1979-01-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in connection with an order issued by the Department of Supply and Services which, beginning in April, will reduce by one half the number of Canadian libraries which currently receive Canadian publications free of charge. In practicable application, this means that the number of libraries in Saskatchewan receiving such publications will be reduced from 25 to 8; in Manitoba, from 23 to 8; and in Alberta, from 24 to 12.
The consequence of such reduction ill mean that the public will not have access to information to which it is entitled. Libraries facing serious financial difficulties already will be denied the supply of such information. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government give reconsideration to such order, for unless this is done the libraries will cease to serve the public effectively.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Statistics Canada, last March, did a special survey aimed at finding out how many outside the
labour force wanted to work and came up with the number of
263,000	people, which would add about two percentage points to the unofficial unemployment:, jobless rate, and in view of the fact that changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act would, even by March, start to affect the number of people outside the labour force who want to work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Statistics Canada be asked by the Minister of Finance to carry out a special survey for the month of February or March corresponding to the special study of last March.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion relating to an issue of major importance.
In a statement to a group of businessmen last Friday the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) suggested the possible return to wage and price control in this country. In view of the absolute failure of such measures in the past and their negative effect on Canadian workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the government relinquish all plans, if any, to reintroduce this type of negative economic tool and that it put all its efforts in setting our economy on the way to prosperity through positive action, by instituting for example a consumer discount.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80047-25 '/2

January 29, 1979
[DOT] (MIO)


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning national security and Michael Pitfield, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Prime Minister make an immediate statement outlining activities of Michael Pitfield during the past year regarding national security, including participation as chairman of a top secret PMO/PCO investigative group on this subject, and whether the government plans to adopt recommendations prepared by this group, including a six-year phase-out of RCMP security service, disbanding of a plan to appoint an ombudsman for Canada, application of extreme modifications of the freedom of information act and, finally, he give a full explanation why Michael Pitfield, who has negligible national security experience, was authorized to deal with such matters when his only chief qualification is a close confidante of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNOR GENERAL
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As the new Governor General has opened a regional office in Winnipeg at room 200, 303 Main Street, the federal government building, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House request the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions to explain new policy on Governor General regional offices, how many will be opened, for what purpose, and at what cost.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne):
That this House regret the lack of understanding and the apathy of the task force on Canadian Unity in spite of the cries of despair uttered by minorities and the recommendation that self-fulfilment and survival of linguistic minorities be entrusted mainly to the provinces; moreover, that this House regret that the task force did not recommend the compulsory inclusion of linguistic rights in a charter of individual and collective rights and suggest that all governments take necessary action to reach that aim so that the reconciliation not look like a divorce between the two founding nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the taxation branch of Revenue Canada has stated in the Income Tax Guide for 1978 tax returns that T4A(OAS) slips will be received by pensioners with their January cheques, whereas the Department of National Health and Welfare say the slips will not be issued until late February, and in view of the fact that this blunder was brought to the attention of the appropriate officials three weeks ago, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House call upon the government to take immediate action to clarify its position with respect to the distribution and submission of T4A(OAS) slips in order to put an end to the confusion which presently exists in the minds of our old age pensioners.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 29, 1979


RAILWAYS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, during this past year I did a telephone survey of some 15 railway lines that were under review by the Prairie Rail Action Committee and found that approximately 12 of those lines were receiving abnormal and very low service.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House instruct the transport committee to do a systematic analysis to ascertain whether or not there has been any significant decrease in the level of service during the past 15 months to those rail lines recommended for abandonment by the Prairie Rail Action Committee; and, further, if a substantive lowering of service can be established, that the Canadian Transport Commission be made aware of the committee's findings prior to their report to the Ministry of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I direct my question to his superior, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers.
In view of today's dollar now being at 83.75 cents, making it the softest of the soft currencies among all industrial nations, would the minister indicate if he is aware that it has now been revealed that the United States current account deficit is only one-third, relative to their size, of our current account deficit in this country? If he is aware of that hard fact, does he agree that our sad current account position is contributing heavily to the decline of our dollar?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, I have no additional comments to offer other than the very wise ones the Minister of Finance has made in this area. He has stated categorically in this House on several occasions the policy of the government in regard to foreign exchange.
I am, of course, generally aware of the juxtaposition of the United States current account balance, and so forth. I am not
Oral Questions
sure that is the whole, or the substance of the story. There are many other factors to be brought to bear, such as our relationship, our fiscal position vis-a-vis the provinces, the United States government's position vis-a-vis their states. All those kinds of things should be brought into context to make an objective analysis of this situation.


DEVALUED CANADIAN DOLLAR-EFFECT ON INFLATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having had those few words from the minister, perhaps I can go even to his superior, the emperor, the Prime Minister himself.
Bearing in mind that the Canadian dollar is now, in 1979, at the lowest level it has been in relation to the United States dollar for literally over 120 years, and bearing in mind that Mr. McNess, a well-respected economist, referring to Canada stated as follows-
I estimate that current and past devaluation is adding something in the order of an additional 4 per cent to the inflation rate-
-would the Prime Minister confirm if it is his understanding that the 83-cent dollar has cost us 4 per cent in inflation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I could not confirm or deny the 4 per cent, as I have not made the calculation. It is obvious, however, that a lower value to the Canadian dollar means that Canadians have to pay more for imported goods. That is the way the dollar works.
It means, therefore, that the cost of living in respect of imported items in Canada is higher than if the dollar were at par. This is the incentive to Canadians to buy things made in Canada which will create jobs for Canadians. That is how the lower value of the dollar is working, to create jobs in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister. Another effect of the falling dollar and the government's desperate attempts to prevent it falling further is rising interest rates.
As we learn from the United States that it is likely their rates will continue going up, and it is estimated by some economists in New York that they may be up by a point and a half in terms of United States short-term rates by next June, would the Prime Minister indicate if he intends to continue to instruct the Bank of Canada to keep raising interest rates in Canada in order to keep ahead of United States rates, notwithstanding the devastating effect high interest rates are having in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have never given any such instructions, Mr. Speaker, so I would not be called upon to give them again. As to what happens after something hypothetical or speculative occurs in the United States, the very nature of the question is out of order, Mr. Speaker.

January 29, 1979
Oral Questions


DEVALUED CANADIAN DOLLAR-EFFECT ON CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT
Mr. Robert de Cotret (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers.
Given that Canada will never have a stable dollar until the current account balance in our balance of payments improves, could the minister confirm, first, that the current account deficit for this year is significantly higher than last year and, second, that the trend is worsening rather than improving; and could he tell this House how this performance will continue to affect the Canadian dollar?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the trade surplus, of course, is showing some indications-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Current account.


Robert Knight Andras: Hon. members over there have great difficulty getting their act together: this is obvious in many of the statements they have made. In fact, there is apparently very fierce competition among them for any role, but the universe will unfold as it should.
There is a new element on the scene: if they begin to accept some of the wise comments of a former colleague of theirs, Mr. McKeough-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about your Mr. Turner?


Robert Knight Andras: Perhaps it will be possible to clarify exactly where they stand on these kinds of issues.
On a serious note, we Canadians, governments and parties of all types must, obviously, do our very best to improve the competitive position of our industry vis-a-vis foreign trade in order to increase our trade surplus. Trends are encouraging now, but they are not sufficient to overcome the other problems that we all know we have.
With regard to internal deficits, as the hon. member pointed out and as I responded to him, one has to take this in total combination with governments at all levels in this country in terms of what are their cumulative surpluses or deficits in order to compare them with the American situation. While we have certainly taken steps to restrain our expenditures, we have revenue problems which are creating current account deficits in this country.
I have not had any indication of what hon. members opposite would do. In fact, the only news I have had recently is that they would do something-God knows what-to increase that deficit.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the current account deficit on the balance of payments. In terms of our domestic deficits we-as I am sure all members opposite do- expect newsletters to put us in touch with comments of former colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: But seriously, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, at the Prime Minister's regular press conference, he was asked about three-month to six-month projections on the dollar, unemployment and the rate of inflation. The Prime Minister replied, "They look good to me."
I would like to ask the minister if it is his view that with an 83-cent dollar, a rate of unemployment over 8 per cent and a rate of inflation over 8 per cent, that looks good to him.


An hon. Member:: You can't fool a fool.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would not deal in those very specific mediums-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: -and I do not think the Prime Minister was; but I will say that I have had the benefit, as other people have, of talking to a great many businessmen and others in this country, including labour leaders. The curious thing is that their confidence in the indicators in our economy are far more encouraging: theirs is much more upbeat and concrete, backed up by investment decisions, than you get from the theoretical economists from whom we are hearing and from the outside world. Certainly, the partisan comments are developing a psychological depression in this country, rather than any optimism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain this to the House. If everyone he hears from in the private sector, all the confidence he hears, is correct, what explains the dramatic fall in confidence vis-a-vis the Canadian dollar? What is the government not telling Canadians that, obviously, international investors and Canadians know, to make them lose faith in the Canadian dollar and thereby bring the dollar to its lowest rate in years and years?


Mr. Paproski:: Pierre Trudeau.


An hon. Member:: It is simple.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Ask your Secretary of State.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of psychology in this area and I think the very kinds of questions and comments that members opposite are making in these times-for very questionable motivation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: -is one of the reasons why there is some problem.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As a result of meetings with business leaders which he held over the weekend, I would like to ask whether the Prime Minister or the business leaders were able to isolate any instances of exorbitant or inflationary wage increases.
As every member of parliament knows, the industrial composite index of wage and salary increases went up only 6.4 per cent, which was less than the increase in the cost of living. If the Prime Minister has any information in this respect, would he tell the House who these groups are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there were several instances referred to of settlements which were considerably above the average figure mentioned by the hon. member-a figure of 6 per cent to 7 per cent.
Concern was expressed that these increasing rates of settlement might lead to double-digit inflation if Canadians were trying to compensate themselves for increased costs of goods imported from abroad, whether it be increased costs of energy because of the rise dictated by the OPEC nations, or whether it be increased costs of goods imported with the Canadian dollar worth less than it had been in the previous year. These instances were referred to. There was no general consensus that we would go into double-digit inflation; on the contrary, the hope was expressed that some of these settlements would, by their nature, be catch-up and would not indicate a trend. The hope was that the trend would continue to show the restraint that was shown in the past year by union and management.


David Orlikow: I am sorry the Prime Minister was not able to give any specific illustrations about wage increases somewhat higher that 6 per cent.
Statistics Canada reported last week that after tax, industry corporation profits were up by more than 30 per cent over the year earlier, and bank profits were up by 25 per cent. Did the Prime Minister discuss with the business leaders the desirability of price and profit restraint on their part in the coming year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was quite a bit of discussion on that. Certainly, from the government's point of view we indicated that it would be preferable, in the allocation of resources, if management kept in mind the importance of satisfying the consumer with lower prices, rather than the shareholder with higher dividends. This was discussed at some length. In that discussion we also referred to settlements with labour which might be inflationary if they were not justified by any particular catch-up.
Oral Questions FINANCE


PROFITS OF MINING INDUSTRY-INCREASE IN PRICE OF ZINC
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is for the Minister of Finance. On Friday, the minister said that the pulp and paper industry had made windfall profits which they were investing in modernization of their plants. The minister commended them for that.
Has the minister identified any other industry that has had similar windfall profits? Will the minister look into the mining industry, which has just raised the price of zinc by two cents a pound, an increase that will escalate as it moves through the economy, and any other industry which has had windfall profits? Will he discuss with those corporations the need for restraint on their part in raising prices?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: I do not know, Mr. Speaker; I will have to check the increase in the price of zinc, because I do not have that in front of me.
Of course, in the last while the price of mining products has been quite low in the international market. The fact that it is increasing at this time is not necessarily bad for the Canadian economy. Most of those products are exported. This will permit some mining operations that are not operating at full capacity at this time to resume full operation and get more people working. A firming of the prices of mining products is not necessarily bad for the Canadian economy.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers.
For quite a while now the Minister of Finance has been saying that the Canadian dollar is a floating dollar. In view of the fact that well informed people in economic circles, especially those involved with banking institutions, have indicated that, contrary to the Minister of Finances's allegations, the Canadian dollar is not floating but has been supported by the actions of the government, could the minister or the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers advise the House whether the new department will change this so-called floating dollar policy and how it will direct the economy to solve this problem?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, monetary and fiscal policies are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and I have stated very often that the Canadian dollar is a floating dollar. The purpose of the interventions made by the Bank of Canada was to maintain a normal market, and this is something the central bank of any

January 29, 1979
Oral Questions
country must do when its currency is going either up or down. I suggest that the hon. member read very attentively the interview which the governor of the Bank of Canada has given to The Globe and Mail newspapermen and which was published last Saturday.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question.
As we know full well that the governor of the Bank of Canada is on the payroll of the chartered banks, I think it might be preferable for the minister to take note of what the president of the Royal Bank said about the floating dollar. I ask the minister what he intends to do to remedy the situation: the president of the bank having said that "of course we had to build up our reserves because those of the government were used to support the dollar". He also added: The mere fact of borrowing immediately placed us at a disadvantage. What does the Minister of Finance intend to do to remedy the situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: To my mind, the hon. member is contradicting himself somewhat in that he said, just a minute ago, that the governor of the Bank of Canada is on the payroll of the presidents of the chartered banks, after which he said that the president of the Royal Bank does not agree with the governor of the Bank of Canada. The hon. member might be well advised to read his text again. The policy of the government and the Bank of Canada is well known with regard to our reserves and the fluctuations of our dollar on the market: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


