you, sir, that I want to be a positive asset in a Canadian and Quebec community, but if a referendum is to be held in the near future I will not consider it as a political but rather as a practical matter, to wit, have I paid to support a system which has not given me what I could rightly expect?
Mr. Speaker, that is the fundamental question we must answer when we consider this legislation. That is the question the Pepin-Robarts commission attempted to answer. That is also the question the various governments and especially the federal government must answer. That is the question the provincial governments must discuss and it is the issue to which will relate the reforms they will submit to their people.
Mr. Speaker, I insist on the fact that the federal government is a creature of the provinces and that all constitutional reform proposals must come from them. The latest constitutional conferences have indicated a general dissatisfaction which is not peculiar to Quebec. All you can hear about in the province of Quebec is dissatisfaction. The people of that province have elected a government whose option is sovereignty. I think the situation is serious enough and that there is no need for us to make it worse by holding a second referendum without any previous negotiation. I deplore that atmosphere of confrontation which opposes the federal government and the government of Quebec. We have had a war of statistics and we shall soon have a war of referenda.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I referred to the state of mind of this government. I am afraid that its attitude and that of the right
January 30, 1979

hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are not very conciliatory. On the one hand he wants to adopt this bill with a certain measure of haste; on the other hand, at his press conference last Friday, he refused to acknowledge the Canadian duality which Quebec exemplifies. Something which the Pepin-Robarts commission has already acknowledged. The right hon. Prime Minister has often stated that he would refuse to negotiate the possibility of sovereignty association in case Quebeckers replied affirmatively to the Parti Quebecois referendum. I suggest that the attitude of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues is quite arbitrary. It is not certain that Quebeckers will reply affirmatively to this referendum. As elected members of the Canadian public, we are not asking the government to negotiate the independence of the province of Quebec, but instead a constitutional arrangement which would recognize the particular character of each Canadian province.
Many recognize that the present government is suffering from a superiority complex, and also from what I would call a chronic case of inflexibility. It is indeed showing its inflexibility by engaging in this all-out fight, when the interests of all concerned would dictate co-operation and understanding between partners. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the present political climate and the general purport of Bill C-9 lead me to believe that this referendum will be a propaganda tool rather than a means of discussion and information. The government restricts the scope of its referenda solely to constitutional issues. Besides setting limits of referendum expenses, the bill defines eligibility to the referendum vote and air time allocated to opposing groups as well as to federal and provincial parties. To go back on those main themes, I must say that I deplore the fact that the bill is concerned only with constitutional issues, whereas several other points could be considered, such as abortion, capital punishment, social policies, and so on.
On December 12 last, the former minister of state for federal-provincial relations and the leader of the New Democratic Party praised the democratic merits of referenda. We even heard the leader of the New Democratic Party give his support to this bill. I would suggest to him that he think it over carefully before voting for this bill. I would like to remind hon. members of this House that the result of the referendum would not in any way compel the government to respect the opinion expressed by the public; so one may wonder what the government's reaction would be to a positive response of the people concerning sovereignty association for Quebec. Once again, the Prime Minister said last Friday that he would not negotiate. This means that the government might follow the policy established before the referendum in spite of the opinion expressed. If the referendum is negative, there will be no problems for the federal government, but we must question the legal value of a strictly consultative referendum.
Furthermore, we do not know the wording or the scope of the referendum question. I fear a serious confrontation might be brought about by two referenda, one by Quebec and the
Referenda
other by the federal government, for each of them will try to rally the people to its cause. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a few comments on the air time and the expenses allowed. We can see that the air time will be in part allotted to the federal parties and in part to the provincial parties of each province. This means that the federalist parties will get almost all the air time.
I would also like to voice serious reservations about allowable expenses. Bill C-9 is much less restrictive than the Quebec law. Referendum expenses and contributions made by a person, a group or a political party must not exceed $5,000. But only registered political parties and referendum committees will be allowed to make contributions and expenses exceeding $5,000. I believe that this part of the bill discriminates against small political parties and referendum groups. I cannot see how the government can claim it is exercising democracy with such rules. It becomes very obvious that groups and parties with unlimited funds at their disposal will enjoy a clear advantage over the others and this constitutes a propaganda risk.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my speech by putting hon. members and Canadians on guard against the risk of manipulation of public opinion. I am not imputing wrong intentions to the government, but I do want to warn them that this legislation could be a major asset in the constitutional dispute. Before holding a referendum, it would be preferable that the governments negotiate and put before the people a real common constitutional project aimed at the development of all Canadians and the economic, social, political and human progress of this country. Canada is a great country of which we must be proud. There should be no room here for discord, so let us show the entire world that we are a nation that is basing its relations on mutual respect and harmony.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased for various reasons to be able to enter the debate this afternoon on Bill C-9, the referendum bill. From the outset I had made up my mind that I wanted to take part in the discussion because I believe in this country, Mr. Speaker. I believe in the rights, freedoms and privileges of each group and of each region. I believe that as Canadians we have an obligation to each other, a responsibility to each other, to keep this country united. This country was born as a result of people coming here for various reasons in their search for freedom and opportunity. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to see that those freedoms and privileges are protected.
Canada is made up of diverse groups of people of various cultures and traditions and, indeed, with two official languages, yet it is rooted in many other languages. These rights and privileges have been recognized by this government, but now there appears to be a threat. Indeed, there not only appears to be but there is a threat. One government in this

January 30, 1979
Referenda
country has as its aim to separate from confederation, not necessarily by the will of the people within that province. It has taken upon itself to make that move supposedly in the interest of that region.
The federal government has a responsibility to see that those people get a fair hearing, that the views of those people are respected, that their views are not distorted but are taken into consideration. It is for these reasons that I support this bill.
While the leaders in that particular province have taken upon themselves to move the province out of confederation- and it may even be by various and devious means-they have suggested that when all else fails, as when the support of the people failed prior to the election of 1976, they would not separate from the rest of Canada without a referendum. Subsequent to that many statements were made because it was felt that they did not have the support of the people. When we question the motives and methods that may be imposed upon the people of Quebec we must also take a stand to protect the rights of the people in that province as well as the rights of all regions of Canada.
Many words were uttered in this House in the few days before the Christmas recess on this subject. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) referred to what he called the distortion of this bill by various speakers. I cannot accept that kind of remark, Mr. Speaker, because I am convinced that all parliamentarians are here to represent the views of the people in their constituencies as well as the views of Canadians from all corners of the country. I do not believe for one moment that there are members of this House who would willingly distort the intent of that bill, the words contained therein, or the purpose of the bill.
The hon. member also suggested that the bill was bad, dangerous and explosive. I take the opposite view, Mr. Speaker. The bill is not dangerous, nor is it explosive. The bill is in the hands of the government, in the hands of this House, in the hands of parliamentarians; if it is dangerous and explosive then maybe the hon. member for the Yukon ought to look at himself and his own motives in reflecting on the bill.
Parliamentarians need to take a rational approach. At times in this House we take a very partisan approach, and I have been party to that course myself sometimes in an insignificant way. I do not believe that at this time, however, there is room for partisan politics because the future of this country is at stake. I am convinced that we are all concerned about it. We need to have a unified approach. Goodness knows we have enough discord in various parts of Canada. I even see the discord and fracture on the other side of the House when I hear some members talk about sovereignty association and negotiations for sovereignty association. Then later I hear remarks from speakers on the other side who would not negotiate.
We need to get our act together, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members on the opposite side need to take a look at where they are going. Maybe they ought to consult with their leader and with

their constituents a little more. In the end it will be the Canadian people who will speak. It is at this time and with this bill that the federal government is prepared to consult the people of Canada. It is because of the importance of this issue, the opinions that have been expressed and the hazards that we face that I can support this kind of a view and this kind of an attitude.
I am not even sure what some hon. members on the opposite side of the House are speaking about when they talk in terms of negotiation of national sovereignty. Where is their mandate? They do not have a mandate to speak about national sovereignty or to negotiate with the PQ.
For the first time in history Canada is facing a challenge, the very outcome of which threatens to sever the bridge of her nationhood. It is that important. It is a serious question. Circumstances facing Canadians are peculiar and unprecedented in our history. We are sailing into uncharted waters never before explored. We have a provincial government that is dedicated to separation regardless of what it says. Never before has a government sought a mandate to extricate itself from the bonds of Canadian unity.


An hon. Member:: What do you think happened in 1868?


Mr. Andres:: We need to consult with the Canadian people, if the matter gets to that point, so that we can protect the people. It is with this reality in mind that I support this legislation presently before this House to give the Government of Canada the authority to consult Canadians on matters pertaining to its constitution. What is more important in the Canadian constitution than the plebiscite of 1898 or the plebiscite of 1942? Those plebiscites were not regarding national unity. This particular referendum overshadows all legislation that has been brought before this House. It is of the utmost importance that members on all sides of the House take a serious look at this piece of legislation and the implications contained therein. It is important that members take a serious look at their obligations and duties to this country. It is important too that they take a serious look at the wishes of the constituents they represent in each particular region of Canada.


Miss MacDonald:: Just like capital punishment. That will be the next thing you will say.


William Andres: Members on the other side seem to bring up the issue of capital punishment from time to time for various reasons. 1 am convinced that there is only one reason for doing that, and that is to drag a red herring across the floor in order to take away attention from the importance of this particular piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: I will remember that.


William Andres: There is no comparison between the issue of capital punishment and the issue of national unity. The issue of capital punishment was put before this House in a free vote. Every member had his or her opportunity. It may be that members on the opposite side may have had some restriction. I
***im
January 30, 1979

am not aware of that from the rumblings I hear, but on this side of the Elouse it was a completely free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Andres: If there are members on the opposite side who feel this is not the case, I would challenge them to get up and say so. I would like them to tell me where and how, and to give me the proof.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The cabinet. Ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It was cabinet solidarity.


William Andres: It seems strange to them that one can support a piece of legislation while others may not support it. That they cannot understand. I am afraid there are members on the other side who have been in the opposition so long that they do not understand how freely this government operates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Free with everybody's money.


William Andres: Bill C-9 which is presently before the House affects all Canadians. It gives all Canadians a direct voice in the fundamental law of the land, a law which will shape the future of our country. This is a most important piece of legislation.
There are those who feel that referenda are opposed to the principles of parliamentary democracy. There may be some validity to this kind of argument. Some people will argue that referenda give parliamentarians the opportunity to shirk their duty. There may be an element of truth in that. I would suggest to those who advance such a proposition that if the shoe fits, then they may wear it. I suspect that in many cases on the other side of the House the shoe does fit.
This particular referendum which will shape the future of our country and its laws is of the utmost importance. It differentiates in many ways from referenda held earlier.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Which one?


William Andres: I cannot see any comparison at all. This referendum, as I indicated earlier, is for the protection of people who live in a region of this country. Bill C-9 is a cautious piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Andres: In fact, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) felt it was too restrictive and not broad enough. Time and again we have heard that this bill is too encompassing, too broad and too vague. The opposition say that if it only asked one question, they would support it immediately. I do not understand that level of thinking. I see a question in this bill: the protection of the Canadian people is at stake. If members opposite do not understand that, it is because they are not familiar with the bill.
Referenda
This bill is very definitely aimed at the referendum that is supposed to be held in Quebec. The bill has an expiry date. It is under the complete control of this parliament. Where are the broad powers? Where is the question that hon. members opposite look for? Only parliament can initiate a referendum the result of which would be subject to the approval of parliament. If members opposite do not have faith and trust-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In this government?


William Andres: I said in parliament. The bill will be under the complete control of this parliament. It is ironic that as we will be facing the electorate of this country-


James McPhail Gillies: Soon, I hope.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is the referendum they ran away from.


William Andres: Members opposite feel confident. However, I can understand why their confidence has been somewhat clouded in the last few weeks by the jolly running around of their glorious leader and the various views expressed by some of the new shining stars on the horizon.


Mr. Chretien:: Tiny stars.


William Andres: I can understand why they have even lost faith in themselves. Consequently, they do not understand the true meaning of this bill and the protection that is included therein. The referendum is advisory. We are seeking advice from the Canadian people on a question as important as their own future. It complements the parliamentary system by providing an additional check. In no way does it withdraw the powers of parliament or the responsibility of parliamentarians.


Mr. Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: It sounds superfluous.


William Andres: In no way can this referendum be compared to the plebiscites of 1898 or 1942. In no way can it be compared to any question facing this nation because it talks about the future of this country.
It has been stated that referenda tend to be divisive. They are not; they are consultative. It is when people are not consulted that the division creeps in.
The issue involved in this bill concerns the roots of our nationhood. We are not afraid to go to the people to ask if they want to remain united. I am afraid the members of the opposition know the answers but are not responsible enough to face up to them. Sincere, honest citizens want this country to remain united and strong. It is only through this consultative process that we draw the people in and give them an opportunity to voice their opinions on national unity for the good of all Canadians. Canadians feel attached to this country. It is time they now be given a chance to voice their opinions. What will the referendum prove? It will be an affirmation from Canadians, a statement that above all else they wish to continue as Canadians from coast to coast, from north to south, in a

January 30, 1979
Referenda
country with ten provinces and two territories united under the banner of Canadianism.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my party is quite prepared to see this bill come to a vote this evening if the other parties are prepared to allow termination of the debate. If the other parties are prepared to terminate the debate tonight, I will be the last speaker for this party. I would indicate to the government and members of the other parties that, if it is decided that the debate will not end this evening, our members may well want to participate further in the debate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might permit me to say that, as far as today is concerned, we have only one more speaker, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae).
[ Translation]


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member's remarks, I would like to say that on our side we are ready to vote as soon as the House is ready to do so.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there is a growing consensus that the debate be brought to a termination. I repeat, our party is prepared to have the vote taken this evening. If the other parties would like a vote this evening, we are prepared to terminate our participation at second reading as soon as I complete my remarks. However, if the debate continues beyond this evening, there are members on this side who may well choose to participate.
As there are only two minutes remaining before five o'clock, I wonder whether I might call it five o'clock and carry on at eight o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions

to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)- External Affairs-Assignment of special adviser in departments; the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)- Business of the House-Second reading of bill concerning Arab boycott; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-National Defence-Commitment to increase defence budget.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved: that Bill C-208, to amend the Railway Act (ownership of land where line abandoned), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reasons for presenting this bill have not changed since I first introduced it in the House some four years ago. We have discussed the bill and my motion that the government introduce such a bill on at least three occasions. Even though Liberal members, at the urging of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), talked out the bill and my motion, I find that they have not put forward any valid reason for rejecting the bill. While talking out my bill, government members wasted valuable hours by discussing other phases of transportation.
On February 28, 1978, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) spoke for almost 20 minutes on the Hall commission report with respect to prairie grain transportation before telling us that the Minister of Transport had signed an agreement with CNR and CPR in the fall of 1977 which would parallel the intent of my bill. At that time I had not seen the agreement. Since then I have tried to obtain a copy from the minister's office.
Finally I obtained a copy from the office of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowksi) after he was promised one by the minister at a committee meeting. I do not know at this time whether this agreement was signed or not, for I was not able to obtain a signed copy. Whether it has been signed or whether it has been used, no one seems to know. It is very easy for the minister to show a copy of an agreement that he and his department have dreamed up but is it valid? Has it been used? What use has been made of it?
January 30, 1979