Gilles Caouette: On another supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The point being precisely that the investments the government makes to support the Canadian dollar distort its fluctuations, would the minister be willing to change that tactic which has finally been proved to be unwise since the dollar continues to go down? Would the minister be finally willing to base the value of the dollar on that of Canadian production instead of on the interests of American financiers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at this time the value of the money of every country in the world, or rather all industrial countries, is determined by the market. All of them have been floating since 1970; in that, Canada follows the same policy as the United States, Germany, Japan and all industrialized countries; in other words, the value of our dollar depends on the reactions of the market.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing the question period, I invite all hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor, head of an official delegation, in the person of the Right Hon. Brian E. Talboys, Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board: it deals with classification.
Might I remind him that a complete audit, a report as of December 1 back in 1976, indicated there was good evidence that the administration of the classification system was deteriorating? Since the government has stated its intention to introduce Bill C-12 which has to do with indexation, a related matter, when are we to be told what the answers are to this serious problem of overclassification which, I say, is costing the Canadian people some $75 million a year: I dispute the minister's estimate that it is costing $45 million? Why the foot-dragging after all these years?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Again, Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the figure of $75 million. I took the same position when replying to one of the hon. member's colleagues. I said at the time that even taking into account a degree of indexation, we felt the maximum figure would be $50 million. Even so, that is a lot of money and the position is still very far from satisfactory as far as we are concerned.
I have already outlined the action we are taking. The departments which have been identified as major offenders, and the occupational groupings in which the most serious difficulties are apparent, are being given close study and monitoring procedures are being put in place in an effort to correct the situation. Certain positions which are now vacant and which have been identified as being overclassified are, obviously, being downgraded. If individuals concerned can be relocated in other positions, the vacant positions are being downgraded. We are looking at various measures which can be taken to correct the situation to which the hon. member referred.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hope the minister realizes there is some urgency with respect to the debate on Bill C-12. We want complete answers; we want this whole issue to be discussed so
January 29, 1979

that we may know what to do with Bill C-12 which involves the indexation of pensions.
I will now put another urgent question to the minister. In October, 1977, a further report was placed on the desk of his predecessor, indicating that in the personnel administration group, the group which does the classifying, there is a greater tendency for overclassification. The report went even further; it called for corrective action to be initiated immediately. This was back in October, 1977.
Can the minister assure us that the corrective action which was called for, and which is so important if we are to reduce this enormous cost to the taxpayer, has in fact been taken and, if so, what is the nature of this action?


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the personnel policy branch has put in place a new monitoring mechanism to make a particular study of this situation. It has been termed the Classification Early Warning Capability-that is a phrase which one might expect someone in the department of my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence, to use-and it is designed to identify these cases and red-flag them earlier in the process.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister assure us that we will have all the answers with regard to overclassification or misclassifi-cation when we begin debating Bill C-12, which I understand has a high priority this week? Obviously, we shall need complete answers if we are to reach a rational conclusion with respect to this important bill having to do with the indexation of public service pensions.


J. Judd Buchanan: I can assure the hon. member I shall do my utmost to supply the answer to any questions he may wish to ask, but I should tell him it is my understanding that when officials from the personnel policy branch were appearing before the committee on miscellaneous estimates, all these matters were probed at some length. Nevertheless, as I say, I will be happy to supply additional information if it is requested.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Probing is not a solution.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: it relates to the issuing of T4A (OAS) income tax slips to old age pensioners, and their subsequent submission to Revenue Canada.
The revenue department proposed that these slips should be issued with the January cheques. Why, in these circumstances, did the hon. lady's department decide to issue them, instead, with the February cheques, late in the month, on February 26? Knowing they would be late, why did she not take the opportu-
Oral Questions
nity of issuing with the February cheque an errata slip so that pensioners would not be so confused about the situation?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The T4A (OAS) statement will go with the February cheques because we were persuaded of the urgency of having the other TFA-1 statement received by families in January together with the new form for mothers.
I ask senior citizens to recognize the reason for this decision. The machine could not process the information slips for both groups at the same time. Each of these groups is large in size and the senior citizens will receive the required forms in time, as the law says, before the end of February. Unfortunately, both groups could not be dealt with in the month of January.


Bruce Halliday: Old age pensioners normally submit applications for guaranteed income supplements at the same time as they return their income tax forms. Has the minister taken into account the confusion which will exist in her department when all these applications for GIS come in late, not to mention the confusion in the minds of all the old age pensioners who are awaiting their cheques?


Monique Bégin: I would not wish to suggest that it is the hon. gentleman who is confused, but I do not think it is the mothers who are confused. As I say, the machine cannot handle all this information in the same month. I had to make a choice. 1 thought it was more important-and I think all senior citizens in the country understand this-to help 1.5 million mothers who have never had to file an income tax form, which they must do in order to claim this new cheque. It is not distributed automatically, as is the family allowance. We wanted all the papers they needed to come with their January cheques.
The hon. member should have said, in his proposed motion under Standing Order 43, that on the other hand senior citizens have January, February and March in which to fill in their income tax and GIS application forms. They will have the same length of time to which they are accustomed. I am talking about an administrative decision to give priority to mothers who are non-filers and who are getting cheques for the first time. I am thinking particularly of those mothers who need the money the most.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the United States is now pursuing more actively its relationship with China, a very welcome move coming about seven or eight years after our move, can the minister assure the House that Canada will pursue and expand its relations with China so that we can maintain the advantage gained by recognizing that country very early in the 1970s,
2640

January 29, 1979
Oral Questions
which is something the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not understand?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition-and judging by the reaction opposite, the official opposition-is aware of how vigorous and effective our efforts have been in the last seven years in terms of our relations with China. I am not sure, either, whether, in talking as I believe the Leader of the Opposition did about what has happened in the last eight weeks, he was unaware that trade relations between the United States and China have been normal for many, many years. He seems to be continuing his insistence on proving that where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that we are getting close to the time when the World Congress on Rehabilitation, of 1980, will be held in Winnipeg with perhaps many thousands of the delegates being handicapped persons, many of them in wheelchairs, can the minister bring us up to date on what facilities his department will be providing at the Winnipeg international airport so that these delegates can be accommodated?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member again refer to this congress, and I know he appreciates the effort on the part of this government to see that it will, in fact, be held in Winnipeg.
At the time we had our last exchange about these facilities, I asked for a report on the planning being done and I was satisfied that the matter was in hand. I have not since received a detailed analysis of the exact facilities being put in place. This depends to some extent on the type of aircraft to be served, and this kind of information is being gathered; but contingency plans are being developed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, may I ask the minister if consideration is still being given, since it will take some time to implement permanent installations, to the installation of temporary elevators from the second floor down to the first floor in the baggage carousel area so that these people can be accommodated next year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that that was one of the matters being looked into. I indicated that to him. I have not received a more up to date report on the type of facilities which will, in fact, be selected, but I will try to
[Mr. Breau.)
obtain that information for the hon. member so that I can inform him more fully.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have two questions concerning Canadian representation.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Basil Robinson as a special adviser in the Department of External Affairs to undertake an assignment, and I quote, "advising on Canadian representation in the United States". What is the meaning of this phrase, considering that Canada has recently closed some consulates abroad, and does it suggest that Canada at last is strengthening the Canada-U.S. relationship which is so vital to our economic well-being?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have had a perfectly legitimate and proper question if he had not thrown in the two words "at last", as if up to now we have not been doing anything to strengthen our relationship with the United States. The hon. member has just come from a conference at which I think virtually everyone said that Canada-U.S. relations are good.
As for Mr. Robinson's appointment, I think the hon. member is aware that over the last two or three years we have had an independent group headed by a gentleman whose bona Tides are, I think, impeccable in this regard, Mr. Jake Moore, looking at how we have been represented in the United States and how we can improve our representation. Mr. Robinson will be following up on that assignment and looking at the recommendations we have received from Mr. Moore and also from our present ambassador in Mexico, Mr. Langley, who had a special assignment.


UN FORCE IN NAMIBIA-CANADIAN INPUT IN FINAL DETERMINATION
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the conference at the weekend, everyone there said that both the management of and public information regarding our foreign policy needs to be improved greatly.
I want to come to a second area of Canadian representation which concerns decisions about a UN force in Namibia, now that Canada is no longer a member of the Security Council. Will Canada have a voice in the final determination to send a UN force to Namibia to supervise elections, and can the minister assure the House that before any Canadian commitment to such a force is made, the issue will be brought to the House in the form of a motion, rather than to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence in the form of an announcement?
January 29, 1979


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure of the supplementary relationship between that question and our relationship with the United States, but 1 am glad to answer in any event.
As far as the continuation of our relations with the Contact Group is concerned and despite some of the disparaging comments which have been made about our foreign policy, the fact is that all members of the United Nations, and particularly the members of the Contact Group-including the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany-have insisted that we remain a member of the Contact Group even though we are no longer on the Security Council. I am very proud of that fact and was delighted to accede to that. We will be continuing our negotiations on the Namibia question.
Up to this moment there have been no formal or informal requests to Canada with regard to the establishment or provision of a group for the Namibian exercise, perhaps partly because we are still not sure that such a group will be put in place. I said in the House on Friday that the signs were promising that UN-supervised elections would be possible.
On the matter of how the endorsement of this House should be obtained, I have looked at the precedents and there are a number of ways in which this has been done. Certainly, we in the government and on this side have no wish to do anything in this regard which does not have the endorsement of the House, and I will look at the most appropriate way of bringing that about if and when we are asked and agree to go.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from a statement issued by the External Affairs press office last Friday following my raising in the House the activities of Eldon Black, Undersecretary of State for External Affairs in charge of security, the statement being to the effect that the department is expanding considerably its security unit.
Will the minister give details of such expansion, including in what way it involves Eldon Black and how far the government will go with respect to recommendations that RCMP personnel posted abroad be replaced by External Affairs personnel?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, and without attempting at all to second-guess your authority, I think that question is altogether too detailed for me to answer orally. Furthermore, since it involves a matter of security, I think it would be unwise for me to do so. I in no way intend to retain information to which the hon. member is entitled. If he will be so good as to agree, which might be hard for him-


An hon. Member:: Shame.
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -I will try to give him a written answer. In the short run, however, I say to him that in so far as the role of Mr. Black and the hon. member's reference to expansion are concerned, this matter has to do, to a large extent, with such things as terrorism which, as hon. members know, is occurring overseas. In that connection, we are required to have a more comprehensive organization than we have had previously.


SPECIAL ACTIVITIES OF MICHAEL PITFIELD-FUTURE ROLE OF RCMP IN SECURITY MATTERS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that out of the loquaciousness we heard there was one little gem of information.
I would like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. My question concerns Michael Pitfield, Secretary of the Cabinet. Will the Prime Minister give details of the special activities of Mr. Pitfield in the field of national security; specifically, whether the government will adopt the recommendations of the Pitfield group not to appoint an ombudsman, to modify freedom of information legislation and to abolish the security service of the RCMP?
Finally, can the Prime Minister tell us why any of these recommendations, or any other recommendations concerning the RCMP, would be under consideration or even be discussed before the report of the McDonald commission is made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, like every other question I hear from the hon. member, this one is based on pure fabrication.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what you said before.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what I say again.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And then you wanted his documents.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of some conflicting reports, will the minister be announcing an earth station satellite policy?
In view of the fact the Clyne committee is studying this, among many other matters affecting telecommunications, will the earth station satellite policy, pay television, the problem of interconnection and other matters be delayed until we have the report of the Clyne committee?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the policy on earth stations is not tied in with the timing of the committee on telecommunications. In the very
80047-26(4

January 29, 1979
Oral Questions
near future I think I will be in a position to announce the revised policy on ownership of earth stations.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In view of the fact that within a short time the minister may be making an announcement, is the timetable for the Clyne committee to report by the end of February, this coming month, still on schedule? Is the minister telling the House that she may very well be making a statement on earth station satellite policy before she is in receipt of the Clyne committee report?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, it could be, but I am not saying that it will be. Referring to the second part of the question, as far as I know the Clyne committee has been working non-stop for the entire month of January and its work is going very well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom I have given very brief notice: it relates to the whereabouts and safety of Canadian citizens who were recently, or are now, in Iran and facing some very serious difficulties.
As I understand it, it has been the policy of the minister's department not to publish the names of those known to be in that country or suspected of being in that country. There may be reasons unknown to me that that is productive to the safety of those citizens. But does the minister not feel that the publication of such information might be of assistance to the department, in that people outside the department might have information which would be very helpful, and in that it would relieve the stress upon the families of those who remain in uncertainty concerning the whereabouts of their relatives?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely grateful to the hon. member for having given me notice and for the sympathetic manner in which the question has been asked.
Since the hon. member talked with me about it on Friday, I asked the department whether we can reveal some of the names involved in what has come to be called the Iranian exercise. As the hon. member has stated, if there is deemed to be some benefit in that, we have no hesitation in doing so. As we have discussed briefly, the problem is whether we might be jeopardizing those parties. It is a matter of judgment. Since the hon. member has a particular case in mind, I would be glad to consult with him privately and perhaps get his judgment on that particular decision.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications: it concerns the policy respecting pay television and earth receiving stations for satellite technology.
Since politics is light years behind the evolution of technology in this area, can the minister be more precise as to the time-frame she has in mind within which such a policy would be announced, since the study has been under way for two years and since numerous northern communities are going ahead with the installation of the technology without the government's policy?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I do not take kindly to the remark that politics always are behind technology. Hon. members of the opposition have highly criticized the committee on telecommunications which I set up to ensure precisely that politics will be on top of the technological revolution.
As for the earth station policy which the hon. member ties to the introduction of pay television, he is right to see a natural link between the liberalization of the earth station policy and the possibility of cable operators using earth stations if and when pay television is introduced. I cannot be more precise, but I will let the hon. member know ahead of time when I will announce the new policy so that he can look at it.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that the Pepin-Robarts commission recommends doing away with constitutional guarantees which would protect language minorities in the provinces, even suggesting that section 133 of the present constitution be repealed, can the Prime Minister assure the House that his government still believes that there are two immutable requirements in any formula towards a reform of the constitution, namely the federative formula and the necessity of introducing a charter of rights and liberties including language rights.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I used those very words in the statement I made in the House last Thursday. But as far as the specific question of the hon. member is concerned, I would insist on the fact that this bill of rights should and must include a bill of rights protecting official language minorities all over the country.
January 29, 1979