For the record, I would like to read a copy of the agreement. It is between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Limited. It reads:
Whereas CN and CP have been requested by Her Majesty to make a gift, in the public interest, of certain branch line rights of way and they have acquiesced in this request as hereinafter recorded,
Now Therefore the agreement witnesseth that the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Upon receipt of an order from the Canadian Transport Commission authorizing abandonement of rail lines within the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta on or subsequent to August 5th, 1977, CN or CP, as the case may be, will forthwith transfer to Her Majesty by way of gift all its title and interest, mines and minerals excepted, to its right-of-way and lands appurtenant thereto. In respect of such line, excepting only the portion of any such rights of way and lands lying within an urban area, subject to the right of CN or CP, as the case may be, within eight months after the date of the order from the Canadian Transport Commission or the date of the abandonment specified in such order or the date of this agreement, whichever is the later, to enter onto such transferred lands to remove rails, ties and other railway materials therefrom. CN or CP, as the case may be, shall be responsible for the payment of taxes and maintenance of such transferred lands until it has removed the aforesaid rails, ties and other railway materials therefrom. General descriptions of the lands which it is contemplated are to be transferred pursuant to this paragraph have been prepared by CN and CP and are attached hereto as schedules A and B respectively and proper land descriptions of these lands will be incorporated by CN and CP in the transfer documents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement by their proper officers in their behalf duly authorized in that behalf on the day and year first above written.
I believe this makes it clear that contrary to the statement by the member from Assiniboia the agreement will not serve the intent of my bill. I would, therefore, specifically urge the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), who tried to explain that the purpose of the bill was served by this agreement, as well as all hon. members, to read my bill and the agreement. 1 am sure that after reading my bill and the agreement they will see the intent of my bill is not reflected in the prairie rail agreement.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the CNR-CPR, is for specific rail lines abandoned in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This is a real issue. This agreement is not for all of Canada, it is just for the prairies, and not necessarily for all lines that may be abandoned in the prairies. This type of agreement should be included in a bill and included among federal statutes, not decided through ad hoc agreements, secret meetings and agreements within agreements.
Agreements of this type apply only to specified parts of the country, leaving other parts of the country to fend for themselves. For example, British Columbia is excluded from the agreement. There are problems in B.C. of equal if not more consequence, when it comes to rail abandonment. Agreements such as the one to which I referred forget an important concept-the retention of rail corridors.
The requirements of British Columbia, because of their dwindling rail system, are of at least equal importance as those of the prairies. This can also be said for eastern Canada and
Railway Rights of Way
the Atlantic provinces. My bill would have the effect of ensuring that important rail corridors will remain open and of giving federal and provincial governments responsibility for these corridors which they will have to assume in the future.
The responsibility to provide transportation corridors in the future, when our present non-renewable fossil fuels run out, will fall on the government, not on the railway companies. It is true the companies may have had to pay for some land in the past, but this was more than compensated for by the many "sweetheart" deals they received from the government in the form of land grants and subsidies.
I take exception to the idea that the railways should retain the rights to the mines and minerals. They were granted land for the purpose of building a transportation system. It adds to the credibility of the claim that CPR is no longer simply a transportation system but is, rather, a huge conglomerate with various other interests. Imagine the confusion which would result if a mineral find should occur on a narrow corridor while these big conglomerates are holding the rights. Surely the Minister of Transport, the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission can see far enough into the future to avoid this type of situation. It may only be a rare event, but think of the confusion it would cause.
A most important aspect of the agreement, Mr. Speaker, is the exclusion of portions of land and rights of way that lie within an urban area. This is one of my main arguments for having such a bill on the statute books. If valuable national assets are permitted to be broken up and sold off for short term advantage, future generations will be deprived of vital transportation corridors.
In the long run, shortage of renewable fuels will enhance rail transportation using these corridors. As fossil fuels are depleted these rail corridors will become increasingly important. The expense of reacquiring abandoned rights of way or opening new ones in built-up urban areas will add significantly and unnecessarily to transportation costs. It is in these very areas, urban areas, that it is most important that the corridors revert to the Crown.
No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the railways were so fast to sign the agreement, if the agreement has, in fact, been signed I have seen no evidence that it has. It is no wonder they made this agreement with the Minister of Transport. They knew full well that they were trading off less expensive land in rural areas in return for very expensive land in urban areas and cities.
Let us consider, for instance, Penticton, British Columbia, where a portion of the CPR's line has already been the subject of a hearing for abandonment. Marathon Realty is not too interested in the rambling line through the mountains, but even before the rail line abandonment is final it has already begun to sell off and take options on valuable property in the city of Penticton, some of it on the waterfront.
It is something again to know that a cattle rancher in a rural area has experienced a hassle in getting a crossing over a CPR

January 30, 1979
Railway Rights of Way
line which has not been used for years, yet when he travels to Penticton he can see that rail crossings have already been paved over, knowing that approval for abandonment has not yet been granted. This is a typical way in which the railway tries to use its "authority".
My bill says that title of ownership should be vested in the Crown in the right of Canada. This, of course, means that the federal government would obtain ownership.
I know that there is some concern among the provinces that they should be the ones to receive title. I am not arguing against that, as I believe they have a good case. After all, in most cases Crown land is owned by the provinces. During the hearings of the constitution committee last year it was determined that both federal and provincial governments could own Crown land. This point could be sorted out at the committee level, should the government in all seriousness see fit to pass this bill at second reading. It might be best to have these rail lines revert to the Crown in the name of provincial governments. After all, the provinces should be the ones to deal with municipalities, not the federal Minister of Transport, who says he wants to. An appropriate amendment to this effect could be made in committee before the bill is brought back for third reading.
What kind of heritage are we going to leave our children and grandchildren? They are the ones who will have to pick up the pieces and pay the costs if we in this day and age do not protect their rights.
The CPR and the CNR are big corporations. The CPR has branched out in many ways. When one looks at its record over the last few years, one wonders whether it cares about transportation. It would appear that the government-controlled CNR is more concerned about trying to emulate the CPR than about transportation in Canada. The railway companies are oriented to the bottom line of profits. They do not care who gets hurt.
It is the responsibility of the CTC to look after people's interests. Therefore, at committee hearings and at hearings with regard to the Carmi railway abandonment my appeals to the commission were to ensure that the interests of our children and grandchildren are protected in the future. I believe the CTC has the obligation to come to parliament with recommendations to change rules or laws which do not offer this safeguard to their heritage.
Parliament has an obligation to protect the heritage of future generations. It is for this reason that I have introduced this bill. Special agreements will not solve the problem. I know my bill can. When railways are granted permission to abandon lines anywhere in Canada, the rail rights of way should revert to the Crown.
The government should take its responsibilities seriously. The Minister of Transport must be aware of this and should not send in his troops to talk out the bill. He must not become a pawn of the railways. In the interests of our children and grandchildren he should support my bill or, failing that, introduce a government bill to the same effect.

It is time for the government to be as tough on railways who rush to abandon rail lines as it so generously supported them years ago when rail lines were first constructed in this country.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-208 is one which my friend, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), has proposed before in this House, and it has been debated on other occasions. Having said that, I do not mean to imply that it should not be debated again, because such debate serves to give the hon. member and all members of the House an opportunity to look again at developments, happenings, activities and at the rationalization of the branch line network in western Canada. This debate affords us an opportunity to review some of those things.
I was pleased to note that this afternoon the hon. member put forward some additional arguments-I think they were very sound-to support the suggestion that the bill should be considered, even though certain other events which the hon. member discussed and which I will be discussing have taken place since the time he first proposed the bill and since the time this bill was put forward in the House.
It is interesting to look over the past record of this bill and other questions relating to railroad rights of way. This bill once again illustrates the schizophrenia of the position of my hon. friends opposite. The hon. member who proposed this bill suggests that rights of way from abandoned railway lines should be turned back to the federal Crown. I believe it was on December 19, 1977 that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), who was in the House a few moments ago, seconded by my good neighbour to the west, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), moved, and I quote:
That the Minister of Transport notify western provincial governments that he is prepared to immediately negotiate with them and with the railroads to ensure that ownership of abandoned rail line rights of way be under provincial jurisdiction.
So two completely opposite proposals have come from our hon. friends opposite within the space of about a year. However, we are getting accustomed to that. We have seen this approach in other areas as well, I suppose the most recent one being the one which has been referred to in debates and exchanges in this House over the last few days, and that is the turnaround of the official opposition with regard to economic policy. After berating this government over the last several years for the amount of government spending and the level of the deficit, over the holidays the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) showed us that he is not really worried about the deficit. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition would enlarge the deficit and spend his way back to prosperity, after spending a number of years telling us to contain government spending and so forth. I mention this to indicate that this kind of schizophrenia in Tory policy has become the custom around here rather than the exception.
I recognize that the bill proposed today by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary represents a very sincere effort and that in fact to a large degree it is presently part of this government's initiatives with respect to dealing with branch line rights of way. The government and particularly the Minis-
January 30, 1979

ter of Transport (Mr. Lang) have moved much further than the hon. member suggests in his bill. The bill suggests that rights of way should revert to the federal Crown. The hon. member gave a number of very valid reasons why that should be the case. This government and transport people have said that we should go further than that. Rights of way should go to the federal Crown, but in the case of prairie branch lines the rights of way left as a result of abandonment should go directly to the rural municipalities involved and, in most cases, from them to adjacent land owners.
I think we are making very good progress on the whole question of what to do with the rights of way of these branch lines and of making sure that we are getting the land back into the hands of municipalities and from there to its rightful owners.
During the recent Christmas recess, I met with a number of different groups and individuals in my constituency. Among those groups were rural municipal councils. Some of them were municipalities which had branch lines within their boundaries which were scheduled for rebuilding, retention and reconstruction. Also, some of them were municipalities which had branch lines in the process of being abandoned. The following questions came up at different council meetings: what is happening in this regard, what is the government doing, what can they do, and so on.
The steps respecting the abandonment of branch lines in the prairie network are as follows. First, there is a Canadian Transport Commission order authorizing the abandonment of a particular line. Second, under the agreement between transport, the CNR and the CPR, which was spelled out by the hon. member who introduced the bill, the land is deeded from either of the involved railroads to the federal Crown. Third, as I understand it, the titles could well contain leases or other related caveats as they are transferred. Fourth, the land then is dealt with by a railroad bed steering committee, with the object of getting the land back into the hands of the party who deserves it. Fifth, in most cases the level of government best able to decide and to deal with it certainly will be the rural municipality. It goes without saying that in most cases the individual or person who will have the opportunity to acquire the land will be the landowner or the ratepayer who owns land on either side of the right-of-way. Quite often railroad rights of way cut through crop land, pasture land or whatever.
Much has been made of the Hall commission. Other spokesmen have indicated that ownership of rights of way should go back to rural municipalities, so that they in turn can sell them to the rightful parties in order to compensate them in some manner for the loss of tax revenue, which revenue resulted from rail lines going through municipalities. I suspect there will be more red tape for the municipalities than there will be financial revenue from much of the land. This is because it is not worth a great deal to the municipalities in that sense, nor to the landowners whose land was split or divided by rights of way. I do not see a great deal of revenue accruing to the
Railway Rights of Way
municipalities, even though it will be of some assistance and some value.
Initially the provincial governments of the prairie provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba were very, very upset about the notion contained in the bill put forward by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. They were upset about the idea that this land should revert to the federal Crown and not to the provincial Crown for whatever reason. I have yet to find any validity or common sense in the arguments put forward by the provinces. I suppose it is a classic case of how far provincial power advocates will go in attempting to make the case that they will fight with the municipalities and the adjacent landowners over the right to have the land in their hands, leaving the federal Crown out of it entirely.
It has been a realization for me as to how ridiculous two levels of government can become when attempting to establish their rights in this regard. It is all right for the federal government to put up hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild railroads, for subsidies and everything else; but when it comes time to accept back the land from the railroads, suddenly that particular aspect of railroad activity becomes a provincial responsibility and is no longer the right of the federal government.
Some of that antagonism seems to be waning. The province of Saskatchewan is represented on the committee to deal with farmers, rural and urban municipalities. The committee will look at the entire process of determining who should be the rightful owners of some of the land being turned back.
A great deal of progress has been made since the hon. member put forward his bill. I recognize his bill goes further than the present practice and policy of the government, although the practice and agreement established by the government and the two railroads to deal with the rights of way, which are now in the process of being abandoned across the prairies, certainly will form a precedent for rights of way in the hon. member's part of the country and other parts of Canada. As I said on a previous occasion in this debate, the bill does not go nearly as far as the government has gone in dealing with this question. The bill is somewhat redundant because we have progressed beyond the point referred to, the objective of the hon. member's bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments regarding the bill before the House today, I commend the hon. member for suggesting that the land in question should revert back to the Crown. His idea is a fine socialistic one. The land will go back to the Crown and be distributed to the people. I did not realize the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) was such a socialist.


George H. Whittaker: The hon. member has said that before, and he does not know what he is talking about.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Also I did not realize how sensitive the hon. member was.
*

January 30, 1979
Railway Rights of Way
I have a copy of the report entitled: "Grain and Rail in Western Canada", written by Mr. Hall, commonly known as the Hall report. At page 103 he made comments regarding what should happen to the railbeds once rail lines are abandoned. He indicated that the land should go to the provincial Crown, and that the provinces and municipalities should make a decision on what happens to the land. Referring to page 103, in part it reads as follows:
We propose to forestall controversy by providing that, upon abandonment, the roadbed-that part of the property abandoned represented by land-vest in the provincial Crown for disposition as may be mutually agreed to between the relevant province and municipal authorities.
Mr. Hall goes on to make a few more detailed comments as to why that decision should be made between the involved province and municipalities.
I should like to make a few comments on why railway lines should not be abandoned. Of course, I realize that some lines must be abandoned, but when one refers to the abandonment of lines, one should also talk about why some lines should not be abandoned. 1 see the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary agreeing with me. At the present time, this issue is a very big and controversial one on the prairies.
About two weeks ago the minister released a report from the Prairie Rail Action Committee which studied some 2,400 miles of rail line on the prairies. It recommended that about 60 per cent of those rail lines be abandoned.
I want to go back over a little bit of the history of rail line abandonment. I know the minister has said that upwards of 70 per cent of rail lines on the prairies are preserved in that they are in the basic network and will be upgraded. That is excellent, but I think a number of rail lines that have been abandoned in the past, and a number of rail lines the government now proposes to abandon, should not be abandoned.
The PRAC report refers to 2,400 miles of line of which 60 per cent should be abandoned. It is our position and the position of the wheat pools, and they are tremendously credible as they are the ones who built the elevators and deliver 70 per cent of the grain in the province of Saskatchewan, and nearly as much in Manitoba and Alberta, that most of these lines should not be abandoned but should be preserved and upgraded, to the benefit of the people who live in the area.
Let me point out to the House what it means to some of these communities to lose their rail line. First of all, the lines that PRAC studied are the lines that in respect of which Hall could not really make a decision. Hall looked at about 6,000 miles of rail line and said about 2,000 miles were utilized to the extent that they should be put immediately into the basic rail network. He said that an additional 2,000 miles of line were not being used enough, that there were too many inefficiencies and it would cost too much to upgrade them. He suggested that they were not worth-while and should be abandoned. Those rail lines have now been abandoned by the government. The bill before the House has no direct relevance to those lines as they have already been abandoned.