Point of Order-Mr. D. MacDonald
[English]	NATIONAL SECURITY


COMMUNITY MEETINGS BY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR ISSUES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it concerns the committee for nuclear issues in the community.
In light of the resignation of David Brooks from the committee, and his accusation that the committee is not doing anything, and in light of the recent refusal of the committee to hold public meetings in Kingston, Peterborough and Sault Ste. Marie, would the minister indicate if he has been in touch with the committee to find out why it has held only one community meeting in its nine months of existence? Why is the committee refusing to hear the views of communities which have expressed interest in presenting views? How has the $200,000 federal grant been expended?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I reviewed the progress of this particular committee with some of the officers of the Science Council of Canada who are associated with it. They told me that they would be mounting a very significant public meeting in Vancouver in the very near future, a public meeting which will present all sides of the issue.
I believe some of the difficulties the committee has had in recent times in scheduling meetings in other parts of Canada are related to the fact that it has not been possible to put together a balanced presentation of views for the particular community which has sought a meeting.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's answer quite interesting in view of the fact the city council of Kingston offered to bring members to Ottawa, at no expense to the committee, to present their views and they were turned down.
With reference to the proposed conference in Vancouver, and in view of recent statements indicating that the Vancouver conference is being arranged so as to present a pro-nuclear slate of participants, will the minister say what steps he is taking, or will take, to ensure that the proposed conference will present as unbiased a view as possible and that it will live up to its mandate to bring in all community views at the conference?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady will appreciate the committee does not report to me. I have no responsibility for the committee whatesoever. I will be very pleased to convey to the committee through this answer or, if that is not satisfactory, in other ways the concern of the hon. lady respecting the Kingston conference which did not take place. Undoubtedly, there may be further discussions on that one.
As to the question of the Vancouver conference, I think the hon. member has made a representation for a balanced presentation, as I have acknowledged in earlier answers. I can assure the hon. member that every effort, based on my conversation, will be made for a balanced presentation.


LISTING OF SUBVERSIVES IN PUBLICATIONS CIRCULATED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I should like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister: it concerns the weekly internal security service summary known as "The Whizzer", certain statements made by Mr. Bourne, and certain answers given in the House by the Solicitor General on Thursday.
In view of the answers of the Solicitor General on Thursday, can the Prime Minister tell us who decides what organizations and individuals are on that list: is it Mr. Bourne, is it the Solicitor General, is it someone else, or is it some other committee; and does this list include all organizations with the name "Peace"?


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the police security branch co-ordinates the preparation of the weekly internal security service report known as "The Whizzer" on behalf of the security advisory committee. This group also prepares a more in-depth analysis of internal security matters, known as a "special assessment." The purpose of these reports is to inform the Canadian security community of the changing threat to internal security. The fact that the PSB prepares "The Whizzer" is public knowledge and is listed as one of its functions in the ministry's annual report.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to thank the Prime Minister's ventriloquist for that answer and address this question to him.
Is this list circulated generally to ministers of the Crown, and what controls are exercised over the list to guarantee that individuals who have been named unfairly have some kind of redress?


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the balance of the hon. member's question to the minister's attention and perhaps he can relay further information on his return on Wednesday.


POINTS OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
mr. Macdonald (egmont)-reference of hare report to

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with House business and in reference to questions raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). On December 13 I raised a question with the government House leader regarding the Hare report and other recent documents having to do with disposal of nuclear waste, and a reference to the appropriate standing committee. Further, in answer to a further question

January 29, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Alexander by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) the minister indicated he had discussed the matter with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and suggested there would be an appropriate motion on the order paper referring this matter and more recent information to the committee so it could continue its important work. I wonder whether the minister could tell us exactly when that motion will be on the order paper in order that this matter may be referred to the appropriate standing committee?


Alastair William Gillespie: I understand it is on the order paper right now, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is my understanding it is not yet on the order paper; I have just checked. I wonder if the minister could tell us when it will appear. Does he mean it will be on the order paper today?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if it is not now on the order paper and if notice has not now already been given in respect of this matter, I will see that it is dealt with shortly.


MR. ALEXANDER-REFERENCE OF BILL C-35 TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I should like to direct the attention of the minister responsible for fisheries to a matter regarding Bill C-35. It has been suggested to him, not only by myself but also by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), that the subject matter be sent to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry rather than the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I can assure the minister that it will be given speedy passage after we have heard from two more speakers. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity of considering this, and has he decided that the bill would be sent to that committee rather than the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, a referral which in my view seems to be rather ridiculous in light of the substance of the bill.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the government House leader, whom 1 have not seen today and with whom I have not had the opportunity of discussing this question since it was raised last week, let me state, as I indicated, that we would be quite willing to accept the suggestion. Since the hon. member has indicated they have only two more speakers, and in view of the fact that I understand all parties are agreeable to quick passage, the suggestion by the hon. member is one to which I am sympathetic, and if there is unanimous consent when the government House leader requests it I think this arrangement could be made.
(Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).]


MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-BILL C-12-TABLING OF STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday I spoke to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) in respect of the possibility that he might some time early in the week and prior to the beginning of the debate on Bill C-12 table the goverment's expectations regarding figures for the first triennial operation of the bill, assuming that it passes the House of Commons. I notice that we have now passed the period for tabling of documents. Does the minister intend to ask to do this later, does he intend to do it tomorrow, or does he intend to do it at all before the debate commences?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood the hon. member. My understanding on Friday was that he intended to ask me a question on this subject today, and I have the appropriate information. I could put that information on the record verbally, if you wish, and table the documents which do not really contain the precise figures. However, I am in your Honour's hands.
Basically our intent was to give full indexation for all pensionable incomes under $7,000, which I think amounts to something around 75 per cent or 80 per cent. Regarding amounts above $7,000, during the year 1979 we intend to index those at 8 per cent, in 1980 at 7 per cent and in 1981 at 6 per cent. I should point out, as hon. members will see when they look at the report from the chief actuary, that this was based on an inflation assumption of 8.8 per cent when in fact it turned out to be 8.4 per cent, so we are better off than we thought we would be. With a little good luck this provision hopefully will be even more generous for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. minister have the leave he now seeks from the House to table the report he has just explained?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


MR. ALEXANDER-BILL C-12-REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Perhaps I could put this to the minister in light of the fact that he seems to be so co-operative this afternoon. There are a number of questions on the order paper, the answers to which would be of great importance in debating Bill C-12. I am wondering whether the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) will see to it that the answers to those questions on the order paper in terms of financing and indexing in Bill C-12 are in our hands at the time the debate commences, which I anticipate will be this week? Will he see to it that all those questions are answered, as we need all the information we can get before we can make a decision on this very complex bill?
January 29, 1979


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into that, but I think hon. members may well find much of the information they wish contained in the document I have just tabled.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in relation to this matter, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) whether documentation on interest rates and earnings will also be made available, as this is vital to any assessment of revenue in comparison with expenditures for the period.


Walter David Baker: That's a first rate idea.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In short, we want everything before you get your bill.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think that information could be provided. I should point out that this was also a contributing factor: the chief actuary projected an interest rate of 9.4 per cent. As the hon. member intimated, we have done better than anticipated; we actually earned 9.6 per cent, so that in fact we are better off.


An hon. Member:: Or worse.


J. Judd Buchanan: That is correct. But from the point of view of the fund, it is better off and, in fact, that could well help the situation as far as available revenues are concerned.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; 165, 166, 392, 528, 664, 676, 693, 709, 710, 71 1,823, and 856.


Mr. Roche: Is CIDA purchasing cars worth (a) $64,225 (b) $28,576 from Automobile Renault Canada Ltee, St. Bruno de Montarville, Quebec and, if so (i) how many (ii) for what purpose?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, CIDA is purchasing cars from Automobile Renault Canada Ltee, St. Bruno de Montarville, Quebec:
(a) but not in the amount of $64,225 but rather in the amount of $16,056.27 which is equivalent to 64,225.05 francs (French).
Order Paper Questions (b) Yes, in the amount of $28,576.
(i)	(a) Quantity three.
(b) Quantity five.
(ii)	(a) Three vehicles will be used by six Canadian experts related to the provision of technical assistance.
(b) Five vehicles will be used by five Canadian experts who make up a multidisciplinary team.
All of the above Canadian experts are required to visit regularly various regions of Zaire in order to provide assistance in the development of the project along the lines agreed to by Zaire and Canada and to regularly monitor the progress of the project in the field.


Mr. Roche: Is CIDA purchasing cars worth $70,491 from Peugot Canada Ltd., Pointe Claire, Quebec and, if so, (a) how many (b) for what purpose?


Louis Duclos: Yes.
(a)	Nine model 304's and two model 504's. Total value $70,491.00.
(b)	The nine vehicles will be used by a team of 20 Canadian experts in the detailed study of the railway system in Tanzania. The railway has 1,600 miles of roadbed reaching to all parts of the country which must be examined and improved.
Within this group there will be five maintenance specialists located at Morogoro which is 120 miles west of Dar es Salaam, the capital. These persons will be required to make frequent trips to Dar es Salaam for related training at the national vocational training centre.
The preference for Peugot vehicles was based on the widespread use of this particular model in East Africa and the high degree of maintenance and service which is available in that region.


Mr. Herbert: For the years 1950, 1955, 1965, 1975 and, each of the past three years, what was the national debt as a percentage of the gross national product?


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Fiscal Years Ending
Public Debt of Canada*1**3*
Net Debt
of Canada*2**3)
($ Millions)	per cent of GNP	($ Millions)	per cent of gnp<4>1950	16,730	99.6	11,645	69.31955	17,560	67.8	11,326	43.71965	26,288	52.3	15,530	30.91975	52,643	35.7	19,275	13.11976	59,802	36.1	23,296	14.11977	67,075	35.0	29,586	15.41978	80,048	38.1	39,622	18.9
*0 The public debt of Canada consists of all liabilities which appear on the government's statement of assets and liabilities.

January 29, 1979
Order Paper Questions
<2) The net debt of Canada is represented by the excess of recorded liabilities over net recorded assets.
<3>
Amounts for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1950 to March 31, 1975 inclusive have been adjusted to reflect the presentation of assets and liabilities introduced in the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1977.
(4) Calculations are based on the preceding calendar year Gross National Product figures, i.e. debt at the end of the 1977-78 fiscal year is expressed as a percentage of GNP for calendar year 1977, etc.


Mr. Hare: What was the total expenditure allocated to research and development for the past three years by (a) universities (b) the government (c) industry (d) each province?


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 


Mr. Mitges: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, what were the non-salary operating expenditures of the Multiculturalism Directorate under (a) transportation and communications (b) advertising (c) publications (d) professional and special services (e) rentals (f) materials and office supplies (g) equipment and capital acquisitions?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: The non-salary operating expenditures of the Multiculturalism Directorate for the fiscal year 1977-1978 were:
(a) Transportation and communications	$227,928.82
(b) Advertising	471,629.90
(c) Publications	96,584.19
(d) Professional and special services	711,145.40
(e) Rentals	13,117.34
(0 Materials and office supplies	60,322.94
(g) Equipment and capital acquisitions	5,654.48
Total	$1,586,383.07


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Has grain dust been suspected as a possible cause of grain elevator explosions and does it have a nutritional value comparable to the whole grain from which it is generated and, if so, is the government considering the possibility of compacting grain dust for handling as a potential ingredient in livestock feed?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Grain dust is suspected as a possible cause of grain elevator explosions. It becomes ignitable when a combination of critical conditions are met. The known critical factors under which dust will explode with damaging force are high temperature at source of ignition, concentration of dust in suspension, size of dust particles and moisture content of the dust particles. When ignition occurs within a confined space, it may cause an explosion.
Grain dust is considered to have good nutritional value for livestock, although not necessarily as highly nutritious as the whole grain from which it is generated. Such dust captured by dust collection systems in terminal elevators, together with other refuse screenings from the cleaning systems, is lightweight material which is bulky and difficult to transport. In order to overcome this problem, it can be concentrated by pelleting into livestock feed. Almost all grain process elevators in Canada have pellet mills as an integral part of their terminal operations, concentrating this by-product and exporting it as grain screenings pellets.