Mr. Hall had a third category in respect of which he said further study was needed. He recommended the setting up of a prairie rail authority to study these lines and make recommendations to the government as to what should be done. Instead of that, the minister set up the Prairie Rail Action Committee which has advised him to get rid of 60 per cent of those lines in respect of which Mr. Hall could make no decision.
What we have said, and what has been said by the wheat pools and the province of Saskatchewan, and many other agriculturalists, is that 90 per cent of those lines should be preserved. We have suggested that they are used to haul a sufficient amount of grain to warrant their upgrading. We have said they serve a sufficient number of farmers and, in many cases, the towns rely on them, and that their removal would cause inconvenience for a lot of people. We have suggested that the farmers who haul grain to the elevators on these lines would be greatly inconvenienced if the lines were removed.
Let me point out four things it would mean to the people if the rail lines were abandoned. First of all, it would mean an extra haul to the farmers. Instead of having to haul for seven or eight miles it would mean a haul of 20, 30 or even more miles. Secondly, it would probably mean an increase in provincial and municipal taxes to upgrade the roads the farmers would be using to truck their grain instead of moving it by rail. It would also mean the speeding up of the demise of the small farm because it is only the operators of large farms who are economically able to truck the grain this extra distance.
The abandonment of a line would also mean the end of those towns on the line because the farmers are not going to go to those towns when they haul their grain to other towns. Since they haul the grain to other towns they will do their shopping there. If the farmers shop in those towns it is those towns which will prosper and grow. These other small towns will gradually diminish and die. We have had many studies which indicate that when a rail line is abandoned about half the businesses in the area eventually go. Many of the people who would normally retire and move to those towns will eventually move to other towns on an operating rail line because they want to retire in a place that is booming and growing.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member began his speech by accusing me of being a socialist. Let me say that I am not. The difference between that hon. member and myself, and he is a socialist, is that I spoke to the bill and he is speaking to everything else but the bill. I wonder if he should not now speak to the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member responds to that point of order, let me say that I have been concerned about some of his remarks and his approach to the subject matter. While he is approaching the subject matter from another direction, I wonder if it is not now the time for him at least to make an effort to speak to the bill. There is an object in the bill which refers specifically to rail line abandonments. I know the hon. member has the right to disagree with that policy of abandonment and is trying to further his point of
January 30, 1979

view, but I am sure that hon. members would now be happy to hear him present his remarks in specific relation to the subject matter.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I take what you have said very seriously, Mr. Speaker. I was about to conclude by tying all this into the bill presented by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I apologize for leaving the impression that he is a socialist. I know he is not. I just wanted to say I was happy to see that he does have some socialist ideas once in a while, such as those contained in the bill before us today. It is very gratifying to see a Conservative member with good ideas like this.
As I was saying, we think the government should adopt the Hall recommendations, and specifically that the land held by railroads in respect of which a rail line is to be abandoned should go to the provincial Crown, and that provincial and municipal governments should negotiate as to what happens finally to that land. We would be very remiss if one or two of us, during a debate of this kind, did not point out that instead of talking solely about what happens to the land after a rail line abandonment we should be considering the reasons for not abandoning the rail line in the first place. We should be giving reasons why 90 per cent of lines proposed for abandonment should be preserved. They should be preserved for the benefit of the farmers, the small businessmen and the towns along the lines, as well as for the people in those small towns; in short, for the the benefit of everyone who lives in the rural community. Our cities are getting too big and a lot of people would like to live in rural communities in a rural society. When we abandon the rail lines these rural communities no longer exist.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) is in the House. I hope he will participate in the debate and tell the House of Commons why the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) wants to abandon so many railway lines in western Canada-


Mr. Lapointe:: It is not true. The Minister of Transport-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -and he also says that the Minister of Transport, in co-operation with the Department of Transport, will use the transportation policy as a tool to maintain national unity-

This is so in order that we create more equality in this country and make sure that things like freight rates do not operate as obstacles in places like the maritimes, the rural parts of Quebec, northern Ontario, the west, and places of that sort. When the hon. member makes his comments I think it would be relevant if he expanded on the bill a bit and talked about a national transportation policy as well.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on other occasions to join with the hon. gentleman across the way who proposes this bill this afternoon in discussing the question of rail line abandonment and the disposition of railway rights of way following any abandon-
Railway Rights of Way
ment procedure that might take place. I remember a day in the House of Commons just about a year ago when this subject was debated by my hon. friend from British Columbia and a number of others of us who are very interested in this matter. I am pleased that the hon. member has taken the initiative once again to bring this issue to the floor of the House, because it is a matter of importance.
Those of us who have spoken since he introduced the bill just happen to be western Canadians, all three of us from the prairie region. Hon. members will understand the interest and concern we have for this subject because of the important job that must be done and is now being done in western Canada to rebuild the grain handling and transportation system across the prairies and to export positions. It is a vital industry for our region and for Canada. There is not a more positive element in our national balance of trade figures than the figures relating to grain exports. Therefore the questions of how we can best take advantage of our grain exporting opportunities, develop markets, produce the grain to satisfy those markets, and then efficiently transport that grain to the markets, are important questions for all Canadians.
Once again I commend the hon. member for raising this issue in the House of Commons as he has done on other occasions, and I hope our discussion this afternoon will serve generally to bring matters up to date as to where we stand at the present time in this regard.
The bill proposes an amendment to the Railway Act which, on the surface, appears to be relatively straightforward. The proposal can even be considered to have some considerable merit, although the sincerity of the opposition in giving support to this bill must be questioned when one recalls that on December 19, 1977, a colleague of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) moved, under Standing Order 43, in the House:
That the Minister of Transport notify western provincial governments that he is prepared to immediately negotiate with them and with the railroads to ensure that ownership of abandoned rail line rights of way be under provincial jurisdiction.
If I read the hon. member's bill accurately, I think he is proposing that if there is to be ownership by the Crown, it should be the Crown federal, not the Crown provincial. In the case of the Standing Order 43 motion which was raised on that other occasion-


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, I can tell the hon. member that I clarified that matter in my speech. I am sorry that the hon. member was not present during my speech, but I will be pleased to send him a copy now before he continues in this vein.
I mentioned that the jurisdiction, federal or provincial, of Crown land ownership had been discussed in the constitution committee, and it had been determined that it could be owned by either entity. In this particular instance, the bill could be amended and the matter of jurisdiction discussed in commit-

January 30, 1979
Railway Rights of Way
tee. I have no hang-up on who owns the land, whether it be federal or provincial.


Ralph Goodale: I am glad to have that clarification, Mr. Speaker, but I am not sure that it totally disposes of the issue before us. The distinction between ownership by the provincial Crown or federal Crown in some instances is likely to be an important distinction, and if it is something that can be reasoned or rationalized away that easily, perhaps that would be an end to the issue, but I doubt that in the negotiations such a conflict could be resolved that easily.
To listen to some of the spokesmen for the provincial governments in western Canada after the publication of the Hall report, I had the impression that they held this issue very dearly and saw through their eyes that there would be for them some considerable problem if the ownership of these roadbeds were to revert to the Crown federal.
The federal government has taken what I think is an eminently reasonable position, that where a roadbed is eventually abandoned the ownership reverts automatically to the Crown federal but only for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of ownership to the party which should, in the final analysis, hold it permanently. In the case of the roadbeds in the prairie region, the federal government has no vested interest in being the permanent owner of those parcels of land. Rightfully, the ownership should be in the hands of the local municipality or the adjacent farm owner. I think this may be an important point of distinction on this issue raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.
The hon. member's motion, bearing in mind the region from which he comes, is more broadly based and does not simply focus upon the prairie region and the question of grain transportation. I recognize that his intention is to work a broader amendment into the law than that relating simply to grain lines on the prairies. Be that as it may, I think the most crucial and pressing issue in the country today relates to those rail lines in the prairie region, and that is why I think that the comments in this debate since the bill was introduced have focused specifically on the grain transportation question. The federal government recognizes that there is merit in federal Crown ownership of these rights of way, but only for the purpose, as I said before, of ensuring a smooth transfer of these lands to the logical owner who will derive the most benefit from them.
There are, of course, other considerations which must be taken into account with regard to this amendment. The Hall commission report recognized that municipalities affected by rail line abandonment would suffer through a loss in taxation. As a result, the government has made the decision that the disposition of abandoned rights of way on the prairies will be executed in such a fashion as to allow for compensation for that tax loss to accrue to the municipalities, in recognition of the fact that their revenues would be reduced by the loss of the taxes on the roadbeds.
To expedite the transfer of title to the ultimate owners, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) early last fall signed an

agreement under which Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway will transfer to the federal government all roadbed property identified for abandonment in the prairie provinces. As the minister stated before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications last year, this agreement was reached specifically to ensure that the land is transferred to the logical recipient as quickly as possible. There is no intent of retaining the land for the federal Crown, as I have said.
In order to facilitate the process of ownership transfer, and recognizing the need for municipal compensation, the Minister of Transport has established for each of the prairie provinces a rail roadbed steering committee which will determine the disposition of abandoned rights of way in each province. Meetings have already taken place with prairie farm and municipal groups.
I can think of three specific meetings which were concerned with this question and there have undoubtedly been other discussions about it. The rural municipal organizations and the Western Agricultural Conference, which represents most farm groups in western Canada, have given active support to this initiative by the federal government. The municipal associations have now been formally invited to participate in this consultative process, and the prairie governments have also been invited to lend their support to the plan even though, as I said a few moments ago, some of them were reluctant in the first place to get involved in the federal process because they drew a strong distinction between the merits of ownership on the part of the Crown federal and ownership on the part of the Crown provincial. If the interjection from my hon. friend from British Columbia is some indication that the provincial governments have got over their concern about this issue to a certain extent, then I welcome his remarks.
The procedure worked out by federal officials in consultation with western representatives calls for the establishment in each province of a rail roadbed steering committee. This committee will consist of two representatives selected by the rural municipal organization, one from the urban municipal group, one representing the general interests of farmers, one representing the Government of Canada, and one from the provincial government should they agree to participate. I am glad to note that the province of Saskatchewan has agreed to provide a representative, thus giving provincial support to the process. Hopefully the same sort of co-operation will be forthcoming from other prairie governments.
In each case the steering committee will consider all the interests that might be involved in the abandoned rights of way. Although the ultimate owners will primarily be the municipalities and the adjacent farmland owners, exceptions will be allowed. Each proposal will be considered on its own merits.
Again, we might identify a potential problem that could exist in the generalized approach put before us this afternoon by the hon. member who proposed the bill. It might not be
January 30, 1979

possible to adopt a general principle that would apply in each and every case of an abandonment or potential abandonment, in all regions of the country. Even in the case of the prairie region there are different interests expressing a desire ultimately to own the roadbeds that might be involved, and even in a rather homogeneous situation we see different viewpoints and interests being expressed. If there is that much diversity involved in what is a rather self-contained situation on the prairies, it is understandable that if the same principle were to be applied across the country, the numbers of disputes and competing interests would be rather remarkable indeed, and it might not be possible to adopt any legislation of general principle that would be workable. There will always be exceptions, competing interests, and a matter of judgment to be applied in each case as to where the ultimate ownership should fall.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is also involved in the case of those rail lines that happen to pass through Indian lands. The department will have the right of first refusal for any land which passes through Indian reserves in those circumstances.
The steering committees in each province will consider legitimate uses proposed by the provinces, such as transportation and utility corridors, subject, of course, to the payment of appropriate compensation to the affected municipalities. With those two exceptions, the interests of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the interests of the provincial governments, the general principle in the prairie region seems to be that the abandoned rights of way would be offered to the local municipality as a first priority and thereafter to the adjacent landholders who would pay for the land with the payment accruing not to the federal government but to the municipality as a form of compensation for their tax loss.
Earlier I mentioned that meetings of the roadbed steering committees have already been held. In keeping with the government's policy of ensuring that railway lines not required on the prairies revert quickly to those who can make most use of them, in most cases that means primary producers, the memberships of steering committees is oriented to small urban and rural municipality representation. I have already gone over the proposed representation for each of these committees. The membership covers a wide range of interests, and the individual representatives are involved actively in every day prairie life. . It is hoped that these committees will be in a position to proceed quickly with the transfer of these lands. The procedure I have outlined is extremely flexible and adaptable to the specific conditions present when any particular rail line is proposed to be abandoned. This will ensure that these properties are disposed of in the most equitable fashion, bearing in mind all of the potential competing interests that might come to the fore.
While there is merit in the germ of the idea proposed by the hon. member from British Columbia this afternoon, I think that at least in relation to the prairie regions, events have rather overtaken the proposal. We have a procedure in place
Railway Rights of Way
which is dealing with the situation effectively and which seems to have the general support of farm organizations and municipal organizations, and at least the province of Saskatchewan and, we hope, other provincial governments in western Canada.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


George H. Whittaker: I should like to ask the hon. member what his proposal is for abandoned lines in urban areas.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the agreement is somewhat more complicated in the case of urban municipalities because of the competition of interests involved. I do not think 1 have time in the three minutes left before six o'clock to go into all the details of that. They are a matter of public record, however, and have been discussed on many occasions by the Minister of Transport, just as the provisions relating to rural municipalities have been discussed in many other forums.
To deal not only with the answer to this question but also with the one key defect that one could see in the bill proposed by the hon. member, the important point is that it is not easy to develop a single general rule that could be adopted as an amendment to the statute and that would apply in every case. I think there must be flexibility to deal with different circumstances. In the case of the rural situation one might think that the cases would be simple and that there would not be disputes. In fact there are competing interests that have to be reconciled.
To suggest it is possible to draft one amendment which would solve all the problems is rather unrealistic. I do not think it is possible to apply a general principle across the board. In saying that, I do not want to minimize what I think is some fundamental merit in the proposal made by the hon. member in terms of how we might begin the process, because in fact, we have begun in the prairies in just the way he has proposed. The significant point is that the process has gone far beyond that mere beginning.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as I have very little time to make my comments about this bill, I would like to take the few minutes at my disposal to point out the facts to my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who suggested that the minister recommended the abandonment of railways. I would like to remind him that this was contained in the report submitted by the Prairie Rail Action Committee and that all recommendations concerning the abandonment of certain railway lines have been referred to the Canadian Transport Commission.
Since he has been a member of this House longer than I, he should be aware of the mechanism which exists in Canada. He should recognize that it is now up to the Canadian Transport