Expenditures on Research and Development in Canada (millions of dollars)
Funded by:	1975	1976	1977Universities	240.1	264.4	272.4Federal government	694.3	734.5	818.2Industry	571.3	589.0	693.4Provinces	91.9	113.0	133.5
The totals given for expenditures on research and development by the provinces were estimated by Statistics Canada from a survey of a sample of provinces. No breakdown of this total into the expenditure by each province is possible. The figures refer only to research and development in the natural sciences and engineering, as used in calculating the Gross Expenditures on Research and Development statistics used in international comparisons. Expenditures on social sciences and humanities research and development, for which full private sector date are not available, are not included.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Did Canadian universities receive grants from the Department of Fisheries and the Environment for water resources research in (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 and, if so (i) which ones (ii) in what amount in each case?
2.	Did the government announce in September 1978, that the $800,000 in grants to universities for water resources research would be terminated and was the amount already allocated for 1978-79 or 1979-80 and, if so, in what amount to each university?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: 1.
See list below.
2. As part of the cutback in spending announced by the government in September, 1978, annual funding for the water resources research suppport program was reduced from $1 million to $250,000 effective April 1, 1979. This did not affect the $1 million already allocated to the universities for 1978-79. Research proposals for funding in 1979-80 under the program, which are now being received from Canadian universities, are expected to total nearly $2 million. These will be assessed by a review committee and the funds allocated to the successful proposals in April, 1979.
Water Resources Research Support Program Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada
Support to Universities
University/Location	1977-78	1978-79Alberta, University of	$ 16,500	13 300
Edmonton, Alberta
January 29, 1979

Water Resources Research Support Program Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada
Support to Universities
University/Location	1977-78	1978-79British Columbia, University of Vancouver, British Columbia	103,600	72,500Calgary, University of Calgary, Alberta	55,000	58,500Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia	17,000	35,000Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, Quebec	10,000	14,000Guelph, University of Guelph, Ontario	29,000	40,500Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario	-	21,900Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec	63,500	41,700Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba	22,000	24,000McGill University, Montreal, Quebec	45,500	56,500McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario	97,500	87,500Moncton, University of Moncton, New Brunswick	6,000	16,500New Brunswick, University of Fredericton, New Brunswick	61,000	78,900Nova Scotia Technical College, Halifax, Nova Scotia	-	12,000Ottawa, University of Ottawa, Ontario	50,000	42,000Quebec, Universite du Quebec, Quebec	77,000	77,000Quebec, Universite de Trois Rivieres, Quebec	12,000	10,000Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario	47,500	51,700Saskatchewan, University of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	90,000	75,000Sherbrooke, University of Sherbrooke, Quebec	13,000	-Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia	11,000	-Toronto, University of Toronto, Ontario	84,000	69,900Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario	12,000	12,000Victoria, University of Victoria, British Columbia	-	17,000Waterloo, University of Waterloo, Ontario	76,900	64,100York University, Toronto, Ontario	-	8,500Total	$1,000,000	$1,000,000


Mr. Jones: 1.	How much was saved in reducing the Militia in 1969?
2.	How much was saved by closing down armouries in 1969?
3.	How much will be spent to increase the reserves according to the January 1978 statement?
4.	How much will be spent to restore old, closed down armouries, and build new ones?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
$3.2 million in 1969 dollars.
2. The estimated annual savings was $650,000 in 1970/71 dollars.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Additional requirements for personnel, equipment and training are now being identified. Increased costs have not yet been determined.
4.	It is not intended to restore old closed down armouries. The cost of armouries to be constructed is estimated to be between $1.5 to $2.5 million in 1978/79 dollars.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the ratio of English to French personnel in the Mobile Command?
2.	How many persons are in the Mobile Command in the West? What is the number of English persons in this group? What is the number of French persons in this group?
3.	How many persons are in the Mobile Command in the East? What is the number of English persons in this group? What is the number of French persons in this group?
4.	How many persons are in the Mobile Command in the central region? What is the number of English persons in this group? What is the number of French persons in this group?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
English 67.7 per cent; French 32.3 per cent.
2, 3 and 4.
Tabulation of Mobile Command Personnel as of November 30, 1978
Provinces	Total	Total Anglo	Total FrancoNewfoundland	23	23	Prince Edward Island	4	4	Nova Scotia	74	68	6New Brunswick	2,751	2,511	240Quebec	5,004	413	4,591Ontario	4,434	3,910	524Manitoba	1,555	1,475	80Saskatchewan	27	26	1Alberta	2,620	2,455	165British Columbia	970	939	3117,462	11,824	5,638


Mr. Jones: 1.	What was the strength of our Navy in the early 1960's ie. number of ships and kinds of ships etc.
2.	What is the strength of this sector of our Canadian Forces now?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1 and
2. The strength of the Canadian Navy by type of ship in 1962 and of the Canadian Forces today is listed below:
	1962	1978
Light Fleet Aircraft Carrier	1	
Destroyers/Destroyer Escorts	25	8
Helicopter Destroyers		12
Frigates	18	
Diving Vessel	1	1Coastal Minesweepers	10	6Replenishment Vessels	3
January 29, 1979
Order Paper Questions
	1962	1978
Submarines	3	3
Escort Maintenance Ships	2	
Gate Vessels	5	5Patrol Craft	3	1Yacht	1	1


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Farm Credit Corporation and, by year, what amount was paid to each?


Eugene Whelan: From June 1, 1974 to May 21, 1975:
Morton H. Nemy; 200-2727 Portage Prairie, St. James, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
K. R. Hanssen; Duncan, Duncan & Hanssen, Morden, Manitoba.
William C. Middleton; Weselak & Middleton, Beause-jour, Manitoba.
From May 21, 1975 to present time:
Morton H. Nemy; 200-2727 Portage Prairie, St. James, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
William C. Middleton; Weselak & Middleton, Beause-jour, Manitoba.
Dyck, Smith & Neufeld; Box 1627, Steinbach, Manitoba.
Fees and disbursements are paid out of the proceeds of the mortgage by and upon the direction of borrowers; the corporation has no records of such particulars.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Treasury Board 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 Board planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: 1. The Treasury Board is a central agency whose responsibilities center around expenditure and personnel management, administrative policy and official languages. As a central agency, it does not finance projects throughout the country.
2. There are no plans to undertake the financing of projects in the future.
[English]	*


Roger Carl Young: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I stand on behalf of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). I see that none of his questions have been answered. I hope the minister or the persons in charge will either advise us to take the questions off the order paper or tell us why they cannot answer them.



MR. MCKENZIE-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL TO RCMP

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 1977 I placed a question on the order paper asking whether members of parliament are entitled to use the DOT telex "Comcen" facilities for the purpose of sending political messages out. I also asked how many times since October, 1974 the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) has used such facilities.
It does not take a year and a half to answer a question like this. A memo dated November 7, 1977 stated that the sending of these political messages over this telex network was a misuse of government facilities. Since the government will not provide me with an answer, I have no alternative but to send all this material to the RCMP for their reference, to investigate the improper use of this government facility and to determine whether any offence has been committed against the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I have one more comment. With regard to Bill C-12, I have a question on the order paper requesting information as to where $9 billion in the public superannuation account was invested and what kind of dividends it has been paying. This information is necessary to discuss Bill C-12, and I would like the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) or his parliamentary secretary to obtain this information for us as soon as possible.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, in the absence of my colleague and on his behalf, I attempted to point out that we do try to get these answers as quickly as possible. The whip for the Conservative party has mentioned his colleague's questions which have been on the order paper for a while. As I recall, some of those questions are very extensive and require answers from approximately 45 different government departments or agencies, months of research to prepare, collate and bring forward the answers, and it costs a great deal in time and money. I wish that all members in this House, in commenting on the time taken to bring answers forward, would also take an interest in the cost and time for public servants involved to prepare the answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: by the opposition, but perhaps I did not get up at the right time.


Walter David Baker: That is what happened; you did not get up at the right time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was watching the opposition and it confused me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that it is expected that we will call the ways and means motions standing in the name of the hon. minister at this time under orders of the day in the regular way. The minister did not miss anything.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table Thursday, January 25, 1979, be concurred in.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, laid upon the table Thursday, January 25, 1979, be concurred in.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-37, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, to amend the Canada Pension Plan and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be read the first time and printed.


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

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the table Thursday, January 25, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Referenda
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 26, 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.
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, a number of those who have participated in the debate on this bill have said that this piece of legislation is one of the most important ever to be discussed in this parliament. I agree with those sentiments wholeheartedly. It has even been acknowledged by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). To show the urgency and gravity of this legislation, a view shared by all sides of the House, I would like to quote from the hon. member's speech. Before I read from it, however, I should say that this will probably be the only time in this debate that I will agree with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. She said:
This is one of the most important, one of the most major, bills ever to come before the Canadian parliament, because by its very nature it has tremendous bearing on our established political process. This bill gives to the governor in council, the cabinet, the executive, power to initiate referenda on constitutional matters. Nothing could be more substantive or more serious. It is serious not just because of its constitutional aspects, with which I shall deal in a few minutes, but it is doubly serious because a referendum of any kind at the national level is a serious matter in itself.
I completely agree with those statements. Then, however, the hon. member and her colleagues went on to attack Bill C-9 in a most ferocious way.
I was not here on Friday, but 1 had the benefit of watching the CBC program "This Week in Parliament" last night, and when I saw some of the histrionics which went on in this Chamber on Friday-especially by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-I was astonished. I believe he said that he was appalled; but I was appalled that he would drag the debate on this bill down to the level which he did. I will let the hon. member's words and actions speak for themselves. They are on videotape, and anyone can see them if they wish.
The Conservative party attacked this bill as undermining responsible government, speaking of course in the context of British parliamentary democracy. This in itself is a valid concern and I have no quarrel with it. In the first part of my remarks this afternoon I will deal with this concern, but from a

January 29, 1979
Referenda
perspective which is completely opposite to the one taken by the Conservative party.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) also spoke on this bill on November 12. He gave the classic, responsible government defence, and so he should since he is a former professor of philosophy. Although the hon. member did not quote him by name, which would be anathema to him, he really gave the defence, if you will, of the Edmund Burke thesis of the fiduciary role of an elected representative. That is a person elected to use his or her judgment over a particular period, a representative not subject to the whim of instant recall or of his or her constitutents, but a representative who must account for his or her actions at election time.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby eloquently summed up the arguments. I would like those hon. members of the Conservative party who are present to hear the rest of his remarks. At page 2043 of Hansard for December 12, 1978, he said:
Democracy should be concerned with electing men and women to study issues seriously, to recognize the complexity of most problems and to work out a fair solution.
He went on to say that the problems facing us now and the problems posed to this country by the introduction of a referendum in the province of Quebec mean that we should go beyond the traditional role of parliamentary democracy, the traditional attitude that Edmund Burke had and what he felt about the role of the member of parliament. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby went on to plead that the special case of the proposed referendum in Quebec gives parliament no choice but to provide itself with a means to consult all of the people.
I wish to develop this argument further than the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby did in order to counter the proposition put forward by the Tories. Perhaps it is quite academic and it might be too philosophical, but I think we are dealing with a matter of fundamental importance and that we should look at the philosophical aspects of the debate very closely.
As one who was born and raised in Great Britain and in my early years schooled in the magnificent fairness of the British parliamentary system, I have only the utmost respect for the monarchy, for British parliamentary institutions and our system of common law. The Conservative party should realize, however, that not only do societies evolve as time goes by but the laws that govern society also evolve.
That is what is happening in Canada today. Canada is no longer a British dominion. I hate to bring this matter to the attention of hon. members opposite, but it is no longer a British dominion. We have inherited the monarchy and we have inherited common law and parliament, and I am glad we have, Mr. Speaker. But our society itself has changed radically since the war, so radically that the proportion of those who had ancestry in the British Isles has fallen to about 40 per cent of our population. One or two per cent of the population are native people, about 27 per cent have French ancestry and the

balance of around 30 per cent comes from varying backgrounds. There are many of these people in this House, and many on the other side.
These people have not always been touched by responsible government in the British context. Those of non-British stock do not necessarily appreciate or accept the rather nebulous British constitutional system of guarantees for basic liberties- a system composed of laws passed by parliament, customs and judicial decisions. A great body of opinion in Canada today does not accept the supremacy of parliament to protect rights. In fact, even the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) agrees with that, because in 1959-60 he introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties. He knew how important it was. The trouble is that the Canadian Bill of Rights does not stand up. It is not good enough. We need these rights basically entrenched. I wonder what the right hon. member for Prince Albert would say on this particular matter.
The British constitution is an oddity in a world of codified constitutions. For example, those who came to Canada from continental Europe, like our neighbours in the United States, innately feel that constitutional guarantees are best safeguarded by codification rather than by legislative action. It must be acknowledged that the British constitution approach which believes in the supremacy of parliament is stoutly defended in English speaking Canada-and often emotionally. At the recent constitutional conference, for example, it was Premier Lyon of Manitoba who vigorously defended the supremacy of legislative action as the ultimate safeguard for basic rights. This is a particular point of view that Premier Lyon and others are entitled to.
This proposition was also defended last summer in the deliberations of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. Some members of the Senate on our side and on the other side defended that approach. Indeed, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield)-who I am glad to see in the House today during my speech-made the same point in committee. There is nothing wrong with it, Mr. Speaker. My question is whether this particular point is applicable in Canada in the present context.
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.
Let us look at this country for a moment, Mr. Speaker. Over the past century we have seen responsible government safeguard rights-to use Mr. Lyon's terminology-by the 1890 act of the Manitoba legislature which rendered inoperative the institutional bilingualism provisions in section 23 of the Manitoba act. In 1912 there was the promulgation of the infamous regulation 17 in the province of Ontario which made English the sole language of that province. This parliament
January 29, 1979

cannot be absolved from not protecting the rights of individuals. The internment of Japanese Canadians in World War I! resulted from the application of section 3 of the War Measures Act, passed in 1940.
I am saying that perhaps legislatures are not the best guarantors of individual liberties. 1 am challenging this traditional argument that is supported not only by Premier Lyon but by his Conservative minions or his colleagues in this House.
There are some elements of Bill 101 that are an infringement on the rights of the minority. I am sure hon. members opposite have supported the challenges made in the Supreme Court of Canada of those sections of Bill 101. So much, Mr. Speaker, for legislative protection of minority rights.
We now consider Quebec's referendum which will ask for some consensus on sovereignty association or independence where presumably the unconstitutional provisions of Bill 101 would be enshrined in law. Who is to stop that particular referendum? No one, Mr. Speaker, because it is well within the ambit of provincial legislatures, provincial governments and the provinces to hold a referendum on any issue. It does not apparently strike one as logical, however, nor does it strike one as being fair or responsible, that the parliament of Canada should also have the tool of the referendum to counter any referendum that takes place in a province where the question has not been put fairly or there is some question as to the accuracy of the result of that particular referendum. 1 say it is logical, it is fair and it is responsible.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who has been heckling me throughout my speech should read some of the speeches of his leader. He is at odds with his leader. He should do his homework if he does not agree with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. That party supports Bill C-9.