January 30, 1979
Referenda
Commission to make a decision concerning the recommendations of the committee. He said that the abandonment of about 1,044 miles of railway had been recommended, but he forgot to mention that following the work of the Hall commission and the recommendations of the Prairie Rail Action Committee, more than 80 per cent of all railroads in the prairie provinces are now protected until the year 2,000, and he also forgot to mention that the Canadian government is now spending and will spend in the years to come more than $800 million to improve the railways so that they can accommodate larger hopper cars and boxcars to ensure the most efficient grain transportation network possible in Canada. I believe it is now six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour reserved for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde (for Mr. Reid) that Bill C-9, respecting public refe-rendums 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. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), who was speaking at five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friends on the other side for their kind applause. I hope they will not greet the end of my remarks with the same enthusiasm as the beginning, but I hope hon. members will find my comments both informative and constructive.
Parliament is continuing its debate today on Bill C-9, a bill which the government says will give it a valuable tool for carrying on the fight in favour of national unity in Canada. This bill sets the ground rules whereby the federal government

can hold a referendum on any question relating to Canada's constitution. The powers which the government is asking for are very broad. In the words of the bill itself, it would give the government the power to hold a referendum 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 is of sufficient importance to warrant obtaining the opinion of electors on that question-
The referendum could be held in every part of Canada; it could be held in only one province or held in a combination of provinces. Deciding the scope of the referendum, the question to be asked in the referendum and the terms, would be left to the Government of Canada. Once the bill is passed, and it is certain to pass because the NDP have assured the government it will add its support to the government majority all the way down the line in passing this contentious piece of legislation, the government will have the power for five years to hold a vote on any constitutional question whatsoever that it chooses, once it has gone through the procedure of rushing a pro forma motion through this House of Commons. Just to obtain pro forma approval of the House of Commons, which would be gagged after 40 hours' debate on the motion, the bill provides that this government, which has demonstrated its callous disregard for parliament, will simply have to tolerate 40 hours of debate in the House of Commons before the debate comes to an end and it can ruthlessly use its majority to put aside any dissent.
That would be an enormous amount of power to give even to a good government which had proven that it knew how to use power wisely, but in the hands of this government which has ruthlessly undermined the role of parliament and implemented policies which have resulted in deep tears in our national fabric, this amount of power would be intolerable.
The Progressive Conservative party will vote against this bill. We know that in the end the support of the socialists will ensure that the bill will be passed. Fire is an element which can be an extremely useful device. In the hands of careful and responsible people, it can produce tremendous human benefits, great advantages for us all. However, in the hands of the irresponsible it can cause serious property damage. In much the same way public referenda can provide an important and valuable device in our political system. They can ensure a means by which our citizens can make important decisions about the laws under which they live.
My province of Ontario has long had a system of local option which allows residents of local communities to decide whether liquor will be served in public institutions in their community. That is an example of how referenda can be used effectively and for the public good in at least one of the jurisdictions in the country. They have been used well there for years.
Many people have asked that the federal government allow referenda on a broad range of topics in which there is considerable interest. The members of this party are not saying that there are no circumstances under which referenda can be justified, that there are no circumstances under which referen-
January 30, 1979

da would be useful for the Government of Canada. Indeed, several of our own members have proposed specific topics ranging from taxes on one hand to capital punishment on the other where they, as individuals, feel that a public vote would be desirable.
Just yesterday our leader indicated in debate on this bill that if the government had brought in a specific bill with a specific motion in it which could be approved by parliament, dealing with the question of national unity, and if it was clear that a referendum on that topic would be helpful in maintaining the unity of Canada, that sort of bill would have had our support. However, what we in this party are saying is that in a parliamentary system every attempt by a government to hold a referendum that would end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars directly and indirectly before it was completed should be justified on its own merits.
No government has the right to ask parliament to approve broad legislation requiring only a rubber-stamp approval by the government majority in order to be used. In the hands of an incompetent or irresponsible government, this potentially valuable tool of a referendum could become very destructive indeed.
I ask the government members here tonight this question. If they feel that the voters might be asked a question whose importance is so self-evident that no more than 40 hours of debate would be required, why are they then not prepared to drop this bill and instead bring before parliament a specific bill authorizing a specific resolution or a specific question to be asked? Why did they come to parliament now to get virtual carte blanche for the next five years for whatever course of action they might choose to adopt?
Supporters of the government might argue that a crisis in confederation will develop over the course of the coming months that will make swift action urgent. If that is the case, as the government claimed it was the case when it suspended civil liberties in Canada seven years ago, what political party in this parliament would stand in the way of rapid approval when the time came?
Instead of indicating a respect for our parliamentary system of government, this administration asks us to give it the power now, and to entrust parliament's rights to the government's good will. That is not good enough. Let us take another look at the wording of the bill. It would allow the government to ask for a vote on "any question relating to the Government of Canada or relating to or arising out of a proposed or possible change in the Constitution of Canada" which the government would like to see voted upon.
We should look also at the definition in clause 2 where the scope is so broad as to include, and I quote:
-without limiting the meaning of that expression,
(a)	the customs, conventions and enactments that comprise the Constitution of Canada, and
(b)	the political and judicial institutions and processes of Canada;
Referenda
The wording of this bill is so broad in its scope that it would give this government virtually unlimited power to ask for a vote of the people on almost any issue it chose, because virtually no issue in Canada could be excluded from that if the government chose to define it in a way which was very broad. There is absolutely nothing in the wording of the bill which would restrict the government from asking about matters that fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Indeed, as recently as yesterday, a government member went on record as saying that is what he saw in this bill. I quote from page 2652 of Hansard when the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) made this statement:
As far as I am concerned, this bill provides for this parliament to determine when or where a referendum should take place, not only on matters of federal jurisdiction but on matters of provincial jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdictions and even in unassigned jurisdictions. That is the way I interpret Bill C-9, and I think the opposition should face up to it.
We do face up to it, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that some members of the government have not been as candid as to the government's intentions when speaking about this bill. They talked about how narrowly it would be confined. The last member who spoke on behalf of the government talked about this referendum we have before us as if he knew what question would be asked. Parliament has not been told what the question is that will be put to the people. We have been given no guarantee that it would be used sparingly, this broad power which the government is seeking. In fact we have been warned of just the opposite by a Liberal member that the government could use this bill to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction.
This bill would empower the government to inflame further the bad feelings that exist between Ottawa and the provinces by invading areas where it has no right to be. Some members opposite were present in Toronto when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke to a Liberal fund-raising dinner one week before Christmas. I read the transcript of the Prime Minister's comments at that dinner. I think it is worth considering part of them in the context of this bill. After a long recital of why he felt his government is indispensable, the Prime Minister turned to the question of resources. These were his words:
You know, we're hearing the provinces say: Well, these resources are mine and the federal government shall have nothing to do with these resources. We don't say that. We say: The resources of any part of Canada belong to Canadians. And sure it means a little bit of hassle, a little bit of confrontation, but not a big one.
What is there in this bill that would prevent the Prime Minister if he wanted "a little hassle" with the oil-producing provinces and decided to hold a referendum on the question of whether the federal government or the provinces would control the reserves? It would be this government that decided to hold the vote in the first place. It would be this government that would decide what wording of the question would be most likely to obtain the preferred result. And it would be this government that would use its majority to authorize the vote only after 40 hours of debate in the House of Commons.
The leader of the NDP says that this bill is an essential tool for the unity of Canada. But what would he say to Allan Blakeney in Saskatchewan if the Prime Minister chose to pit

January 30, 1979
Referenda
the consuming provinces of Canada against the producing provinces? It would be too late then to say that parliament should not have given the government such a broad grant of power.
Just last week the Task Force on National Unity brought down its report. It was clear from the hearings held by the commissioners that one of the major causes of disunity in this country has been the willingness of the federal government to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction. In the words of Premier Robarts at the time, the government forced medicare on the provincial government, to "change the constitution without amending it." This has been the practice of the Liberal government through successive changes in the cabinet.
The bill before us places no restrictions upon the ability of the government to ask any question related to the constitution, whether it deals with an area of federal jurisdiction or not. At the very least, the leader of the NDP could have asked that the government confine the bill to matters either exclusively, or at least partly, falling under federal jurisdiction, before offering his party's wholehearted consent. The unity of Canada requires that much at least as a pre-condition of support for a bill of this kind.
The constitutionality of this bill deserves more than just lip service. And by "constitutionality" I mean more than just the strict legality of the bill itself, because it is probably arguable that any jurisdiction in Canada has the right to poll its constituents on virtually any subject, whether it relates to an area falling under its jurisdiction or not. But surely good constitutional practice requires that the question whether the government is acting in an area in which it has the right to legislate should be considered when a bill of this kind is being brought forward. Otherwise, the whole concept of the distribution of powers in Canada between the federal and provincial governments is made meaningless.
The government attempts to justify the introduction of this bill on the basis that the announced intention of the Levesque government to hold a referendum in Quebec on the question of sovereignty association, whatever that means, makes it necessary for the federal government to have the power to do the same thing. The question that Quebeckers will be asked will be loaded in favour of a positive vote for separation, according to the bill's defenders. And the federal government should have the ability to ask its own question of Quebeckers, or, as the Prime Minister speculated, of the people in the other nine provinces as well.
What surprises and disturbs me, if the future of Canada is to be decided by a succession of referendum battles, first held in the provinces, then held by the federal government, and again, perhaps, in the provinces, is that at no time in the debate on this measure have government speakers addressed themselves to the question whether "sovereignty association" can even be a topic for discussion between the two levels of government.

As my leader has said, if the government had brought in a specific bill to deal with the question of national unity, or specifically dealing with something related to the constitution, we would have been prepared to entertain it. We remain prepared to entertain a bill of that kind. But we are not prepared to grant carte blanche to the government for the taking of a tool which can be used to divide Canadians and to pit region against region. Mr. Speaker, if the federal government can ask a question on the subject of sovereignty association which has any legitimacy, then surely the government has also to accept that the break-up of Canada is a proper topic for debate. And if the federal referendum on Quebec's role in confederation is to have any legitimacy, the federal government must also accept that a provincial referendum on the same subject might have legitimacy too.
By even suggesting that Canada's future should be settled by a battle of referenda, the government gives up its right to say the separatists are unjustified in claiming that a provincial referendum can be the proper expression of the public will. Surely if the government intends to use this device in that way, it owes it to the Canadian people to address itself to that issue first, namely, whether or not the course of action it is proposing will in fact give assistance to the separatists by legitimizing the referendum route they are taking.
All that is left, Mr. Speaker, if we accept the legitimacy of a vote to break up Canada, is whether the question asked was fairly put and whether the results achieved are in our best interests. No one made this argument better than the leader of the New Democratic Party when he spoke in the bill's defence in December. Here are his words, as recorded on page 2044 of Hansard:
No one can pretend that a referendum will be a permanent solution or the only solution. But if you do not believe in violence, if you do not believe in oppression, then surely the people have to be given the right to determine if the possibility of the survival of the country is at stake. That is why I, for one, agree in principle with the means of the Parti Quebecois, which is a democratic means of establishing a referendum although I oppose that party with all the energy, intellectual, moral and physical, within the law that I can muster on their objective.
Listen again, Mr. Speaker, to the operative part of that paragraph. It is this:
... then surely the people have to be given the right to decide if the possibility of the survival of the country is at stake. That is why I, for one, agree in principle with the means of the Parti Quebecois, which is a democratic means of establishing a referendum ...
Those were the words used by the leader of the NDP as he spoke in defence of his party's position on this bill. The leader of the NDP quarrels with the goals of the PQ which are to break up Canada, but he applauds the means they have chosen to do so. Nowhere does he question whether any government has the legitimacy to discuss the break-up of Canada itself, although the referendum would do that. And nowhere does he spell out what he would do.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tell us about Crombie!
January 30, 1979


Henry Perrin Beatty: I seem to have touched a nerve of my socialist friends tonight. And I do not blame them, because our position is crystal clear-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Let them howl. Go ahead, howl. I will be reminding my Liberal friends shortly of something their leader said, too. Our position is clear. Our leader has said specifically that the survival of Canada is not a matter for negotiation. We will not negotiate. We will not discuss sovereignty association. We know now from the squeals of indignation from the NDP what their policy is. I want to ask the NDP and hon. members opposite what sort of a majority in a referendum, either federal or provincial, would be needed for this bill's proponents to wash their hands of Canada? Would the figure be 662/3 per cent? Or would it be 60 per cent? Or would it be 51 per cent? The issue is reduced simply to one of numbers if you accept that the break-up of Canada is open for negotiation. This is the thesis which underlines the measure before us, and it is the thesis which underlies the speech given by the leader of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: Wrong, wrong!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Read Hansard. You will find it on page 2044 of Hansard. What other construction can be put on his words? As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, my leader made the unqualified statement, which he repeated this week, that our party will not negotiate sovereignty association with the government of Quebec. Surely the people of Canada are entitled to the same assurance from the leader of the NDP and from the leader of the government opposite.
We heard a great noise coming from the government benches earlier. You could see they were uneasy. They had good cause, because they are probably as aware as we on this side of the House of the transcript of the talk between the Prime Minister and Mr. Bruce Phillips of CTV which was taped on Tuesday, December 20, 1977, and shown on CTV National Network on Sunday, January 1, 1978. Let me read the exchange. Perhaps Liberal members opposite will follow me and address themselves to the implications of what the Prime Minister was saying:
Bruce Phillips: But there isn't any real legal way to separate, is there, Prime Minister? It's not provided for in any law that I know about.
Pierre Trudeau: No, it. is not. That is why there cannot be any unilateral declaration of independence. But in the same way there was no law in Britain permitting any of its colonies to separate. When the reality of a colony no longer wanting to be part of the British Empire arrived, well, the Brits just passed a law. Now, you know, what I am saying basically is that if ever Quebeckers by an overwhelming majority decide they no longer want to be part of this country, then they're going to sit down and negotiate with the rest of the country how they can be kept in. What I say at this point is I will not make them change their mind by force of law. I do say that somebody will have to sit down and negotiate with them and it won't be me.
What was he saying? "Somebody will have to sit down with them and negotiate and it won't be me." It won't be the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) either, because if Quebec
Referenda
separates he is going with Quebec. He would choose it over Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the leaders of both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal party have a responsibility to the Canadian people to come clean with this House and to indicate on what terms they are prepared to talk about the break-up of Canada. That's the common thread which runs through those two quotations I read to the House.
Mr. Speaker, the crisis in our confederation today is grave but it is not unique. I tried to correct an hon. member opposite when he said earlier that this was the first time a provincial administration had attempted to destroy Canada. That's not so. Joseph Howe stood for office and won a strong mandate on a platform of pulling his province out of Canada. Some people argued then that Macdonald should support a policy of asking Nova Scotia to give the new country a fair trial for a year or two and then to make up its mind about what it wanted to do, but Macdonald's response was unequivocal, unlike the response of this government and that of the New Democratic Party. It was this:
That, it seems to me, would be giving up on the whole question. The ground upon which the Unionists must stand is that repeal is not even a matter of discussion. I hope that the Colonial Office will be firm in this matter. If the Duke of Buckingham says at once to Howe and his confreres that they have nothing to hope or expect from the British government, 1 think the matter will end there; but if he should be weak enough to say "You should give this system a fair trial for a year or two," the consequence will be that the professional agitators will keep up the agitation for a year or two and then will return to the Colonial Office and plead their own factious course and its success as an evidence of the persistent refusal of the people to be incorporated in the union.
Macdonald's response was blunt. Repeal, he said, was not a matter of discussion. I and hon. members on this side of the House do not deny that the nature of the threat posed to confederation by Joseph Howe was different from the nature of the threat posed today by Rene Levesque, but Howe's challenge to our national survival was every bit as real as Levesque's is today. The future of Canada as a nation was considerably less secure in 1868 and in the years immediately following confederation than it is today.
The courses of action which are open to this parliament today remain essentially the same as they were in Macdonald's day. We can either state without equivocation that Canada is indivisible, or we can decide to haggle over the terms. There is no third option.
Where we in this House should be turning our attention is to attacking the reason why growing numbers of Canadians throughout this country are giving up on Canada. We should be looking for ways of proving to them that we understand their concerns and problems, and that the federal government, instead of increasing the tensions between different parts of the country, will work to eliminate them.
In 11 years this government has taken a centennial spirit for this country's future and replaced it with bitterness between French and English, between producer and consumer, between government and the private sector, between the provinces and
2728

January 30, 1979
Referenda
Ottawa, and between east and west. As testimony at the hearings of the Task Force on National Unity demonstrated, virtually every measure, without exception, taken by the government in the name of national unity has further embittered Canadians over the course of the last 11 years. That is the legacy of 11 years of the Trudeau government.
What is worse is that the government has cynically used national divisions, which deepened as a result of its policy, for partisan ends. On virtually every platform-and we have seen it here in the course of debates in the House-from which a Liberal speaker talks, whether it be the Prime Minister or the lowliest Liberal backbencher, the issue of national unity is used in a pitch for votes, as we saw today.
Perhaps the most cynical version of this ploy is the claim that if Canadians decide that they are fed up with 11 years of arrogance and incompetence on the part of this government and vote to throw this government out, they will be spelling the end of Canada because Quebeckers will feel that the rest of Canada has somehow turned its back on them. We have all heard that claim by the Liberal party throughout Canada.
If it is true that in this bill, or in the unlamented constitutional proposals which died an early death last fall when even the government's supporters in the Senate turned on it, the government has armed itself with the weapons it needs to defeat the separatist challenge, then we must ask ourselves why all the other solutions to the problem that the government has presented over the past 11 years have failed.
To listen to the government talk about how it has discovered the key to national unity in Canada is to forget who was in power a little over two years ago when Rene Levesque swept to office in Quebec. What has happened since that time to make the government's claims more credible, when less than a year before the election of the Parti Quebecois the Prime Minister announced to Canadians that "separatism is dead in Quebec"? The legacy of this government's term in office is that our country is more divided today than it has ever been before in my lifetime, and yet the government continues to exploit our national divisions for partisan gain.
Let us turn for a minute to the question of whether a federal referendum throughout Canada following a PQ success in Quebec would truly promote national unity. First, it is unclear whether the government would feel bound by the results of a referendum it held any more than the Laurier government felt bound by the results of Canada's first referendum.
The explanatory package which accompanies this bill states that the government could choose to consider itself bound, but in leading off in this debate in December the Minister of Justice stated at least twice that the government could simply disregard the results of a vote if it disagreed with them. It is worth reminding hon. members of the remarks of the minister when he was questioned by one of my colleagues to the left.