Mr. Peters:: Some may.


David Michael Collenette: Talk about division! The hon. member for Timiskaming does not support his party on Bill C-9 and I want that on the record, Mr. Speaker.
It becomes apparent that responsible government is not as sacred as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would have us believe. Does it not follow that history has taught us that where rights and freedoms are concerned it is better for society as a whole to decide on what rights and freedoms should be guaranteed? Who can accept the whim of legislatures-the whim of the national assembly of the province of Quebec on Bill 101, the whim of the legislatures of Ontario and Manitoba in the cases I have cited? I might even add, Mr. Speaker, the whim of this parliament in the 1940s. 1 am not sure if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was here when the War Measures Act was passed in 1942,1 think it was-


Mr. Woolliams:: What about 1970?


David Michael Collenette: -when under the auspices of this parliament citizens of this country, Japanese Canadians, were
Referenda
interned. So much for the legislative guarantee of basic human rights.


An hon. Member:: Under the Liberals.


David Michael Collenette: Where did the Tories vote? Everybody was very complicit in that matter. 1 am not just talking about parties here; I am talking about the legislatures themselves. If hon. members want to check the record they will find that only one or two members in the House of Commons did not support the War Measures Act in the early 1940s. Let them do their homework before they start criticizing us.


William Arnold Peters: Start studying.


David Michael Collenette: Even the United Kingdom is not bound by British parliamentary traditions. Where was this tradition of legislative safeguards when Westminster invoked internment in Northern Ireland? This was only done in recent years. I believe the British government showed some level headedness in having the matter referred to the World Court in The Hague. Even in the mother of parliaments there has been a question of whether or not basic rights are being guaranteed by parliament itself.
In March a referendum will be held in Great Britain on the question of devolution of powers to Wales and Scotland. So much for our great British parliamentary tradition. Even in Great Britain they are recognizing British parliamentary democracy must change, must evolve, and must adapt to changing circumstances.
The Conservative party attacks Bill C-9 using arguments either outdated or that have failed both in Canada and in the United Kingdom. How else is one to decide whether to entrench rights or not to entrench rights, to devolve power or concentrate power? How else are we to decide that? Partisan politics often obscure the real issues in constitutional debate. We have seen it in this House with reference to Bill C-9 and we saw it at the special joint committee last fall when the official opposition were not serious about trying to find new ways to devise a constitution for this country. My answer is provided right here in Bill C-9. The people collectively should be the ones that are consulted on basic constitutional changes.
The Tories say "no" for consulting the people by means of a referendum; or if you want to use another phrase, by direct democracy. In fact, 1 would like to quote the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands again. She attacks Bill C-9 as constitutional revolution by stealth. This is absolute rubbish. I have heard some things said in this House that are really quite odd but I find that approach the oddest of them all.
These remarks lead me to the second major point that I wish to make this afternoon, and that is to talk about Bill C-9 in the context of a general consitutional debate. It has been acknowledged by a number of speakers in this debate that Bill C-9 has been brought in here in response to the referendum bill brought in by the province of Quebec. In fact, the constitutional debate itself is a response to the debate that is raging within

January 29, 1979
Referenda
the province of Quebec. That is true. But as the Task Force on National Unity said last week, there is another dimension to the constitutional debate. It is expressed in other dimensions, for example, feelings of alienation by Atlantic Canada and western Canada from the power-making and power-sharing decisions in the country today. In a way I am almost glad-I should not say this-that the PQ won the election in 1976-


An hon. Member:: Horror!


David Michael Collenette: -if for no other reason-


An hon. Member:: -but for the lousy Liberal government they replaced.


David Michael Collenette: -than this one electoral act has all Canadians, not just French speaking Canadians but every Canadian, thinking about the future of their country. It has acted as a catalyst.
We have taken the basic Tory approach for so long, the kind of attitude that says "Look, the problem will go away, we will muddle through". We cannot take that approach any longer, Mr. Speaker. We have to face not just provincial governments but all legislators, and all Canadians have to face basic constitutional problems. The election of the PQ has if nothing else focused our attention on this question. In fact, the PQ victory in 1976 is the catalyst that is bringing Canada closer, to use Professor Frank Scott's words, "to the rendezvous that this generation has with the BNA Act". Professor Scott uttered these remarks about 15 years ago. It seems that he had real clarity of vision because in 1979 we are faced with a rendezvous with the British North America Act.
While most of the discussion in this debate on Bill C-9 has dealt with a federal referendum as a check on the honesty of the Quebec referendum, I would like to talk about the application of a federal referendum in terms of general constitutional reform, not just in terms of Quebec independence. Here it would be well to look at some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and in this respect I will quote part of her December 12 speech in this House. She said:
A myriad of concerns come to the fore, concerns which all of us as parliamentarians, representatives of the people, feel deeply about. Who is going to determine whether or not an issue is constitutional? Can the federal government call a referendum on constitutional issues that might or would have a bearing on provincial or concurrent jurisdictions without the approval of the provinces? What about a referendum on controversial constitutional matters that have not yet been assigned to either provincial or federal jurisdictions, such as offshore resources?
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-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: -and even in unassigned jurisdictions. That is the way I interpret Bill C-9, and I think the opposition should face up to it.


Some hon. Members:: We have.


David Michael Collenette: But these Tories disagree with us.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is right.


David Michael Collenette: On the one hand they oppose the people's right to speak as provided for in Bill C-9. And even if a referendum is held and the people do speak, the Tories do not want the people's will to be enacted by this parliament. That is their position. It is there in black and white in Hansard. So much for the Conservative view of democracy.


An hon. Member:: That is the end of parliament.


David Michael Collenette: Their view of democracy is power-broker, backroom deal democracy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: They are very sensitive about this, and I can understand it-where provincial potentates would decide on constitutional matters. "To hell with the people;" that is what the Tory attitude is, and it has been said. It is right here in Hansard of December 12. Let us take a look at the speech made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. This debate has really smoked the Tories out and put their ideas on the record. Hansard shows that the Conservative party has nothing but contempt for the will of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: Now that these views on direct democracy are in Hansard they will not be able to reverse these stands so easily.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is here because the view of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands cannot really be reversed. The Leader of the Opposition is very adept at reversing his views two or three months after the fact. He would negotiate sovereignty-association last November, but he will not do that today. My hon. friend the member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) says the same thing. They do a little soft shoe shuffling here. How can the member for Kingston and the Islands and the others in her party whose views are in Hansard in black and white reverse their stand? How can they do that? It is right here and it shows that the Conservative party has contempt for the will of the Canadian public to decide what kind of a country they want.


An hon. Member:: Like wage and price controls.


David Michael Collenette: We know what their view is of Canada; it is a decentralized, weak and balkanized country, I would say, to be fair, that the hon. member for Kingston and tl.3 Islands has been consistent in her views as to who speaks for Canada. Her speech on Bill C-9 parallels the arguments she made before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. I think 1 have those remarks here. I would like to read them into the record as well. I quote the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands,
January 29, 1979

issue No. 1 of the special joint committee minutes for August 15, 1978:
The attitude of the provinces makes one pause and think and is also an eloquent expression of the kind of attitudes which are now prevalent. You say that you are going to consult with people, but I think it would be more important to consult the provincial representatives of the people of Canada. It is all fine and well to speak directly to the people, but if you go over the heads of the 10 provincial governments, you are going to have trouble.
Trouble from whom? You will have trouble from the Canadian people who are sick and tired of the games the Conservative party play on constitutional reform and in debate on this bill. Their view of democracy is to get together and make deals with the provincial premiers. They do not want to consult the people.
At least the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is consistent. Her view is: "The hell with the people, we will just look at the views of the provincial governments". The Conservative party has come up with a view very much akin to the Bundesrat in Germany. That is a form of upper house bringing the provincial governments into the centre. This view was also expressed by the Task Force on National Unity and the Ontario task force. That is one way of looking at it. I do not think it is the way Canadians want to deal with constitutional reform.
Let us go to another quote from the deliberations of that committee. This is Professor Edward McWhinney, head of political science at Simon Fraser university, a very eminent individual who has travelled all over the world. What does Professor McWhinney say on this matter? He is talking about the Bundesrat hang-up. I do not think he said hang-up; that is my word. Referring to the Bundesrat, he said:
-it is basically a conclave of princely rulers meeting for executive purposes, and the analogy with our Senate or the attempt to make an analogy with the Senate I think is misplaced. The better analogy would be to the federal-provincial conferences-
I share that view of Professor McWhinney. The Bundesrat may have been applicable in the nineteenth century or postwar Germany because of the very nature of the German state and the way the German principalities and states came together to form modern Germany, but that is not the answer for Canada today. I completely oppose any view of a Bundesrat approach being sneaked into the parliament of Canada.
I want to deal further with this basic argument on the Bundesrat and who speaks for Canada. In fact, I think the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands used those words. We know the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has used them. They have become a sort of password-Who is speaking for Canada? I say the people should speak for Canada. The hon. member and her colleagues say the provincial governments should speak for Canada?
I have been elected to represent a particular constituency in metropolitan Toronto. There are provincial members in that constituency. One of them recently made a statement criticizing the federal government. That is fine; in the context of our British parliamentary tradition it is fair ball for provincial ministers continually to hammer away at Ottawa. However, it seems that federal ministers and members should not attack
Referenda
the provinces. That is not considered fair. As far as I am concerned, I have as much right to speak in this chamber and throughout the land on matters affecting municipal or provincial jurisdictions as have my provincial and municipal counterparts to speak about federal matters.
This view obviously is not shared by members opposite. What they really want is a confederationist approach in the classical mould. They want to bring the provincial governments into the Senate chamber, the upper house. They want them to have veto power over legislation passed by this House.
In Bill C-60 introduced in the last session was a very novel and ingenious way of bringing the regions into the centre. Bill C-60 proposed a form of proportional representation in the Senate where the parties in the legislatures-not just the government party but all of the parties in each legislature, whether it be the PQ in Quebec, the Liberals in Ontario or whatever-would have the opportunity to represent their legislatures. Half would be appointed by the provincial parties and half by the federal government. That would bring in an element of proportional representation.
There was a delaying power in the proposed Bill C-60. However, the Conservatives did not want that. They regard the true voice of the people as being in Queen's Park or the Grande Allee. That is not true. We are the true repository of what Canadians think.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: I do not know what hon. members opposite are laughing at, Mr. Speaker. We are all entitled to speak for Canada. On a question as fundamental as this where there is no consensus, the Task Force report said we should return to the spirit of 1864 where everybody submerged their petty differences and brought forward a new dream for this country. With the way the provinces carry on, aided and abetted by the attitude of members opposite, there is no consensus for a new dream.
What is one to do? If we want a new dream or a new vision for Canada, if we want to resurrect the spirit of 1864, even in the absence of any consensus on the part of the provinces and the federal government, we should consult with the people. However, the Tories do not want that. They disagree with it.
I see my time is running out. I am sure members opposite will be glad because I have said a few things they did not want to hear. The truth really hurts them. I will conclude by again quoting Professor McWhinney when talking about constitutional reform in general terms. This was said on the same day, September 26, I quote:
The key is popular consensus. If you draft a constitution without popular consensus it may be what Mr. Justice Owen Roberts of the United States Supreme Court called "a railway excursion ticket, good for one journey on one train at one particular time to one particular place." ... So I stress this issue of a prior societal consensus as a fundamental condition of successful constitutional making.
That is what Bill C-9 is all about. We want to get society's consensus on the direction in which we should move. Members opposite argue that our party does not really know what this

January 29, 1979
Referenda
country wants. But I argue that they don't and that the provinces don't. I say this because, to be fair, each government wants to protect its own sphere of operations; each government has to see things through the perspective of its own jurisdiction, its own obligations under the constitution.
I do think it is incumbent upon the members of this House to pass the bill before us in order to establish a mechanism by which the people of Canada can be asked for their views. It is not sufficient just to ask the people of Quebec, to determine whether the Quebec referendum is accurate; we should ask all of the people of Canada what direction they wish to see the country take. Do they wish to take the decentralist road as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition? Notwithstanding Rene Levesque and the PQ the country would just drift apart eventually. We will not need a separatist government in Quebec if we follow the policies of the opposition, Mr. Speaker; the country would just drift apart anyway, each part going off and doing its own little thing.
The one thing that struck the members of the Task Force, the report said, was the multiplicity of views, the multiplicity of different societies, the parochialism that is evident in Canada today. If we follow the policies of the Leader of the Opposition-I am glad he is present to hear me this afternoon-we will not need Rene Levesque: Canada will be finished.
What my party stands for, Mr. Speaker, is, first, to consult the people and ask them what kind of country they want. We should ask them if they want a strong central government which has the ability to redistribute revenues. I am not just referring to social programs here, although the Tories say a lot about social programs. Do we want to equalize the wealth of the country a bit? Do we want to see national standards, whether such standards apply to labour or to education? You know, Mr. Speaker, we have created a whole generation of people like me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


David Michael Collenette: We have come through the school system and we really do not have any particular trade. We are academics. The Leader of the Opposition is one himself. I do not know why he smiles. He is a product of the educational system of this country which has gone along in a hodge-podge fashion and has not really geared those going through it, people like me and like him, to the labour needs of the country. This is all due to an education system which has also failed to develop a basic understanding between our major national groups and has failed to introduce second language teaching. So we need a strong central government to ensure that rights are guaranteed from coast to coast, that the English language minority in Quebec is protected in the same way as the French speaking minority in Ontario is protected, that the education systems in this country do not discriminate against certain parts of the country. We want a strong central government, one which is able to regulate the economy, administer the

economy and develop the vast economic potential of this country for the benefit of all Canadians.
What we do not want is what the Tories want; what they have said in debate on Bill C-9 parallels their comments of the last couple of years. They want a decentralized Canada, a government of petty potentates, a loose economy of semiindependent states. Who speaks for Canada? As the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby said on December 12, it sure as hell isn't the Conservative party. Who speaks for Canada? As far as I am concerned we should ask the people of Canada who speaks for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Bill C-9 provides them with that
mechanism.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to make a few remarks in response to the speaker who has just resumed his seat. I noted his preoccupation with consultation with the people of Canada. I find that rather peculiar for a spokesman of a political party which has been running as fast and as far as it can to the end of its five-year mandate to avoid any consultation with the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think, sir, that he did, though probably inadvertantly, express the view of his party regarding the future of this country and the role of leadership in this country when he said, in effect, "If you want a new dream for Canada, ask somebody else." That is certainly the position of the Liberal party at this time. We believe there is a very important role for consultation with Canadians, such as regular elections, such as keeping your word on questions like wage and price controls. We believe that very strongly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It was also interesting to note the continuing preoccupation on the Liberal side with the position of the Progressive Conservative party on constitutional issues. I can understand this, because as soon as they understand our position-and this usually takes them some time-they adopt it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: They did so with respect to the recommendations of the Kingston declaration which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) condemned in this House on one day and then eight days later went out and embraced in a representation to a federal-provincial conference. They have done it, now, on the question of regionalism, which his party so thoroughly attacked for so long a time. Now that it has been recognized as an essential part of the Canadian reality by the Pepin-Robarts commission, the Prime Minister and his party are saying: Well, that's what we thought all the time.
The difficulty of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette)-and I sympathize with him in the few remaining
January 29, 1979

weeks he has left in that capacity-is that he does not understand our position. I hope he might have accorded it the same attention as some of his superiors in his party have given to our constitutional positions in the past, because once they understand them they adopt them.
We are going to give the people of Canada the opportunity to move beyond that minor inconvenience of an intermediary hon. members opposite do not understand so that they can have in office, just as soon as we have the election the hon. member called for, a government of Canada that is prepared to start with the constitutional position that the present government occasionally ends up with, the constitutional position that can guarantee some unity in the country.
I want to deal for a moment with the suggestion that this is merely a consultative mechanism before us as proposed in the government's Bill C-9. I do not wish to dwell on this at any great length; I simply want to quote the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde). There is a danger in pretending that we can ignore the advice that is given on referenda. If we adopt holus-bolus what is proposed in the bill, the practice of referenda on practically every subject-that is what the government is proposing here-we will create a situation wherein the ability of parliament to do what parliament was established to do, to do what Edmund Burke described as the role of parliament-to cast our judgment and then be held accountable for it at elections-will be severely circumscribed.
I quote no better an authority-and I rarely quote him as an authority-than the Minister of Justice himself. He said in answer to a question by my hon. friend from Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) on December 12:
If the government does not proceed to do anything about it surely the people of Canada would ask themselves why they had to go through with that exercise in the first place.
Exactly. Of course that question would be asked, particularly if we had more and more recourse to referenda. There would be increasing pressure on the part of the people who were consulted and saw their views ignored not to have their views ignored. There would be a continuing attrition of the fundamental and traditional role-not simply in other countries but in this country-of the House of Commons.
The other matter the Minister of Justice referred to was also said in answer to a question. It was not a prepared remark but it may well be one of great significance. He said:
There is nothing in the constitution at the present time which could make the result of a referendum binding on the government, parliament or any particular legislature.
I am not sure what he meant by the phrase "at the present time" but I think it is a phrase we all have to consider when we ask ourselves exactly what the intentions of the government are with regard to this legislation it is introducing.
The circumstances under which this bill has been put forward in parliament and the unmistakable implications of the language of the legislation are such that hon. members of this House will have to consider our responsibilities with even more
Referenda
than our usual seriousness. As has been said by almost every speaker here, this is an unusually important piece of legislation. It is important because, while the bill is very innocent in what it pretends to do, it is very dangerous in what it proposes to do.
As hon. members will recall, the matter arose as a relatively modest proposal relating to the fairness of the proposed referendum in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston), who is in his place today, spoke on Friday. I regret that I was not here; I was meeting with the man who hopes to replace him. The hon. member indicated that it was his view that this power would never be used. That is an interesting view, and I rather regret that the hon. member for Westmount did not have an opportunity, to elaborate on why he thought it would not be used, either in the specific application of which he was speaking or, more dangerously, in the much larger application of which this bill is possible. This bill would allow federal referenda on literally every question under the sun. That is what the legislation provides.
When the modest proposal arose, it arose in the context of the proposal in the fall of 1977 by the government of Quebec when it released its white paper on referenda which was in anticipation of the provincial referendum legislation which came forward later, in December of 1977. Certain of the ground rules which were set out in the Quebec white paper were felt to place severe and undue restrictions on traditional freedom of association and expression in a political compaign. As a result, there was very serious fear in the province of Quebec, a very serious negative reaction and a very serious view across the country that it was not going to be possible to have some of our traditional liberties safeguarded in the conduct of this referendum campaign.
At about that same time-and I am sure there was some relationship between the two events-the Prime Minister began to make suggestions about the need to provide the federal government with what he called at that time the same tools as the Parti Quebecois government had. In his annual New Year's interview on CTV, the Prime Minister explained the role he anticipated referendum legislation at the federal level would play. I think it is useful to place on the record the words the Prime Minister used at that time. This was at Christmas, 1977:
You could use it in Quebec to contradict or double check an erroneous or undemocratic Quebec referendum. You could use it in the other nine provinces after Quebec would have hypothetically voted to a question: "Are you in favour of independence and association", and if the answer is yes, then you ask the rest of Canada ... I don't want to put the referendum as the centerpiece of our action. It is purely a counteroffensive tool.
That was what the Prime Minister said in 1977, and that is the reason for our concern. That description is dramatically different from what is in fact proposed in the bill before us. The Prime Minister went on at that time to say that a referendum-and I quote:
-is not something which is in the nature of a parliamentary system.
I recommend that to his acolyte from York East. I want to return to that theme later on, but for the moment it is

January 29, 1979
Referenda
important to remember that the first proposal was to provide the Government of Canada with what the Prime Minister called a counteroffensive tool in the event that the province of Quebec rigged the question or rigged the rules of the referendum it was having. This proposed counteroffensive tool was said to be needed in the event that the national government needed a referendum or an instrument to answer an initiative which was taken by referendum in the province of Quebec. It was to be counteroffensive, and it was limited at that time to one circumstance and to one circumstance only.
Among the advantages of that modest, limited proposal at that time was that it fell within the Canadian tradition of the limited use of referenda. When we have referenda before, they have always dealt with specific questions which were always clearly within the jurisdiction of the sponsoring government, and the authority sought of parliament was always limited and specific as to a particular question. Even though that tradition has not contributed at all to national unity or the national harmony of the country, that is none the less the tradition which exists; and if the government wants to proceed within the Canadian tradition, it need only come to parliament with a bill providing for a specific referendum on a particular question. There would certainly be widespread support in this House for a specific Canadian referendum ensuring the fairness of the question put regarding the future of the province of Quebec. If that is what the government wanted, that is what it should have asked for. Instead, it is asking for something very different and which is very dangerous to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Bill C-9 seeks a power which goes well beyond the specific question in Quebec. It goes well beyond the Canadian tradition concerning referenda. The minister admitted as much when he put the bill forward. He said that this device would be used, and I quote, "should the process of constitutional revision ever become blocked".


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: An hon. member says "hear, hear". The hon. member was citing British history but unfortunately did not reflect much knowledge of our own, because the fact is that the whole history of our country has been one in which from time to time, from the point of view of one government or another, constitutional revision has been blocked. The hon. member might not like the federal system, he might not like the inconvenience of having to deal with the diversity of this country, but that is the country as it is, and that is the country with which we have to deal in this House.
When the Minister of Justice talked about the use by the federal government of this legislation as a means of imposing the federal will on constitutional discussion, he indicated that this central government, having been reminded that the questions and conditions regarding referenda can be rigged, is asking the parliament of Canada to give this government the power to call a referendum on constitutional questions wherever there is disagreement among governments.
[Mr. Clark.)


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: An hon. member opposite says "hear, hear". Speaking in the name of his party the hon. member has just entered the debate.


An hon. Member:: He is a parliamentary secretary.


Charles Joseph Clark: An hon. member who holds an office in the government says, "hear, hear" to the idea that there should be an ability to override the interests of diversity in this country and to impose the view of one man who might be able to command a parliamentary majority in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Lawrence:: He has just identified himself.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let that rest. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is using traditional deceptive Tory trickery to distort my words. That is not what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I do not think the Chair will ever know if there is a point of order because there is so much noise.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that one has two opportunities to make a point. My point is that the Leader of the Opposition deliberately distorted the words I used in my speech. I did not say what he says I said.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member says he cannot let the matter rest. As is so often the case, he should have. The electors of York East will certainly give him an opportunity to have plenty of rest, whenever he has the courage to encounter the kind of consultation he has been talking about and whenever he has the courage to meet the electorate.
The point about this new proposal, which would allow referenda on the constitution or-and 1 will come to this later-almost any other subject, is that it is a complete departure from Canadian practice; not simply practice concerning referenda, but practice concerning the basis for agreement on constitutional change. The practice in this country generally has been to amend the constitution only with the consent of the provinces. That is an inconvenience for those who govern in the certitude that they are the sole possessors of the truth and whose instinct is always directed to arbitrary and unilateral actions. But it is also a protection for minorities, wherever they are, a protection for individual citizens of Canada and, not least important, a protection for the integrity of this confederation and its ability to continue to function.
January 29, 1979

Canadians should not infer from the so-called stalemate of recent years that constitutional change in this country is impossible. Important contitutional changes have been brought about by consultation and consent in the past. This bill would enable the federal government to blackmail the provinces in constitutional discussions. If the discussions were not going in the way the federal government wanted, how easy and convenient it would be to put some of the questions to all of the country, or to put all of the questions to part of the country, as this bill would empower the government to do, and get the result wanted by the central government. The result might be satisfactory to the people who put the question, but it would be deeply illusory and, more serious than that, a result which would be deeply divisive and cause Canadian to turn against Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I suppose one could go on and say, "If the federal government did that, the provinces could have their own referenda". I think one of the ministers is nodding his head. I am never sure whether that indicates agreement or weariness. But if the federal government embarks upon a practice of consistent referenda, so can the provinces. Where would that lead us, a country like ours? We would have one level of government having a referendum on question A with answer X, and we would have another level of government having a referendum on the same question with a different answer. Where would that lead us?


Mr. Grafftey:: To chaos.