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


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation in the latter part of the hon. member's question is the proper one. The referenda under this bill will be purely consultative, and there is no action required by parliament or by any legislature following any particular result of any referendum.
The minister said later:
I reiterate that it is clearly a consultative process. There is nothing in the Constitution of Canada at the present time that could make the result of a referendum binding on the government, parliament or any particular legislature.
What the minister said was that this government is prepared to go ahead, hold a vote, spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, allow passions on both sides of an issue to be inflamed across Canada, see the results come in, and then-disregard them if the government chooses to do so. No other construction could be put on the minister's words. The government could say, "We appreciate hearing from you, but we did not like the answer you gave, so we are going to ignore it." That is what the government calls direct democracy. The hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said essentially the same things in his remarks last Friday.
Let us imagine for a minute what would be the state of national unity in Canada if the government said it had found a constitutional issue which was so pressing that it should be put to the people in a nationwide vote and then, after millions of tax dollars had been spent and Canadians had expressed themselves on the issue, the government announced that the people had voted the wrong way and that the government would not support them. The vote would have been nothing more than a costly public opinion poll which wasted the time of the electorate.
Let us consider another possible scenario. The most recent Gallup poll on the question shows that support for Quebec's separation today is stronger in English Canada than it is in Quebec. Let us assume that the government decided to hold a national referendum designed to allow the rest of Canada to show Quebeckers that they were truly wanted. What would be the result if, in the middle of the campaign, an emotional issue such as the question of bilingual air traffic control were to crop up? What would happen if Rene Levesque, intent on provoking a backlash in the rest of Canada which would permit him to claim that the country wanted to be rid of Quebec, were to introduce legislation in the Quebec National Assembly to strip away the rights of the English-speaking minority? Can the government say, in confidence, that English-speaking Canadians would be immune to that bait?
Finally, let me deal briefly with one of the assumptions in this bill which is supported both by the government and by the New Democratic Party, namely, that it is improper for the public to vote in referenda on non-constitutional issues but that questions related to the constitution lend themselves equally well to popular votes. Pointing out that a number of my party's members have called for a referendum on capital punishment but are opposed to this bill, the leader of the New Democratic Party said, "You can't have it both ways." What he did not explain is how he can have it both ways.
January 30, 1979

I say to the bill's supporters that unlike a referendum on such issues as capital punishment, abortion or taxation, which tend to cut evenly across demographic and geographic lines, the referenda which will be authorized by this bill would tend to divide Canadians along the lines of our deepest historic divisions. They will polarize Canadians on the basis of language and region.
I do not know how, in the name of national unity, the bill's supporters can say that they would refuse to allow Canadians to be heard on the questions which the polls show they would most like to have a vote about, but would encourage referenda to be held on the questions most likely to ignite bitterness between the language groups or between regions. It just does not make sense. This is the constant theme we have seen running through the arguments made by the government, that its goal is to let the people decide, to have democracy in Canada and to give the people a chance to be heard, but Gallup conducted a poll asking what issues Canadians would be most interested in having referenda on if they felt that referenda were justified. The results of this poll were released on Saturday, December 9, 1978. It found the following:
When Canadians, 18 years and over, were asked, in October, whether they would favour or oppose a referendum on capital punishment, 82 per cent replied affirmatively. In March of this year, when this question was first put to the Canadian electorate, exactly the same proportion favoured a referendum.
That is an issue which the government says-perhaps with justification-should not be put to a vote. I do not know; that is an issue for debate on another day.
The report continues as follows:
Questioned further on what other issues might best be settled by referenda, the majority could think of none-68 per cent. The most frequently mentioned issue was that of Quebec separation-12 per cent-
I hope the minister is listening to this. The issue of Quebec separation was followed by his bill. The report continues:
-followed by constitutional changes-3 per cent-
That is the public demand to which this minister is responding. What sort of mockery is it when the government creates a charade of pretending to be in favour of public input and participation, but it says that that participation can be only on issues about which it wants to hear from the public, and not on the ones about which the public wants to talk to the government? What sort of hypocrisy is it when the government comes before parliament with this type of bill and says that it will authorize votes in areas where there is not strong public demand, and denies Canadians the right to be heard on other issues about which they are concerned? What sort of hypocrisy is it when the government then says that, even if there is a vote, it may well choose to ignore Canadians afterwards? How will the government explain that after the vote has taken place?
There has been a constant thread running through the debate concerning the role of referenda in a parliamentary democracy. The hon. member for York East stated his views on it in the House yesterday. He felt that many of the British
Referenda
institutions embedded in our constitution were not sufficiently modern or up to date to serve present needs. He indicated that they had to be brought up to date, and that perhaps the various traditional ways in which we have operated in Canada just are not operating properly any more. The hon. member said that the entire British concept of a parliamentary sovereignty is a matter about which we should ask questions. It is worth taking a look at the hon. member's particular comments. As reported at page 2650 of Hansard, the hon. member said the following:
The classic "responsible government" approach is becoming tougher to defend in twentieth century society, not only in Canada but also in Great Britain. Those who are quick to bark on the other side should look at what is happening on the other side of the pond in relation to what is happening to responsible government, aside from all their labour troubles. They should pay attention to what is happening in a constitutional sense in Great Britain, the mother of parliamentary democracy.
The hon. member continued his speech by indicating that he strongly supported the bill, and that he felt it would be an advance for our system of democracy in Canada. As reported at page 2651, the hon. member said the following:
The Tories say "no" for consulting the people by means of a referendum; or if you want to use another phrase, by direct democracy.
This was the theme of his speech. I think it would be useful to go back to the last time when parliament was torn apart by a debate on the role of referenda in Canada. It would be useful to look at what the authorities had to say at that time about their role in relation to the parliamentary system. I found one government member who said the following:
The popular view in my constituency and the Toronto area in general is to put the question of capital punishment to a national referendum. This would certainly mean rule by the people in the literal sense; but the passions of the people run high. For me, the spectre of the disorder on the streets of Paris in 1792-94 develops in the scenario of a nation governed by referenda.
Countries that revert to putting questions to referenda often find that more problems are created than are solved. The Canadian referendum of 1944 on the conscription issue intensified racial and regional opinion and created tremendous difficulties, difficulties which were only spared the government by the conclusion of the war. The same analogy may be drawn with the 1975 United Kingdom referendum on the European Common Market, and the recent Italian referenda on divorce and abortion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it could be argued that the results of the recent Italian referenda have helped to destroy the unity of the Christian Democratic party and precipitated the present political instability in Italy.
Like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) I will take my chances with the theory of representation as clearly enunciated by Mr. Edmund Burke, and followed by many politicians in this House and the British House over the past 200 years.
Who was it who said that less than two years ago? It was the same hon. member for York East who spoke yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: It was the same hon. member who said yesterday that direct democracy, popular sovereignty, and the system of government which has worked in Britain for so many years, no longer were effective and should be revised. I should like hon. members opposite to direct themselves to that question. What would be their policy? How do they feel? What role do they feel a referendum must play? How do they justify their flip-flopping on this particular issue which is of concern to Canadians?
80047-31 '/2

January 30, 1979
Referenda
After the 1974 election my party engaged in a series of debates concerning the nature of the policies and principles the Conservative party would follow. At that time I argued that we should encourage a sharper definition of the philosophical principles in which we believe. But my former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), stressed the responsibility of any national party in Canada to act as a conciliator among the disparate groups in our nation. He argued that our most important function is to bind Canadians together whenever the centrifugal forces in our society threaten to tear the country apart. The events of the past few years have proven how truly right he was. Clearly the time has come when every national party should commit itself to solving our disagreements, not by pitting group against group, Canadian against Canadian, but through good will and Canadian compromise.
This bill would take away a vast slice of power from the Parliament of Canada and give it to cabinet. It can serve only to deepen our national division. It will not have my support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by saying that no party in the House, and no member of parliament, has a monopoly on the question of national unity. Also, I want to say that no party, and no member of the House, has a monopoly on love for the country and faith in the future of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: It is important to remember that Canada is bigger than each one of us. It is bigger than the Liberal party, though the Liberal party frequently forgets that, and it is bigger than this parliament. I, for one, have no doubt that regardless of the outcome of the next election, Canada will remain united.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: It would be a disaster for the country if the Liberal party were allowed to say that one's opposition or one's being in favour of this bill meant that one was any more or less a Canadian. Quite frankly, I am tired of listening to members on both sides of the House saying, "I am a better Canadian than you are because I have been somewhere you have not been, or I have fought somewhere you have not fought." We should be well beyond that kind of argument and feeling in this House. It was Adlai Stevenson who said that partriotism of that kind is the last refuge of scoundrels.
The unfortunate tragedy and political difficulty facing the country today is threefold. First, neither the New Democratic Party nor the Conservative party have an effective electoral presence in the province of Quebec. It is an obvious fact, but frequently we are too embarrassed to state it. I state it frankly, but not with any great pride. Our country and the province of Quebec would be politically much healthier and saner if there were a federal opposition presence in that province. Another sad fact is that the Liberal party has no federal presence in western Canada and a declining federal presence in the province of Ontario. That is a tragedy for the country as well. The

third great tragedy is that in November, 1976, the only means by which the people of Quebec could express their fatigue and dislike of the corruption of the Liberal government in that province was to vote for the Parti Quebecois.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I speak for myself, and I am sure for many members of this party, when I say I approach the question of referendums with no great enthusiasm. If this were a normal time in the course of our history, and we were not faced with a constitutional crisis, I would have neither truck nor trade with referendums, and 1 am sure nobody in our party would either. I will say quite clearly why. I think the drawbacks of referendums in general have been described well, if a little unfairly, by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). They were described yesterday in the speech by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). They were described in the speech by my friend, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and they were described in the speech by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


An hon. Member:: And what about your leader?


Bob Rae: I am coming to that. They were also described in the speech by the leader of my party. I think it is worth bearing that in mind. The disadvantages are quite simply these. In my view the greatest protection and the greatest presence the people can have in a democracy are the election of members through a strong party system, members of conscience who are prepared to take their position on matters of conscience to the people as individuals, and decide on matters of party politics as members of a political party, to be elected or defeated on those decisions. Neither election nor defeat is a disaster, and it is not the worst thing in the world to be defeated. There are worse things than being defeated at an election, and I hope members opposite will remember that whenever the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decides to pull the plug; it is worse to lose one's self respect.
It is a function of a member of parliament to reflect, to consider, to weigh, to debate in caucus and to rely on party judgment, his own judgment and on the opinions of his constituents, and then make up his mind accordingly. As I say, in a normal constitutional time that would be the course I would adopt, and I am sure it would be the course that would be adopted by members of this party. However, there is one fly in the ointment. From speeches by Conservative party members yesterday, today, Friday and before that in December, it does not appear that they have recognized that fly in the ointment.
The fact is that in November of 1976, for the reasons I have described and not because the people of Quebec in 1976 were voting for separatism, a party which is committed to the breaking up of the Canadian federation was elected to form a government. We can talk until doomsday about whether the Liberal party opposite was responsible in some way for that election result. 1 have said already that 1 certainly think the
January 30, 1979

state of the provincial Liberal party was to blame, and it must take some of the responsibilities.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Bob Rae: The fact remains that there has been an election in Quebec that has had a dramatic effect on the constitutional situation in this country. The impact, the desires and the aims of the Premier of Quebec have never been sufficiently understood, appreciated, and realized by the Conservative party. If members of that party had realized them, I do not think they would have been able to take the position they have taken in respect of the bill which is before us at the present time. Nor would they have been able to say the things that many of their leading members have said about Mr. Levesque and his real aims and desires, and the desires and aims of his party.
Let me say to the hon. member for Rosedaie (Mr. Crombie) that I saw the CTV interview program, as I am sure many people did. I am not challenging for a moment the hon. member's love for Canada or his faith in Canada. That would be absurd. I have known him too long and too well for that. However, I think he has made a fundamental mistake in his assessment of the aims of Mr. Levesque, and a fundamental mistake in looking at the national unity question in this country. That is a question of judgment. To say simply that Mr. Levesque wants a settlement with honour is a mistake, as it would be a mistake to say that it would be more difficult to negotiate with Mr. Ryan, the leader of the Liberal party in Quebec who is, whatever else, a federalist, than with Mr. Levesque. To talk about the two as if you were talking about the same game betrays an ignorance about the state of the country that is profound.
I think we are entitled to ask the same question about the Leader of the Opposition. That hon. gentleman has stated very often that he is prepared to be flexible, to negotiate, and to talk. He has said most of our constitutional problems have been created by the arrogant attitude of the federal government, and we must have discussion and words; we have to reason together and we must adopt the model of the Kingston conference, where they had five Tory premiers together in Kingston, for the protection of the confederation and for the purpose of discussions with Mr. Levesque. That is his serious assumption of the threat that is presented by Mr. Levesque.
I am not suggesting that national unity and leadership are the only issues facing us, but I am saying that the people of Canada will be asking themselves if this is the leader they want to have negotiate with that very tough set of cookies in the province of Quebec, particularly if that is the assumption he makes of Mr. Levesque's intentions.
I did not create that issue, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Canada did not create that issue. The Liberal party did not create that issue, although I understand it is going to make it an issue. I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition has made it an issue by his attitude.
The second thing which changes my mind about referen-dums is not solely related to the province of Quebec, and not solely related to Mr. Levesque and the election of the Parti
Referenda
Quebecois. The second thing is the fact that we are now embarked at last, thank goodness-out of a sense of crisis but also, I hope, from a sense of common purpose and achievement-on a path of constitutional reform. We are looking at a very different set of institutions and relationships between the federal and provincial governments, and between the House of Commons and whatever second chamber we decide to create. All of these changes will take place within the tradition of common law and loyalty to the monarchy, which are not in question. It would be absurd to suggest they are in question. Nevertheless, there are some very real institutional changes that will be going on, and I think this is a very healthy thing.
We have a Senate which I have called in the past "the indoor relief department of the Liberal party." It performs no real constructive or useful function in the federal system. It does not do the job which a second chamber could really perform in a federal system, and it is ridiculous that we have been so long in reforming that institution. We have a House of Commons which, as I suggested in my earlier remarks, has a party system that at the moment does not reflect the reality of representation in Canada. It is not true to say that there are no New Democrats or Conservatives in Quebec, because there are. It is not true that there are no Liberals in Alberta, because there are. There is no reason why-and I say this as a member of a parliamentary party which has been consistently under-represented in this House since it was founded over 40 years ago, not in terms of talent but certainly in terms of numbers-we are not entitled to look at the possibility of a reformed electoral system as well as a reformed second chamber. Even in such an instance there is still the question of division of powers. It is a difficult and exciting question and has been raised once again with the Pepin-Robarts commission report on national unity.
I must say in answer to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo that I do not believe that all of the wisdom in Canada rests with the provincial governments. I do not believe that when Premier Lougheed and Premier Davis get together and come up with an idea, that that is all there is to be said about the future of Canada. I believe that Canada is a bigger, better, and greater place then all of its parts put together, and that is the function of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo mentioned medical care. If we waited for the provincial governments in this country to provide medical care, we would still be paying through the nose for hospital care and for seeing a doctor. If it had been left to the provincial leaders such as the Duplessis's or George Drews of this country, we would not have had unemployment insurance for years and years.