Charles Joseph Clark: As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) says, it would lead us to chaos. We have enough of that with the government. We need a national government which will reflect and not try to undermine the necessity to deal with the natural diversity of the country.
I should like to deal with the language of the legislation, which I am afraid some government members have overlooked. It draws a much broader sweep than their remarks seem to indicate. The referendum power is to deal with the constitution of Canada which, according to clause 2 of the legislation, the definition clause-
-includes, 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-
One must think for a minute what that means. Or better yet, I challenge anyone in the House to try to think of some Canadian question which is not embraced by that wide definition. The definition allows the government to have a referendum on anything it wants.
What does it mean in practice? Let us look at the language. What is a custom in Canada? What is a convention within the Canadian system? I will not give an exhaustive list because it would take the rest of my life, but I should like to refer to
Referenda
some examples. Cabinet government is a custom or a convention in the country. Are we to have referenda on cabinet government? Ministerial responsibility is or has been a custom or convention in the country. Is there to be a national referendum on ministerial responsibility? I hesitate to raise the subject of the monarchy because members opposite are so sensitive on the question, but the monarchy is a convention in the Canadian constitution. Is there to be a referendum on the monarchy? Federal-provincial conferences are a convention in the Canadian constitution. Are we to have a yes or no referendum on federal-provincial conferences? In fact, the parliamentary system is a custom which is not written into law. Does the government intend to have a national yes or no referendum on the parliamentary system? The power to do so is in the bill. That is what the government is requesting: the power to have referenda on the monarchy, on cabinet government, on ministerial responsibility and on a number of other things.
The fundamental rule of law in this country is a custom. Is it to be put to referendum? The bill asks for the power to put that question to referendum. What are enactments? The referendum power has to do with enactments. Let me cite a few examples. One of them is the Canadian Bill of Rights; another is the Indian Act. The Supreme Court of Canada draws its existence from an enactment, as does the right to vote. Is the right to vote to be the subject of a referendum? Because the bill permits the government to ask for a referendum on that question.
What about political and judicial institutions and processes? What does that include? Among other things it includes a free press, the party system and the distribution of powers among different levels of government. Are those to be the subject of referenda? That is the power which the government is requesting in Bill C-9. For example, they are asking for the power to put the question of freedom of the press to referendum.
I do not accuse the government of proposing referenda on these subjects specifically. I suspect its reason for widening the power it seeks is much more precise. The government wants a weapon it can use against any province in the event of disagreement about a particular constitutional reform. Perhaps it will be patriation, perhaps it will be natural resources. Hon. members of the New Democratic Party, given the interest of their last remaining premier on the question of provincial jurisdiction over natural resources, might want to take a look at whether they are so enthusiastic about this bill which would empower the government and all governments to have national referenda on whether Saskatchewan should surrender its jurisdiction over natural resources.
Perhaps it will be on some other question that the government would seek to pressure a province with a yes or a no answer on a complex question. As I will argue later, even that is dangerous and counterproductive. The power being requested in this bill goes well beyond that. As members of parliament, it is incumbent upon us to have an obligation to do more than consult. Also we have an obligation to protect particularly the rights of minorities and others who might be injured by

January 29, 1979
Referenda
bills of this kind. It is very important for us to consider those provisions and implications when we deal with legislation.
As I have said, parliament is being asked to give the federal government the right to hold referenda on almost anything. We are being asked to deliberately open wide the range of questions on which referenda can be put. Perhaps the government will say that will never happen. If it will not happen, why is the government requesting the power? Why run the risk that this weapon, once permitted, will be used to accomplish purposes which may lie beyond the government's declared desire or even its desired intention? Why seek more power than is needed? The government has done that often, but why is it seeking more power than is needed now? Indeed, this is a question for all parliamentarians who care about this institution: Why should the House of Commons grant a request for more power than this or any government requires?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have indicated some of the subjects to which referenda could apply, but I think we can assume some of the matters I have raised will not be dismissed by referenda. Probably federal-provincial conferences or the Supreme Court will not be dismissed by referenda. Let me suggest very seriously to members of the House who might be tempted to support this bill, hon. members who are concerned about minority rights and the rights of people who need the protection of an institution like parliament, that there are at least three groups which particularly could be threatened if the government begins to use the wide powers it is requesting for some reason not revealed in this debate. Those three groups are the minorities of Canada, the press of Canada, and any government, federal or provincial, which may feel bound to defend a principle which is momentarily unpopular with whatever electorate a referendum might happen to consult.
With our special responsibilities under the Indian Act, let me ask members of the House of Commons if the Indians and Inuit of Canada would like to have their rights put to a referendum? What about the Hutterites, Mennonites, or any other religious minority in the country? Would they like to have their rights put to referenda? Seriously, I ask the following question: Would it be healthy for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be told by referendum what it should or should not report, what interests it should encourage, or what ideas it should conceal? Would that be healthy? The bill is requesting the power to have referenda on the rights of native people, religious minorities, and the rights and role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Are these things improbable? Well, perhaps, but the temptation to use such power, as we have seen, has often resulted. At some time some government may find it irresistible to abuse the kind of power that is clearly within what this government is asking parliament to give it.
Of course, the government can say it would not be binding. Of course it would not if it was just to get the popular opinion
(Mr. Clark.)
on, say, aboriginal title, on the rights of religious minorities, or just to get a popular opinion on the rights of members. You know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, what a government that was not conscious of Canadian tradition could do with that kind of power. You know what could be done with it. It could be devastating, it could undermine, erode and abandon much of what this country and this parliament has stood for through the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have a very dangerous instrument in our hands. We should not allow the legitimate preoccupation of members of this House with assuring a fair choice in respect of federalism in Quebec to blind us from the other possibilities we are inviting by this very bad, very dangerous and potentially authoritarian bill.
I think many members are troubled by the excesses that are possible in this bill. I understand the hon member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) will be following me in the debate. I think he has been accusing me of not having read the bill. I trust he will address himself in his remarks particularly to the questions of definition and to the scope of power that is open to this government by the definition I have just read.


Herb Breau: I will.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member says he will and I look forward to hearing him. Let me repeat the point. We should not allow our legitimate preoccupation with assuring a free choice in Quebec to blind us to the other real dangers that exist in this legislation.
Many people here are troubled by the excesses that are possible in this bill, and I certainly would ask hon. members of this House of Commons, regardless of party-and I mean the members of conscience in this House-to ask themselves whether they want to put minority rights or other rights to the kind of risk this bill proposes. I ask them seriously to consider that before voting later today.
I realize that after 11 years the government is frustrated by its failure to make progress in its efforts toward constitutional reform. Indeed, as I listen to some members opposite I sometimes feel they are frustrated by the very nature of federalism in this country. There is no question in my mind, and I say this with some regret, that they are using the situation in Quebec to justify a referendum weapon that can be used to attempt to rally yes or no support for some of the government's pet constitutional bills. They are also, and probably not for the first time, trying to use the situation in Quebec to their own electoral advantage. We will deal with that whenever the election finally comes.	.
I do not question-I want to make this very clear-the motives of the Government of Canada in respect of matters relating to national unity. As the Prime Minister said the other day, and I was pleased to hear him say it and hope some of his backbenchers heard him also, all parties speak for Canada in this House of Commons.
January 29, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not at all question the government's motives, but I think the government has been wrong in its analysis of this nation, and wrong in its approach to unity in this nation. One of the reasons we are so divided now is that the central government has been wrong and stubborn on key questions. As more than one observer has pointed out, the Pepin-Robarts task force report amounts to a repudiation of many elements of the government's approach and many elements of the government's stewardship. Uniting this nation requires much more than having a means to try to force the premiers into line. On key questions like the integrity and unity of this nation there can be no negotiation, none at all. On other questions, including distribution of powers and patriation, there can be real progress only with real agreement, and that kind of real agreement requires an atmosphere of co-operation.
We have made some progress in constitutional talks lately. I must say we have made particular progress since the government discovered and adopted the recommendations of the Kingston conference. It would be tragic if that atmosphere of progress, minor and recent, were destroyed by Ottawa using the weapon it is seeking today to blackmail the provinces into accepting unacceptable constitutional changes. That, sir, would recreate the confrontation that has done so much damage to this country.
[ Translation\
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should put aside the case of Quebec for a moment because as concerns the issue of constitutional referenda, Quebec is in a special situation since it will have its own referendum to determine its constitutional future. Naturally, the Canadian government needs special powers to hold its own referendum in Quebec on this same issue. Everyone agrees about this. There have already been cases in Canada where the federal government was empowered to hold a referendum on a specific issue when necessary. And we can face the particular problem involving the situation in Quebec by using the same methods that have been implemented in our Canadian traditions.
However, this bill makes important changes in the way of using referenda in Canada. This bill grants much more power to the federal government and allows it to ask questions related to constitutional matters under provincial jurisdiction. When he introduced this bill, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) said that this tool could be used if the process of constitutional review breaks down. In other words, Ottawa could use a referendum in the case of what the minister has called a constitutional review breakdown. This bill will allow Ottawa to ask the opinion of the public throughout Canada to attempt to force any province to accept constitution? 1 changes with which it disagrees. We can now think of instances where this power could be used to the detriment of one province or another. The federal government could use this tool to attack Saskatchewan in relation with the rights of this province as concerns natural resources. It could also attack the jurisdiction
Referenda
of Quebec in educational matters, for instance. It could attack the jurisdiction of coastal provinces as concerns offshore resources.
This means that this new power in the hands of Ottawa will certainly cause new tensions in the area of federal-provincial relations. It is totally in the spirit of confrontation that prevails within the federal government every time it must deal with the provinces. A national government convinced that progress is possible through co-operation rather than confrontation would not ask for such a tool which proves useful only when there is disagreement. The mere fact that it requires such a tool shows that Ottawa is expecting even more confrontation with the provinces. Such a presumption is quite dangerous because if one starts discussions while expecting disagreement, there is bound to be disagreement.
If we really want to make progress, we must take an entirely different approach to federal-provincial relations. We must recognize that the only way to renew the Canadian federalism is to reach a consensus among all governments. Blackmail is not an answer. The only solution is to agree. For some years, the premiers of provinces other than Quebec have seemed increasingly willing to consider reforms that would ensure the development of the Quebec culture within a renewed federalism. English Canada is favourable to change, and it is most important for the cause of federalism in Quebec that the national government be in a position to work in consultation with the provinces that want reforms instead of fighting with all the provinces.
The essence of my intervention in this debate is quite simple, and I repeat it now. If the government feel that a referendum on a specific question is necessary, then let them come and put it to this House of Commons. Let them do it in the Canadian way and ask a specific question, not seek this immense power which would allow the national government to run referenda on virtually any question. If it would like that kind of support, then let them come to this House of Commons and ask for it. But we say "no" to this bill that demands so much excessive power.
If the government came forward and asked us for what they say they want, then they would get a different hearing; but they are asking for something much more. They are asking for a power that is dangerous in the hands of this or any government. That is a power which we in this parliament, being conscious of our traditions, of the need to protect minorities and others who might be abused by the power, of the fact that the only way in which we will get agreement and progress in this nation is for different governments to agree and come together, knowing that you do not get agreement by blackmail, will resist, as this bill is written now. It is an attempt to grab more power than is needed for purposes which are not stated by this government.

January 29, 1979
Referenda


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order has to do with the intervention a moment ago by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette). The record will show, and I am sure members heard him, that he accused the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) of a deliberate distortion. In the very admirable work, the fifth edition, of Beauchesne, at page 106 are two examples which deary indicate that the use of the terms "deliberate distortion" and "deliberately distorted" are unparliamentary.
I have taken the time to obtain copies of excerpts from Hansard. The first infraction occurred on December 5, 1968, at page 3517, and a corresponding citation is given in Beauchesne. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) called upon the Speaker to declare that the words "deliberate distortion" were unparliamentary and requested withdrawal by the member who made the comment. The Speaker of the day said:
Order, please. As the hon. member knows much better than I, there are a number of precedents and a number of authors who list long series of words considered to be unparliamentary. Basically I would think the suggestion by a member that there has been a deliberate intention to mislead the House is normally not acceptable according to the practices of this House. Although the hon. member may have wanted to say there had been a distortion, I am quite sure he did not want to impute to any hon. member an intention to deliberately distort something. I should like that hon. member to confirm my understanding of this situation.
The speaker required withdrawal. The second precedent occurred on May 26, 1972 at page 2589 of Hansard and is also cited on the relevant page of Beauchesne. At the foot of the page with respect to the remarks made by the then member for Skeena, the Speaker intervened, called for order and said:
The hon. member knows that another member should not be accused of deliberately distorting what has been said. He can say that it has been distorted, but he has no right to say the distortion was deliberate.
On that occasion as well the offensive words uttered by the member at the time had to be withdrawn.
I suggest, since the hon. member for York East is now in his seat, that the gentlemanly thing for him to do in the face of those precedents is to rise and, if not apologize for the use of that unparliamentary term, at least have the good grace to withdraw it.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raised this matter as a point of order. It is true in the first intervention I made on a point of order that I did use the word "deliberate". It is said that 1 repeated the words; but I do not think that I used them in the second intervention.


An hon. Member:: Yes, you did.


David Michael Collenette: If I did, then we will have to see the blues. As I said in my speech, I have the utmost respect for the traditions of British parliamentary democracy, and I would not want to accuse any member of deliberately distorting any facts. I would be most pleased to withdraw the word "deliberate". It was done in the heat of debate this afternoon. We have had a rather heated and very useful exchange. I apologize if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was in any way

offended. Members of the Elouse will realize that the Leader of the Opposition does not do anything deliberately.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this debate on second reading and referral to committee of Bill C-9 that would empower the Parliament of Canada to hold referenda on constitutional matters.