January 30, 1979
Referenda
I do not believe that all the wisdom in the world lies with the federal government. I think there has been much arrogance, and in some instances a systematic abuse of power, on the Liberal side of the House. I think that there is a great deal of ignorance about the views of the average working person in English Canada on the Liberal side of the House. But I do not think we should allow 15 years of arrogance on one side to turn into 15 years of paranoia on the other, and I honestly think that in some of the criticisms made of the bill by the Conservative party there is an element of paranoia which does not face up to what is in the bill or to the crisis facing the country.
I have said that there are two things which changed my mind about a constitutional referendum-the election of the Parti Quebecois and the fact that we are engaged in an exciting and dynamic period of constitutional reform. This means that we must, within the tradition of the common law and the monarchy, look at new institutions, and look at them in a way which will engage the attention, support, and consensus of all Canadian people from Newfoundland to British Columbia and to the Yukon. This cannot be done simply through a series of conferences between the premiers and federal government officers.
I tried to get into the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa in October, just after I was elected. I could not even get in, and 1 am a member of parliament. The man on the street in Broadview, walking down the Danforth does not know a thing about the Canadian constitution, but one thing he does know is that before he is from Broadview, Toronto, or Ontario, he is from Canada. We are in the process, and we may not even know or realize it-and some of us are so far behind the times we do not recognize it-of creating a new nationalism and a new nationality.
1 had the occasion last week to attend, with the hon. member for Rosedale, a meeting of the multicultural leaders in Toronto. I was a delegate as he was. I believe it was organized by the Conservative party because I was the only NDPer there, along with a Liberal. The outstanding thing about that conference was that these people, wherever they came from- and we all came from somewhere-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Do you think that Stanley was born spontaneously? Apart from Stanley, we all come from somewhere.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Bob Rae: The commitment which we all had at that conference and the admission was that we did not want to be known as Greek, Italian, Barbadian, Anglo, Irish or anything else, but as Canadians. These leaders were looking to the federal government for a new constitution that would protect their mul-ticulturalism and social rights, and some of them even wanted us to protect their linguistic rights. The point is that they did not want to go to Bill Davis, Peter Lougheed or the provincial governments for the protection of their new sense of nationality, citizenship or pride in Canada; they were looking to the
[Mr. Rae.)
federal government for it. For any party to ignore that sense of nationalism and not see that nationalism as a tremendous source of strength which needs to be mobilized toward a new consensus, is to be blind to the future of the country, and is simply looking at old patterns and old divisions.
I would like to look now at some of the criticisms which have been made against this bill. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has said that the government was spreading disunity, that instead of fighting fire with fire it was fighting fire with gasoline, that it was a blatant attempt to subvert and undermine the responsibilities of the Canadian system of responsible government. She said that it was a complete departure from parliamentary practice, and that the scope of the legislation was so broad, so large, and so wide that it presented a threat to the civil liberties of every Canadian. She also said that it amounted to a complete departure from the freedoms which we have valued in the common law for centuries.
In looking at this bill realistically, I do not see those dangers there. There are problems in the bill and I have severe reservations about certain aspects of it, but the principle of saying to the federal government that there is no right in a federal parliament to hold a referendum on the constitutional future of Canada, at a time when we are faced with a constitutional referendum in the province of Quebec and when people are crying out for constitutional change because they want to be proud members of a new country, is simply nonsense and, furthermore, political suicide in the province of Quebec. I do not come from the province of Quebec, but the one thing which has impressed me is that every single member from Quebec, with the exception of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), has spoken in favour of this bill. They have said, "Please give us this bill; do not leave us in the hands of a provincial government which is determined to load the dice and stack the decks," to use the words of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I think it is worth remembering that there are interests in the province of Quebec which may need to be protected by the means we are giving the federal government and the federal parliament at this time. I put it as tentatively as that. I am not an enthusiast on the subject of referenda, and I have indicated my reasons. If these were normal times I would not be in favour of a referendum. The question raised is whether, when we know there is a government in Quebec which is soliciting political support with every means at hand, we want to say to the federal government, "You have no means; you cannot do it; we are not going to let you do it."
The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo asked why we do not come here with a specific question. Mr. Speaker, if I were playing poker with Rene Levesque I would not want to put my money behind the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo-I can tell you that! He would walk in and say, "Here are my cards; what have you got?" That is not the way the game is played; this is a tough
January 30, 1979

game, and we do not know what the question put by Rene Levesque will be.
Already reporters are asking what we are going to do if Rene Levesque wins the referendum, and if we are going to negotiate with him. I reply that I am not going to answer that question. I am not going to deal with the question. Do those reporters ask Rene Levesque what he is going to do if he loses the referendum-if he is going to negotiate with the federal government? Of course they do not. They know he is a serious politician. I would ask that the federal government be as serious in the defence of federalism as he is in the pursuit of independence.
The Leader of the Opposition paraded all the horrors-that we could have a referendum on any subject-that it would change the Constitution of Canada-that it would change the law of Canada-would threaten the Indian minorities, the Inuit and the blacks-all the minorities and every group. That is what I call parading the horrors. It is an example of exaggerated fantasy as a result of a kind of paranoiac thinking which comes from being in opposition so long.
The fact of the matter is that there is one minority in Canada now which is seriously under threat. I am sorry to say that happens to be the English language and the immigrant minorities in the province of Quebec. That is the reality. It is not the fantasy. It is not the fantasy of looking at all the things the Liberals could do if they went collectively bonkers and if the opposition went home for five weeks and the Canadian people took leave of their senses. The reality we are looking at is what is going on in Quebec today. That is the crisis; that is the difficulty; that is the situation we have to meet. I say that we are entitled to ask that the official opposition be as serious, as tough-minded, as clever, and have as great a sense of the whole of the country as we ask of the government when we criticize them for being so inadequate.
Where did Roncarelli come when his liquor licence was cut off by Maurice Duplessis? He came to the Supreme Court of Canada, and won his case because he had federal rights and was able to come to the federal government to have them protected. Where did the people who suffered under the padlock law in Quebec come when they could not go to the provincial government-when these tremendous provinces had the Duplessis's, the George Drews, these great protectors of civil liberties-where did they come? To the Supreme Court of Canada.
The fact is that when minorities are under threat we should look at the reality of the situation and at what is really happening. Let us deal with the crisis that is facing Canada now, not some fictitious crisis the opposition is creating because of its generalized fear that the government is going to make national unity an election issue. That is what we are facing at the present time. I think the concerns of the opposition can really be met by looking at what this legislation does, and I will express my criticisms of the legislation as I consider this point.
First of all, the referendum question provided under this bill has to deal with the constitution. It cannot deal with every
Referenda
subject under the sun, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. It has to deal with the constitution and that is what this debate is about-the Constitution of Canada-constitutional reform. That is what Pepin-Robarts is all about; that is what Rene Levesque is all about; that is the subject of today's discussion. The question has to be limited to that.
This matter is going to be debated in this House. I think the 40-hour limit is ridiculous, although it is more extensive than it looks at first blush. It is about three weeks of debate. I think the limit should be taken away to satisfy our concerns on this side of the House that the matter is going to be thoroughly debated.
The question would be put to the people; it would be discussed and debated. There is protection in terms of all political parties and registered groups having access to the CRTC rules and so on. It is much more liberal and free than the position that has been put forward by the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec.
The answer to the question or set of questions would be consultative. People keep asking, "What if he asks a question about Indian rights?" The answer is simple. What happens? Nothing. There is the Supreme Court, the BNA Act, the constitution, the common law-those things will not suddenly be dissolved by the holding of a referendum. This bill does not provide for that and it is absurd to suggest that it does. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities of political life. It would not lead to a unilateral change and it cannot, because of the nature of our political system.
If the government were foolish enough to hold a referendum in the province of Saskatchewan on the question of natural resources, the results would be disastrous for it. They would lose their referendum. We would clobber them, Mr. Speaker. I have a little more faith in the common sense and intelligence of the Canadian people than some members to my right seem to have. I do not think the Liberals are able to brainwash completely and dominate the people of Canada or Quebec so that the people would not give a reasonably intelligent answer to a reasonably intelligent question on the matter of the constitution.
I should like to end my remarks with a quotation from "Essays on the Constitution" by Frank R. Scott. At page 372 he wrote:
A combination of forces-military, political, and economic-made it possible to find a common ground for the original constitution one hundred years ago. We seem to be at the stage that Canadians had reached just before the BNA Act was adopted.
He commented that we must not think we can be exempt in Canada from the creative force of nationalism in our own country. Then he went on to say:
Nehru once said that there is a good form of nationalism, and a bad form of nationalism; the good form is that inherent desire in man to live in a society that enables him to express himself to the fullest; the bad form is the rigid application of racist doctrines that can lead to disaster. Both the good and the bad forms of nationalism are usually to be found simultaneously in any nationalist movement, and the question is, which one will prevail? The answer to that depends on many factors-

January 30, 1979
Referenda
He further commented:
A frustrated nationalism turns to primitive weapons, just as a frustrated individual may seek release in a primitive nationalism. On the other hand, a strong sense of national identity can be a protection against the crushing conformity toward which technology is constantly driving us.
It seems to me that is the heart of the issue-Whether we are intent in Canada, including Quebec, in creating a new national identity with new national, economic and social institutions that deal proudly and effectively with the problems that face all Canadians, or whether we are prepared to be locked in, hindered by the mind-set and institutions that have in some way blocked the aspirations of the people of Quebec and also the aspirations of a great many other Canadians as well, those for example, in Toronto, in Newfoundland, in the Northwest Territories, in the west, in fact everywhere.
I think that a referendum, while not critical or most important, is a useful mechanism, a useful device in the mobilization of that political consensus. It is not a tool that I am particularly fond of in general political terms, but in the specific political situation that we are faced with today, in the crisis of Quebec and in the crisis of confederation which we face, it could be a vital tool in seeing that federalism is presented fairly, fully, generously, and with the decency and dignity we all want to see it presented in the province of Quebec. I have no faith that the Liberals will do it on their own. As I said before, I have no doubt that if this government, and when this government, is thrown out, there will be other parties to take their place that will be able to govern Canada. Canada is bigger and stronger than the Liberal party. If there are other parties that take this government's place, I want to see a referendum as a mechanism in their armoury as well. It is not a partisan political thing. It is not something to do with the survival of the Liberal party, but obviously that is an aspect of every piece of legislation that comes in here.
Sometimes we have to step back from our narrow armies that we come from and ask ourselves, "What is the crisis of Canada", "what is the crisis of confederation", and what are the mechanisms and the political means that we can use to create something different, something new and something exciting? I say two cheers for referendums. It is not the best mechanism nor is it the only mechanism. But it is not a threat to our liberties, it is not a threat to this institution if it is only consultative. It is not a threat to ourselves if we have the confidence, the ability and the strength to use it in the best interests of people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be briefer than those of some of the previous speakers who indulged in a lot of verbosity, but I will endeavour to be frank and sincere, and I hope that I will not duplicate any remarks that have already been made.
Bill C-9 which we are debating this evening says that it might be cited as the Canada Referendum Act. It is entitled

"An act respecting Public Referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada." Quite frankly, I have nothing against plebiscites and referendums or going to the public generally under certain circumstances. 1 am sure that many members of parliament and other Canadians will agree with me on this. Despite the proposals that have been presented to us within the last 12 months by the government on constitutional reform, and also despite the existing situation in Quebec, one must look at this bill for what it is or is not and for what it is worth.
I understand that in some countries in the Commonwealth, referendums are held with respect to the adoption of amendments to their constitutions or on constitutional problems or questions. However, it should be pointed out that such referendums are held after full debates on the specific questions are conducted in the legislatures or parliaments concerned. Plebiscites are held sombrely and soberly on the questions concerned. Amendments of constitutions then become subject to the approval of the electorate. This is done after unlimited debates in the parliaments or legislatures on the specific questions which are to be put to the people.
Bill C-9 proposes just the opposite. It is a piece of legislation which would allow a campaign, similar to an election campaign, and even the implications of the Canada Elections Act of this country, which result in a great deal of expense to the ordinary Canadian through taxes, tax exemptions and income tax. This bill would put political parties and politicians to work to create greater adversity and hatred over what should be a serious, fundamental and sombre constitutional matter. To make things even more ridiculous, the results of a referendum under Bill C-9 would not even be conclusive or binding upon parliament or the electorate. Bill C-9 is unfair and undemocratic because of its numerous provisions permitting the implementation of regulations by orders in council. This is a dictatorial and improper procedure.
When we are dealing with people's rights at the constitutional level we should not permit the cabinet or a deputy minister, who turns out to be some bureaucrat, to issue orders in council or regulations. That is what parliament is supposed to be all about. We should be here to halt and restrain the issuance of decrees, edicts and regulations. In view of the fact that constitutional questions are basic and fundamental problems, fundamental to the rights and privileges of each and every Canadian, a bill which proposes the matters implied in this bill-and there are several-must not provide for orders in council or regulations.
When the bill comes before us for approval or disapproval, it should contain a specific question. It should contain those matters which are to be changed in the constitution, or any amendment. It must set out the full details of a proposed question or constitutional amendement. For example, if Canada wants to adopt the constitutional amendment act which was presented last spring by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), then such a bill should be presented first for unlimited debate, but every clause in that bill should be presented. If there is a question to be referred to the people, then that
January 30, 1979

question should be so stated in the bill. It should be presented to the people after an unlimited debate has taken place in this forum. Certainly it should not be held at the time of an election.
Furthermore, on any question in a debate of this kind there must be-and this should be pointed out clearly-no guillotine or closure procedures. Specifically, constitutional questions and amendments in any event must be debated without limitation in the House. To be effective they should be presented to the people for approval. If they are not approved by the people, then the statute or question would not become effective.
If the government continues to follow what in the past has been its usual arrogant and ill-conceived procedures, then this bill would prove to be yet another weapon or instrument of separation and division in the country. I am reminded of such items as the B and B Commission report, the Official Languages Act, its improper and costly implementation, and the national task force on Canadian unity report. The list goes on and on. All these items should have been or should be shelved. Referendum, hatred, division, separation, an aura of suspicion and infection are arising from the government benches. It is to be regretted that this has been orchestrated in the emotionalism and steam already prevalent through political motivation.
One need only read the legislation to see that, like a number of other bills presented in past years, it is a horrid piece of legislation. If such a bill were to be presented it should have been presented long ago, certainly long before November, 1976.
Implementation of this bill is likely to be the last straw for Canadians. It is likely to break the Canadian back. It is certainly an example of the government's lack of confidence and faith in Canada and its people. It is also an example of the government's knowledge of the people's lack of confidence and faith in this government.
It is my sincere hope and prayer that the government will review this legislation again, review it carefully, and withdraw it at this time. Quite frankly, I have glad hopes in the future of Canada. I only hope and pray that governments and politicians will refrain from pouring their distasteful and far too potent and volatile fuels upon an already fragile situation.
Surely this government should know what happens when the wrong paths are taken, and many they have taken. Look at the economic and unemployment situation caused in large part by the many errors in judgment of this government, errors resulting in government waste, and errors in government spending caused by government instability.
It may not have been intentional, but throughout this debate there have been references to Rene Levesque. Frankly, I do not see this as a positive way of achieving national unity. It is undoubtedly putting Canada and parliament on the defensive. This is very poor strategy. Let us get back to economic issues and sensible issues, issues that will help put bread and butter on the table of the ordinary citizen.
Referenda
My plea to this government is to withdraw this bill immediately before this country is completely destroyed by an instrument of destruction. We do not need another instrument of destruction such as Bill C-9.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, for I feel this debate has lasted long enough already. Apparently only Progressive Conservative party members are against the adoption of this bill, and considering that this problem must be settled as soon as possible, I suggest that we ought to reduce as much as possible the length of each speech. Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to refute some of the accusations members of the official opposition have made throughout this debate, and object to their actions and remarks.
During the year and a half I have been sitting in the House and during the election campaign when I was chosen as elected member for the Louis-Hebert riding, I have come to realize that official opposition members, ever since the appointment of their new leader, have been willing to accept any compromise, alliance and intellectual dishonesty to oppose the government and gain votes in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in noting the many differences between their position in Quebec and their position elsewhere. All editorial writers and reporters seem to be saying that the official opposition has two languages, one for Quebec and one for the other provinces. I would like to give two examples of this. The first is quite brief and concerns the campaign for the by-election of last year when I was elected to the House of Commons and when the Progressive Conservative party was using a very well-known slogan in the province of Quebec: Yes to the Progressive Conservative party. They showed how naive they are, Mr. Speaker, for not knowing that in 1970, the Parti Quebecois used the same slogan, that is, "Yes to the Parti Quebecois" and that it will use "Yes to the referendum" for the referendum.
It is not a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that they chose the same logo, the same colours, and the same advertising in certain cases to try to promote their candidate in those by-elections. Instead of aiming at originality they tried to copy something that had already been used by others. I should add that during this campaign, we heard Progressive Conservative candidates, especialy in my constituency, and we saw press cuttings and leaflets distributed by the Progressive Conservative candidates saying: "If you voted for the Parti Quebecois last November 15, you must be true to yourself and vote against the Liberal party and for the Progressive Conservative party." If this is logical, Mr. Speaker, must we conclude that the Progressive Conservatives have to get the votes of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec? I find this quite dishonest. I believe that it is very dishonest to try to shack up with the party that is trying to destroy this government.
2736

January 30, 1979
Referenda
The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) says: Why not? Mr. Speaker, during my electoral campaign in the Louis-Hebert riding, we were surprised to see the hon. member for Joliette at the National Assembly lunching with the chief organizer of the Parti Quebecois, the hon. Marcel Leger, to see if it was possible to have the co-operation of the Parti Quebecois for the by-elections. This same member of parliament came to this Louis-Hebert constituency knocking on every door to tell the people: If you voted for Mr. Claude Morin, the father of the referendum, you must vote against Mr. Dennis Dawson, because he says he is a federalist while our candidate makes certain concessions. He is running for the Progressive Conservative party and they have become compromise specialists.
We have seen the present leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Clark) hiding away from reporters; he did not show up for press conferences before large groups of reporters in almost three years. As many papers and magazines have pointed out, he could not have answered the many questions. We saw him hiding when the RCMP case made headlines, when his financial critic made startling statements. We have seen him hiding on several occasions since the last election. The only time he did not hide is when he went for a trip out of the country, and we have seen the results, Mr. Speaker. That is when they should have hidden their leader.
The confusion and dishonesty of the Progressive Conservative party have never been as obvious as in the present debate on referenda. I will not repeat the remarks made by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), by many of my Liberal colleagues as well as by the NDP members who pointed out the dishonesty of the Conservative party and the complicity they seek with the Parti Quebecois in order to convince the people of Quebec that they are flexible and that they would be prepared to consider the problems of the Parti Quebecois.
I will say nothing either, Mr. Speaker, of the language he uses in western Canada when he says that he is going to put Quebec back where it belongs. I am not going to say anything about that, Mr. Speaker, because I think these are trivial things. What about the statements made by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party when he said that he would be prepared to negotiate sovereignty association with Quebec, and what about the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who also said that he would be prepared to negotiate sovereignty association with Quebec, and what about the former president of the Progressive Conservative party who, the day after the hon. member for Rosedale made that statement declared that he agreed on that matter and that being himself from Quebec, he felt that this was very serious. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative supporters have changed their minds since then. They have changed their minds on everything since I first came to this House, but I think that the public is not stupid enough not to understand the situation.


The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) told us that a referendum would divide groups, regions, and even families. He said in his speech yesterday, and I quote:
So i say that this legislation would pit region against region ... This bill would also pit race against race. That is exactly what happened with regard to the conscription issue. The bill would pit religion against religion and culture against culture ... This bill would pit family against family and friend against friend.
The hon. member does not understand that the Parti Quebecois has decided that there will be a referendum in the province of Quebec. The federal government needs this same tool in order to counteract this possibility. We have seen that elections divide families and regions. Sad to say, parliament is now divided as far as regions are concerned. But are we going to abolish elections because they are divisive? My brother may not necessarily be a Liberal. A man from another region in Quebec will not necessarily be a Liberal. Are we going to abolish elections because there is a division? Are we going to abolish parliament because there is an opposition? We are divided, but we are certainly not going to abolish it.
I am not particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, and on this I concur with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae), to support a bill setting up a referendum process in the Canadian parliamentary procedure. However, Mr. Speaker, I support that bill because there is already one in the province of Quebec-


Mr.   La Salle@: You do not have any choice.


Dennis Dawson: Not quite, Mr. Speaker, we do have a choice. I object to it as a normal formula to settle problems, Mr. Speaker, but I support it under the circumstances because we are not merely dealing with a bill altering a department, but the future of the country is involved. Since the Parti Quebecois intends to hold a referendum, if we do not provide such a tool to the federal government we would be denying Quebeckers the opportunity of answering a straight question in a referendum. To a certain extent I am familiar with the matter of referenda. My provincial counterpart in Quebec City is Claude Morin, who is the father of referenda. He is the one who proposed the bill on referenda to the Quebec government and he is the one who sought support for it. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Morin does not see a referendum as a means to negotiate. He does not want to use it to obtain more power from the federal government. When he was a deputy minister, he tried to have more power and he figured that what was needed in Quebec was independence and sovereignty association. He wants to have a referendum because he seeks to get 50 per cent of the votes plus one and he will do anything to ask a question which will get him that many votes. As a government I think it is our responsibility to make sure that the people of Quebec will have a real choice before the referendum is held. If the PQ gets 50 per cent of the votes plus one it will be our responsibility to
January 30, 1979

prove that there are not 50 per cent plus one of the people of Quebec who are ready to declare independence, but rather that a majority of Quebeckers are in favour of federalism, even if it has to be renewed.

I should like to tell members of the Conservative party, because their members from the province of Quebec do not seem to be able to make them understand what is going on in Quebec, that we are not just facing another government, another party in Quebec, which is trying to negotiate an increase in its powers, for example, natural resources like the Albertans, or more offshore rights as in the case of the maritimes. What we see in the province of Quebec is a government whose principal and only aim since its foundation has been to declare the independence of the province. If they have not yet understood what is going on in Quebec it is probably because of the type of people from Quebec who are on their side. They should start listening to what we are saying on this side. If we have 56, 57 or 58 members of the Liberal party from Quebec it is because what the Liberal members from Quebec are saying seems to be what the people in Quebec are thinking.
To those who believe the Parti Quebecois is not serious, I say this: let them go to Quebec and see for themselves. Let them talk to members of that party and observe how the people of Quebec are being influenced by the media and by propaganda on the whole issue of independence. Let them see how far they are ready to go in their desire to achieve independence.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government must have a weapon to counteract the PQ referendum, for the PQ government is determined to take Quebec out of Canada.
When I started in politics in 1968, I decided to join the Liberal party because there was in the making in Quebec a party openly seeking the separation of Quebec. And then, Mr. Speaker, in 1970-71, the party changed and started to promote the independence of Quebec. Later on, its members became advocates of sovereignty and finally advocates of sovereignty association. We even heard the Quebec premier talking about Duplessis' great dream of autonomy and about a true confederation. They are prepared to do anything to achieve their aim: 50 per cent plus one at the referendum. It is therefore our responsibility, as the federal government, to make sure that they will be honest in the measures they will take.

We have heard members of the opposition say that referenda are a danger to the parliamentary tradition. It is true that referenda can overshadow parliamentary procedure. We have heard members opposite say they will undermine the existence of parliament. We have heard it said they could divide Canada. But if we do not have in our possession this instrument, if we cannot counteract the referendum of the Parti Quebecois, there will not be any parliamentary tradition to
Referenda
overshadow, there will not be any parliament to overshadow; there will not be any Canada if Quebec is out.
I could continue, but I think it is clear that most hon. members on the government side and in the New Democratic Party, and probably the members of the Social Credit party, seem to be in favour of this instrument which will help protect the future of this country as a whole, not as a divided country with a sovereignty association as hon. members in the Conservative party seem to believe they can negotiate with the Parti Quebecois.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me on this very important bill, I should say on this major weapon which is Bill C-9. Indeed, the government wants to arm itself in anticipation of a fight over the results of the Quebec referendum. Even if this bill has been introduced because of the referendum campaign that has already been launched in Quebec, it remains, Mr. Speaker, that every democracy can provide for the need to consult the people directly at some time on a certain issue. Consequently, such an eventuality must be considered and, for this reason, the government is justified to propose a legislative framework for such population consultations. Please note that I said the government is justified, because if this bill had been introduced, say, a year or two before the 1976 events, our reaction would have been different.
But under present circumstances I have some reservations, some doubts about the motives for introducing this bill.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the short-term objective of this bill is merely to provide a weapon against the referendum law of Quebec. That is why, I imagine, the government chose to restrict it to constitutional matters. Clause 2 defines those constitutional matters as "the customs, conventions and enactments that comprise the Constitution of Canada, and the political and judicial institutions and processes of Canada".
The referendum is a health tool; by that I mean that, to my mind, a referendum is a healthy tool for a healthy democracy; and it is only fair for the people to be consulted about its fate. However, what really concerns me deeply is the use that might at times be made of that tool, in this instance the referendum.
This bill authorizes the federal government to organize a referendum in one or several provinces of Canada. In a way this piece of legislation could become an instrument by which the federal government could force a decision on the elected government of a province through a referendum. We should keep in mind that Canada is a federation of states. Therefore it would not be a good sign to see the federal government go over the head of a province because the latter disagrees on a given point. I am not referring here to the particular situation of Quebec, I am speaking in a general context. We should keep in mind that the provinces have elected parliaments which have
80047-32'/2

January 30, 1979
Referenda
clear jurisdictions and which represent directly the people; it is with them that the federal government should first come to an agreement; I mean that the government should first come to terms with the provinces instead of holding a referendum and proposing an election under a sovereign government in a province.
The arbitrary use of this legislation could therefore contribute to perpetuate the endless federal-provincial disputes and God knows we have had a lot of them for many years. The federal government could brandish the weapon of the referendum if it could not reach an agreement with a province. That would further restrict the provincial governments' freedom of action, which is already quite weak, or weakened, I believe, through the present government's efforts to centralize. And that even if the bill stipulates that referenda would only be advisory by nature. The government would not be bound by the results.
So the government has recently been converted to referenda and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) states that it is fair and reasonable to consult the people. But if he really believes in the people's verdict, why is he not bound by the results? That may be because there were two referenda in Canada, one in 1898 on prohibition and the other in 1942 on conscription, and both have created immeasurable problems for the government and each time parliament had to pass legislation authorizing the government to hold a referendum.
I do not want to defend the old system, Mr. Speaker, but there is a limit to abuses which could have created the unregulated use of referenda. If it is so worth while to consult the people, why does the minister not allow referenda by petition? That is a procedure used regularly in Switzerland and several European countries. Then there was Howard Jarvis' famous Proposition 13 in California and I think everyone knows about that referendum.
So Bill C-9 is in many respects an all-purpose piece of legislation. That is why I want to express certain reservations I have with respect to this bill although 1 support its principle by and large.
I would like to deal for a few moments with the whole matter of the financial controls being established under this bill. As a result, any person could, without being registered, incur referendum expenses provided his or her contributions and expenses do not exceed $5,000. In the case of the Quebec legislation, individuals, whether severally or together, could only spend up to $300 for holding a meeting that is not organized by an umbrella organization. Contributions would be limited to $3,000 per voter and corporate persons would not be authorized to participate. Those contributions could still be paid directly to a political party.
In that respect, I feel the legislation we have before us encourages individual involvement.

On the other hand, under the Quebec legislation political parties could before the referendum raise up to $3,000 per voter and each umbrella organization could receive from the parties up to 25 cents per voter. Another limit of $3,000 per voter would apply to funds raised directly by umbrella organizations. Bill C-9 provides that funds earmarked for the referendum campaign could be raised by a party or a registered committee at any time after the tabling of the government's motion.
Mr. Speaker, a comparison between these two approaches reveals some inconsistency on the part of this government. First, they place a ceiling on individual and corporate spending but they do not on political parties.
Pursuant to another provision the government may refund part of the expenses incurred for election campaigns. The amount of the refund would be set once this provision is passed. But indeed, Mr. Speaker, would it not be better to set the rules of the game at this stage? Even the government is showing its political opportunism by trying to make a last minute decision on the reimbursements of referendum expenses. I do not know exactly what the Minister of Justice thinks about it, but I would simply ask him to set the rules of the game before the referendum takes place, not after.
Still the bill contains very clearcut provisions regarding radio and TV broadcasting.
Despite the critical remarks which I have made, I suggest that the referendum bill could turn out to be a necessary legislative instrument, both simple and efficient. Despite certain imperfections, most of the aspects of public consultation make sense. By not showing a preference for the establishment of umbrella organizations, this bill will make things easier for political parties which will not necessarily be forced to join a united front as is the case for the federalist parties in Quebec. Furthermore, referenda will be held within structures which are more or less similar to those provided for by electoral regulations and procedures.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to bring up the pros and cons of this bill. I perfectly agree on the need for a general law dealing with public consultations in Canada. However, just as many other members, I have an important reservation. In its present form, this bill might contribute to worsen the various confrontations and contentions on matters of jurisdiction which already exist between the federal and provincial governments. These confrontations could hurt the state of harmony in this country since they could lead to irreversible scissions. One must not forget the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the man in the street who wants our country to be divided and is calling for a referendum. The farm hand, the unemployed, the worker, the housewife are not asking for a referendum, the only thing those people want to have is security in a great and beautiful country and bread and butter for tomorrow, as composer Tex Lecor would put it; "When Rosalie decides to put something in the fridge." In this case Rosalie is our elected representative,
January 30, 1979

the government which is unable to ensure everyone a just and decent living and to administer the country so that every Canadian has bread-


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


Eudore Allard: I wish to say it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) two straightforward questions concerning Canadian representation in the United States and the manner of parliamentary approval for any forthcoming Canadian commitment to a United Nations force in Namibia. Not surprisingly, 1 received the rhetorical splendour of the minister in response, but no factual answer. That leads to the deeper questions of the ad hoc management of Canada's foreign policy and the level of public information about that policy. Those are vital questions, as quickly became apparent at the foreign policy conference sponsored last weekend by the Progressive Conservative party.
At this important conference held at the Guild Inn, Toronto, 50 specialists in foreign policy, with academic, research, business, church and non-governmental organization backgrounds from across Canada, gathered to discuss the thematic issues of Canadian foreign policy for the 1980s: Canadian interests, security, human rights and development. Some 38 representatives of the diplomatic corps in Ottawa were present. Indeed this was a rare and valuable moment in the history of foreign policy in our country, and reveals the open manner of consultation by the Progressive Conservative party.
A major concern expressed at the conference was that our foreign policy has become confused, vague, and indecipherable by the public. This is not the fault of Department of External Affairs officers, whom I have found to be competent and dedicated. Rather, it is the fault of the government which is so overwhelmed by the national unity and domestic economy problems that it is unable to chart a clear course in foreign relations. To be responsive to the needs of our time, it is not necessary to conjure up grand designs or new slogans. It is necessary to build on the values, tradition and wisdom of our society, and explain to the Canadian people where we are going.
Adjournment Debate
Throughout the 1970s, we have been buffeted by one international shock wave after another: the OPEC price spiral, the escalating arms race, the north-south development imbalance, economic recession and protectionism, China's westward look, and the new demand for human rights. In the face of all these events the most distinguishing marks of Canadian foreign policy were the attempted diminishment of our deep relationship with the United States, the undercutting of our defence commitments with our NATO partners, and a slogan for something called "a contractual link". No wonder we give the impression we are wandering in a jungle at midnight without a compass. Is there some reason why the government fails to define and state clearly what our goals are in the changing global community?
Our conference last weekend was a success because we approached these questions systematically. For the past two years our party has been constructing a foreign policy built on the pillars of security, freer trade, human rights, and world development. With the added insights of the specialists who gave us their views, we believe we can give a sense of direction to Canadians for the 1980s, which sense of direction can be stated succinctly. We recognize we cannot separate our own domestic aspirations for peace, prosperity and social justice from the global questions of the arms race, nuclear proliferation, food and energy shortages, and human rights. Also we recognize worldwide co-operation institutions are not simply the sensible way to approach such problems, but are literally the only way. It is in Canada's interests to extend the security, freedoms and progress we enjoy through improving our global connection.
The priorities in this work are to strengthen our relationship with the United States, so that Canadian economic interests are represented more systematically at the highest levels of the American government. As a western nation, there should be no doubt that our defence requires an ungrudging commitment to NATO and NORAD. The Commonwealth and La Franco-phonie enable us to maintain the relationships which flow from our historical duality.
For Canadian foreign policy to be implemented in the 1980s, it will be necessary to have much more public support than is now apparent. This means opening up the process to the scrutiny of parliament, the media, and hence the public. I say with shame that in all of 1978 there was not one foreign policy debate in the House of Commons. The whole process today is so secret one would think foreign policy was the preserve of the elite.
Actually, Canadians from coast to coast can benefit from a constructive foreign policy that draws on the entrepreneurial instinct in Canada. This was precisely the point made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his address at the conference. There is a great amount of business awaiting Canadians abroad, an important finding that the Leader of the Opposition made on his recent trip, and which I also found on a round the world trip last year. I believe the time has come to

January 30,1979
Adjournment Debate
involve the Canadian private sector in the implementation of foreign policy through stimulating more joint ventures in such areas as oil, rapeseed, fisheries, nuclear technology, STOL aircraft, and housing. There are vast opportunities ahead for more economic co-operation and trade generally. That is a direction for the 1980s that Canadians will support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the interest shown by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche) concerning our relations with the United States. His remarks, as I understand, deal with two issues: first, the situation of our relations in general with the United States and, second, a more specific question he raised about the appointment of Mr. Basil Robinson as special adviser to the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Robinson will advise him on matters concerning the Canadian representation in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize what the minister said yesterday concerning the good relations which exist between Canada and the United States. And I think the Americans have the same feeling. Of course, our relations with our southern neighbour are particularly important for us and also extremely complex. It requires tremendous efforts to maintain them and find fair and equitable answers to unavoidable problems resulting from the interaction between two very dynamic societies like Canada and the United States.
I want to mention to the House, Mr. Speaker, that in recent years both governments have a commendable record of achievements. Individual and official relations at the level of the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as well as at other levels have been open and cordial. Ministers from both governments have met frequently and maintain very close relationship on many issues. For instance, today the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) met in Ottawa with the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and reviewed questions relating to Alaska and the Yukon, to relationship between governments and native people in both countries, and to the Garrison diversion project. Indeed they signed an important agreement amending the treaty between the United States and Canada concerning migratory birds. I might also mention the Secretary of State, Mr. Vance, and the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Schlesinger, who visited Ottawa in November. During the last 18 months both countries agreed to co-operate in important fields for their mutual benefit, including the northern natural gaz pipeline. Work has also begun with a view to cleaning the Great Lakes under the revised agreement concerning the quality of water in the Great Lakes.
The Canadian and United States special negotiators have reached full agreement-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-SECOND READING OF BILL CONCERNING ARAB BOYCOTT
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I asked my question about the Arab boycott legislation proposed by the government because I think it is time to focus attention on it again, and I am convinced that this government may need to have a fire lit under it to get it to honour the commitment it has made to the Canadian people on this subject. What is the boycott? The Arab countries have banded together and agreed to try to prevent Israeli products from entering into their countries. As Canadians we may not like that, but it is the business of the Arab countries and Israel whether one wishes to trade with the other or not, and that is not an object of Canadian policy.
But there are two other dimensions to this boycott which are totally unacceptable to Canadians. The first dimension is that if a Canadian company wishes to trade with an Arab country, the boycott requires that it agree not to trade with Israel. This is an effort to create an international restraint of trade which would apply to the detriment of our economy, it is not in the national interest of, nor is it acceptable to Canada. The other dimension of the Arab boycott which is even more unacceptable is that it calls for discrimination within our own boundaries because the boycott requires that a company wanting to do business with Arab countries must give undertaking that Zionist firms, Jews or firms owned by Jews in our country will not be given any participation in those contracts and that the company will not hire Jews here.
Clearly, this is unacceptable in Canada, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was the first to say so when he was asked about it in this House in May, 1975. At that time he said that this aspect of the Arab boycott was against Canadian ethics and everything for which Canada stands. That is a statement with which all Canadians will agree.
The government then proceeded to implement a policy in an attempt to prevent the Arab boycott from having this terrible application to Canadian trade abroad and within Canada. It did not do what the United States did when the Arab boycott became an issue in that country. Legislation was presented which prevented American companies from complying with the boycott and required them to disclose when they were asked to do so. When the United States implemented that legislation they did not completely close the door to the boycott because the legislation does not apply to foreign subsidiaries of American corporations so, for example, an American subsidiary in Europe would be free to comply with the boycott.
[Mr. Roche.)
January 30, 1979

In Canada there is no comparable external dimension of economic activity under Canadian control. If we had enacted legislation of that sort it would have been much tougher in effect. The fact of the matter is, however, that Canada put forward a policy which sounded good on paper. We said that we would withhold government services and that we would require disclosure by companies of any efforts on the part of Arab countries to impose the boycott internally in Canada. But having said that, the policy seemed to disappear. There has been very little evidence to the Canadian people that that policy is in fact being implemented by the government. That was stage one.
Stage two was a commitment to introduce legislation to put some teeth behind the stage one policy, and that legislation is now on the order paper. I know that the Jewish community and others interested in civil liberties in Canadian society welcomed that legislation. I expected that it would be brought forward and implemented very quickly, but after many weeks since it was promised no action has been taken on it and second reading has not yet been proposed. I was very glad to hear the House leader say that he was prepared to consult with the parties on the other side to bring the legislation forward quickly. I hope he will do so, and I hope it will be soon.
I cannot sit down without adding that I am not satisfied with the legislation. It has some loopholes which require the attention of parliament. I hope it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study. I do not like the discretion which it is proposed to give to the minister and which would permit him to grant exemptions and extensions to companies that may be in compliance with the boycott. Further, I think the penalty of $250 a day for failure to provide disclosure is a joke. It is not enough of a deterrent in a deal like the Bell Canada deal, although I do not know if the Arab boycott has been imposed there. The Human Rights Commission set up by parliament is now looking into that matter, a deal involving hundreds of millions of dollars. The idea that such a deal would be affected by a fine of $250 per day is a joke.
This legislation should be brought forward so that we can examine it and try to implement the spirit of the remarks made by the Prime Minister in 1975 to the effect that the Arab boycott is totally unacceptable. What is needed is strong legislation to deal with it so that Canadian values will be imposed on and reflected in Canadian trade abroad. I am sure that there is not an interest group in Canada that does not want us to trade with the Arabs. It is a big potential market, which we need. But we must pursue it with integrity.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) questions the government as to the proposed timing for second reading of the bill, one might wish to paraphrase again the assurances provided by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) last Thursday in the House that the bill is part of the legislative
Adjournment Debate
program and that it is the government's intention to deal with it as quickly as possible; that he would consult with the opposition party representatives to secure agreement to limit the debate on second reading to a particular time-frame- perhaps a day-and he would be happy to send it to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence if such agreement is forthcoming then.
I think we have to examine the bill. Specifically, the types of activities which the government finds unacceptable are those which would, in connection with the provisions of any international economic boycotts, require a Canadian firm or individual to engage in discrimination based on the race, national or ethnic origin or religion of any Canadian firm or individual; refuse to purchase from or sell to any other Canadian firm or individual; refuse to sell Canadian goods to any country; refrain from purchases from any country; or restrict commercial investment or other economic activity in any country.
More specifically, this legislation would require any Canadian person who receives a prescribed boycott request to report such a request to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) within 30 days of receipt of the request. Furthermore, those persons who comply with the request are obliged to report such fact to the minister within ten days. Failure to report will be punishable by a fine of $250 for each day late in reporting the required information. This amounts to some $90,000 for anyone who fails to report for one year, which is a stiff penalty indeed.
As per current practice, the minister will table semi-annually a report providing a statistical summary of the information filed, as well as the names of those persons who have complied with prescribed boycott requests. Regulations by order in council which have been tabled in the House on December 15 will prescribe those foreign boycotts requests that need be reported. It is not the government's intention to require reporting of primary boycott requests.
In summary, the bill embodies in legislative form those features of the Canadian policy which have been in effect for the past two years, the only difference being that instead of being limited to those Canadians who require government support and assistance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


NATIONAL DEFENCE-COMMITMENT TO INCREASE DEFENCE BUDGET
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be getting long answers from the government side tonight. I hope that I will not break the mould.
I am rising because of a question that I asked last week of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). Another minister was asked a supplementary question. First of all, I asked a question concerning the fall of the Cosmos and

January 30, 1979
Adjournment Debate
the subsequent bill. In Hansard for January 24, 1979, at page 2512,1 asked the minister to explain:
-why the government failed to claim under Treaty 6 where under article 5, paragraph 5, the Soviets would have been required to pay all expenses incurred in the recovery of returning space objects?
To this, the Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
Mr. Speaker, I will as soon as I get a chance to look at Treaty 6.
He went on to say:
I have to tell the hon. member that I have relied upon the advice of our legal experts on this matter. It was their judgment that this was the proper and appropriate way to proceed. I must confess that, not being a legal person myself, I do not know what the answer is to the hon. member's question.
He was not the only minister whose ignorance was all too apparent. I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) what the total cost of the operation was. His department was responsible for the last and longest part of the search and clean up operation. The minister took no less than nine lines of Hansard to inform the House that he did not know what his department's claim was, or that of any other department whose operations he had been responsible for co-ordinating.
The sad part of this ministerial ignorance is the history behind it. The performance of the ministers in particular has revealed a far from adequate level of knowledge and ability to act in the best interests of Canada. What is worse is that there is no evidence that they have yet learned anything from their previous mistakes.
In January, 1978, a similar series of questions was asked. At that time neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nor the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) could do anything about the possible crash of the satellite until a few moments before it fell, despite the fact the Prime Minister had been at Norad headquarters and received what he said was a complete briefing on the matter. In the early days of the crisis it was revealed that there was no grasp of the dimensions of the problem, or how to exercise existing treaties to which Canada and the U.S.S.R. are both parties. To this day there is a lack of understanding of the two simple treaties that govern this matter.
Treaty 6 covers expenses of recovering satellites or parts of satellites. Treaty 7 covers damage that might be incurred by a satellite. We are in the peculiar position of having used up a lot of money for the recovery of parts of the satellite. Obviously this should come under Treaty 6 which covers expenses. In fact in one place it has the words "expenses of the search". Treaty 7 which covers damages is meant to cover damage to buildings or to a city if a satellite crash lands, or indeed damage to another aircraft; it makes provision for that.
When I asked the ministers if they had read the treaties they made light of it, or claimed they were too difficult to read. People who write bills for this government should study the English in these treaties. They are the easiest and shortest I have seen for a long time. Treaty 6, which no one on the government side seems to have read yet, contains only three pages, and is written in crystal clear English. It is not the fact that they did not have sufficient warning on this matter. Last

January, 1978, when the satellite fell, my first question to the ministers was with respect to the Cosmos satellite. As reported at page 2347 of Hansard I asked:
-has the Canadian government notified the U.S.S.R. of the discovery on our soil of a space object, or its component parts, believed to be of a hazardous or deleterious nature, as we are required to do under article 5 of the international agreement on the return of objects launched into outer space?
This is in the treaty we should have been claiming under. However, we have to notify them. This we were not doing. The Minister of National Defence replied:
The international regime will meet its responsibilities, as was indicated to the Department of External Affairs by the Soviet ambassador.
In other words, do not worry about the bills, the U.S.S.R. will pay them. When I asked if indeed they had filed under another provision of the treaty, the minister replied, "not to the best of my knowledge." On February 1 I again asked if they had filed under the appropriate section. The Minister of National Defence replied:
There has been no request for Russian assistance from any of our people. The Soviets have offered to assist, but there has not been a need for it.
On February 3 I asked:
Did the government formally notify the Soviet Union, as we are required to do under clause 4 of article 5 of the treaty governing the return of objects launched into space, and have the Soviets responded in the manner they were obliged to do if we so informed them that an object of a hazardous and deleterious nature had crashed in our territory?
The Minister of National Defence replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between officials of the Department of External Affairs and the Soviet government to determine the consequences of this.
I then asked:
That is not quite an answer to the question I asked. I asked if we formally notified them under the treaty. Discussions are a different thing.
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the treaty has been exercised in that manner.
That put us in the difficulty we are in today. I hope the parliamentary secretary will explain why we are not putting our claim under Treaty 6 which covers search expenses. The second question I asked about total costs need not be answered. Everybody in the country except-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. [Translation]


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised this evening by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) is important and therefore would require much more time than I am allowed. I would however take this opportunity to repeat the assurances given by my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) in this House on December 14. Hon. members will recall the minister indicated at that time that our NATO allies welcomed our efforts.
January 30, 1979

Hon. members will also recall the minister recently visited Canadian troups in Germany. Dr. Apel, the minister in charge of national defence in the Federal Republic of Germany joined Mr. Danson for that visit. Both ministers visited Canadian military facilities in Lahr and Baden, and after private and public talks Dr. Apel paid tribute to the Canadian contribution. Later in the course of that trip, the minister visited Greece, another NATO ally, where important and very positive meetings were held. During those meetings with representatives of other NATO countries, it was sensed that the Canadian contribution is very well recognized. Canadian soldiers of both sexes are truly professionals, and I believe that all hon. members here share this view. This is a recognized fact in the NATO organization, the United Nations and everywhere else. We are now in the process of buying the best kind of equipment that will allow our forces to show their ability and complete their training. Mr. Speaker, two especially interesting events occurred last week, one in London, Ontario, and the other in Burbank, California. In London, it was the AVGP, a
Adjournment Debate
multiple purpose vehicle. This vehicle was preceded by the Leopard tanks which are now in Gagetown, New Brunswick. The AVGP will be used to train our armoured force, and because of its multiple role, it will also be used by our troops. In Burbank, it was the Aurora. This airplane has the reputation of being the best in the world. Eighteen of these airplanes will be purchased from the Lockheed Company in California. The first will be delivered in May 1980 and the last one in March 1981.
I could give many other examples, Mr. Speaker, such as the progress accomplished in our fighter plane purchasing program and the new shipbuilding project for our fleet. What is important to note, Mr. Speaker, is the quality of our equipment and the professionalism of our people, which are both recognized by NATO.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, January 31, 1979