Before I go into my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to deal briefly with the tone and content of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I wonder if the leader of the Opposition has read the bill, because in his attempt to attack and blur the government's position on the constitutional question and the national unity question, he repeatedly said in his speech that the government wants the power to hold the referendum, to do this and to do that. Section 4 and 5 of Bill C-9, at pages 6 and 7, clearly state that any proclamation or order in council to hold a referendum must be approved by this House. The bill provides for 40 hours of debate on the motion.
This House of Commons must approve this motion before a referendum can be held, so how misleading-but not deliberately of course. When a man of the stature of the leader of a national party rises in this House and bases the whole premise of his speech and his attack on the government on the fact that this government would like far-reaching powers to hold refe-rendums, I do not know what to think. He feels that it is terrible to ask this House to pass this bill because it is going too far in asking for powers to hold referendums. If the hon. member had read the bill on that 14-hour flight from Tokyo to Bangkok to India, he would have seen that the government could not hold a referendum without asking parliament to approve the motion and to provide for 40 hours of debate.
Again, it is a reflection of the Conservative party's stand on this issue to only attack the government. The important thing to this party on any aspect regarding the constitution of Canada or national unity is not to take a position and say, "We believe in this", but to attack the government or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If there is one thing that has been consistent with the Conservative party's position in the eleven years that I have been in this House, particularly since the election of the Parti Quebecois, it is that which was stated very clearly by their former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield)-whom I respect-when he spoke in the debate on national unity last year. He said, in effect, that to trust this government or to trust the Prime Minister with doing anything on national unity is like asking an arsonist to put out the fire.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: A great speech!


Herb Breau: I am glad that hon. members opposite applaud because they help make my point. That is their position again.
January 29, 1979

Anybody who thinks that by trying to redress what some people perceive as historical injustices in this country, anyone who believes you are going to do this without having tension, does not understand the nature of these injustices and these perceptions.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this is true.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How long have you been in power?


Herb Breau: We have been in power for quite a while.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the problem.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says that is the problem. I happen to think that is another reason for the problems and tension in Canada.
[ Translation]
If there are tensions in Canada it is precisely because the government in power and its members have decided to work at the national level to try and correct what some people consider as historical injustices in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition and the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party as well as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) think that the situation can be corrected in Canada and Canada can become united without going through tensions, they are naive. But I dare believe they are not only naive and they know that this prime minister, this government, have tried precisely to correct things in Canada. They tried to do that with the bilingualism policy. There are some who say they agree in principle with bilingualism, they support that principle, but then question everything from A to Z to satisfy those in Canada who are unduly preoccupied with the French fact in Canada.
As a result, there are further tensions. So, Mr. Speaker, to claim, as the Progressive Conservative party does-


An hon. Member:: Jack Horner!


Herb Breau: The Progressive Conservative party attacks the government on every statement, on every proposal made with regard to national unity. They say: They were the ones in power, they should have settled that. Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot correct the situation in Canada. You cannot answer those who are convinced that there have been historical injustices in this country. You cannot answer those who might be influenced by others who want to isolate Francophones in Canada without going through a period of tensions. What I say to members opposite is that they can oppose the government on philosophies, on approaches to the constitutional issue. But they should at least be wise enough to understand instead of constantly lashing at government ministers for the only reason there have been tensions in Canada under this govern-
Referenda
ment. Tensions are unavoidable if we are to correct the situation.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives find it difficult to take a position on constitutional matters and the issue of national unity. Of course, they find it easier to simply lash at the government with constant references, as we heard this afternoon from the opposition leader, to suspicions that the government raises the issue for political gains only.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible that to discuss national unity and constitutional matters is to the advantage of the Liberal party. That may be. But we are not doing it simply because it benefits the Liberal party. It is not simply because we have a history and understanding of national unity in this country that each and every proposal or suggestion we make should be automatically rejected by the Progressive Conservative party. In so doing, they show how weak, how incapable they are of taking clear positions on these matters.
Today, we heard the Progressive Conservative leader criticize the government's constitutional approach. He suggested that holding a referendum on our constitutional future might harm minorities. I myself come from a minority group- however, I dislike that term "minority" because it has other connotations-I am a member of the French-speaking community outside Quebec. A study and analysis of what went on on that issue, especially this last year or these past eighteen months, have shown me that the approach taken by the Canadian government and the holding of a national referendum would not harm minorities. Quite the contrary! Did the Leader of the Opposition not hear some premiers during the last constitutional conference object to the entrenchment of language rights in the constitution? Does he not think that at one point-and it becomes important to deal with various perceptions of justice-it would be important for the government to hold a referendum on that question as to whether linguistic rights should be entrenched in the constitution?
Mr. Speaker, either the Leader of the Opposition has not read the bill under study or he does not understand what the minorities in Canada are looking for. I can certainly tell him that one thing the French-speaking minority is looking for is a reform of the political system, a reform of our political institutions through reasonable means.
Mr. Speaker, we must also correct the imbalance which lies in the present constitution whereby under section 133 the English Canadians in Quebec have written rights in that province that French Canadians do not have in other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, our purpose is not to assess what a provincial government does or does not do for the French-speaking community in the province, be it today, next week or in six months' time. But we have to solve once and for all what people perceive as an injustice in the constitutional and political history of our country. I know what it is, Mr. Speaker. But for those of us who must go back to their ridings and try and

January 29, 1979
Referenda
convince those French-speaking Canadians who wish to isolate themselves, be it in Quebec or elsewhere-because Frenchspeaking Canadians wishing to isolate themselves in their culture and language are not all in the province of Quebec- this is a very important issue.
There are people like that everywhere; there are some in my province, and it is not easy for us to go to them and try to convince them that Canada has been able to cope with the political situation in the country when we cannot even say that we shall be able to include in the constitution the language rights of the French-speaking Canadians, the same rights the English-speaking Canadians have in Quebec under section 133.
Today, the Leader of the Opposition failed to tell us clearly whether that was his party's policy. He did not say a word about that. No, Mr. Speaker, he does not even care to see his party come up with a clear position on matters relating to the constitution and national unity. I wonder why. Is it possible that the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party does not know that in Canada there are people who are overconcerned about the French fact? Some people are overconcerned about that. But there are other people whose concern for ensuring the advancement of French-speaking Canadians, for providing equal opportunities for French-speaking Canadians in Canada can be questioned.
Mr. Speaker, is it possible that such people are merely trying to pass judgment on this government only on that issue? [English]
I am not suggesting any of the Conservative members are doing that, but is it possible that they do not realize there are people in this country who are overly preoccupied with the French fact? If so, let them come to my province and listen to the way politics are discussed there. That does not concern me very much because to some extent I find it natural. For a period of ten or thirteen or fourteen or fifteen years in this country there has been an attempt to redress things, an attempt by governments, with the advent of bilingualism in the civil service and with some advancement of bilingualism in Canada, to do something about that. I do not find that so irritating and depressing that some people may want to oppose that. In fact, in my province there has been quite a reaction to the advancement of Acadians, and of Acadian institutions. I do not lose my cool just because of that.
I say to hon. members that all they do is attack the government for presenting exactly what it is they want to do to the Canadian people. The Conservative party voted for the Official Languages Act, and they voted again in 1973 when we had a motion to amend it, and I appreciate that.


An hon. Member:: Only Jack Horner did.


Herb Breau: When we talk about national unity, the constitution and about the urgency of having constitutional reform in

this country, I would like the Conservative party to state clearly where they stand.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the bill we are dealing with is one of the most important to come before the House in quite a long time. As a matter of fact, Bill C-9 is a major part of the response which the government of Canada is giving to the crisis which exists in Canada since November 15, 1976. The second part of this response is the constitutional debate which has taken a new turn following the introduction in June 1978 of a government bill dealing with constitutional amendments. The purpose of that bill was to start discussions and provoke a debate both within our parliamentary institutions and elsewhere in Canada.
This bill has truly given rise to a good debate, and I think it has compelled our politicians and encouraged all Canadians to become aware of this issue. On the day which followed the election of the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec, I urged the government to hold a referendum or an election, and to provide Quebeckers with a democratic means to indicate their intentions as to the future of our country. If I suggested that at the time, it was for a very simple reason. The political context of such a referendum is extremely important, I would even say crucial. I felt that obviously the PQ would stage the referendum campaign in a style that would create controversy. Well, that is exactly what has happened. That is exactly what is happening.
Mr. Speaker, I think that all Canadians, all those who wish to keep our country together should rejoice and approve a bill which asks parliament to incorporate in our statutes a legal means to hold a federal referendum on constitutional issues when the need arises, be it before, during or after the Quebec referendum. The important thing is that the situation has changed. The opposition leader speaks of British traditions, of the necessity to settle this question among politicians, among federal and provincial parliamentarians. He speaks, Mr. Speaker, naively, irresponsibly, as if the people in power in Quebec are good people, people who will put the question clearly and honestly when the referendum is held. How naive can one be! Whoever understands that Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois are using Quebec nationalism as a vehicle for politics, as a political tool, cannot speak that way, Mr. Speaker. Whoever understands that must be aware that Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois are now telling the rest of Canada: Meet our terms or we go. That is blackmail, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) claims this government is resorting to blackmail. All of Canada is being threatened with blackmail by people who would split the country. When the Leader of the Opposition speaks of our diversity, of its strength, of the importance of respecting our diversity, I agree with him. I too appreciate the diversity of Canada, but not to the extent of destroying Canada. The
January 29, 1979

leader does not know his history, Mr. Speaker. Let him go back 3,000 years before Christ, to the days of the Sumerians and Akkadians-Akkadians with a double "k", in the country of Akkad-what destroyed those civilizations after hundreds of years, almost 1,000 years? What caused their destruction, Mr. Speaker? The lack of autonomy of their city-states. Those city-states, through which the aspirations of the people could be represented locally; those civilizations simply wanted to respect the diversity of their civilization; after 700 years, the Sumerian civilization collapsed simply because there was no central power.
Naturally, I respect the diversity of Canada, but I shall not do so when there is someone in power in one of the provinces, one of the most important in Canada, which represents about one fourth of the population in Canada, who says: I am going to use the diversity of Canada to destroy it. Mr. Speaker, that is what is going on in Quebec, and when we say we want to have a federal referendum, it is because we want to make sure that both the question and the answer, the question put by the referendum and the answer given to it by Quebeckers, are very clear, and that everyone understands them.
I must once again ask this question: Why is the Leader of the Opposition, deceiving the people on such an important matter by saying that we want the power to hold a referendum on anything he says "anything under the sun"-when the bill clearly states that it is for constitutional matters, that before holding a referendum, the government will have to go before parliament with only 40 hours of debate in the House of Commons. I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition resorts to such distortions especially in a debate as important as this one on the future of Canada. Is it because he meets people who oppose this government, only because it so happens that this government has quite simply decided 10 or 15 years ago to try and correct some historical injustices, Mr. Speaker. I wonder why the Progressive Conservative party and its leader do not come out with a clear position on this and why, when he criticizes the bill, he skirts the truth. I wonder!
As I was saying earlier, a constitutional reform is a significant element of the federal government's answer to the Quebec situation. It is indeed because even though we can say no to the government of Quebec, we cannot say no to Quebeckers. We must provide Quebeckers with an alternative, we must tell them that our political institutions in Canada can be altered so that Canada's French-speaking citizens, in Quebec and elsewhere, can really become full-fledged citizens. That is what must be done, Mr. Speaker. And I must admit that I find it difficult to control my temper because I seldom get emotional on political matters. I can play the political game, however, when we are talking about the future of the country, it is a little different. And it is hard for me not to blow up when I hear people inside and outside the House say that the government gives too much importance to the constitutional reform and national unity issues.
Merchant Marine


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: That is true.


Herb Breau: I am happy to see the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) confirm what I think, that there were-


Mr. Boulanger:: You are also free to protest in your province.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-"The Road Ahead" circulated by former minister of finance; the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr.	Penner)-Canadian	Broadcasting
Corporation-Radio and television services in English and French; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Labour Conditions-Monitoring of and compensation for workers exposed to asbestos hazards.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 notices of motions and public bills.
Is it agreed that item No. 7 and item No. 9 stand with unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of drawing up a national navigation policy, the prime objective of which would be to lay a favourable groundwork for the setting up of a true Canadian merchant marine.
2664

January 29, 1979
Merchant Marine


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for seconding this motion, as well as members on the government side who will no doubt support it.
It gives me great pleasure to submit to the House at this time this sensitive issue of a Canadian merchant marine. Over the last few years there have been significant developments in Canada in the area of transportation. As early as 1975, a national transportation policy proposal was put forth by the then minister and member for Langelier, Mr. Marchand. That was followed by the creation of VIA Rail, the passage of the Maritime Code and the coasting trade legislation. Many of us saw the Maritime Code and the coasting trade legislation as the first steps towards the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine.
However, we are now in 1979 and this has not yet materialized. Nothing concrete has been done to revive the merchant marine that we had even before the first and second world wars. Through lack of concern, our successive governments have let the situation deteriorate to such an extent that things could not be worse. We have all the human, technological and material resources at our disposal to establish a merchant marine, yet no action is being taken.
Need I remind the House that at the beginning of this century Canada's merchant fleet ranked fourth in the world? But year after year it slipped back compared to those of other industrialized countries. Of course, at that time the government did not see fit to intervene directly. By 1944, reports were submitted which showed, among other things, that the private sector was not much interested in the operation of a merchant marine and that grants were essential. Yet no positive action was taken and we started to sell our ships at the end of the last world war. In 1958 we still had a Crown corporation, the Canadian National Steamship Company, which still operated a dozen of ships, all of which were abandoned that same year. Now, 20 years later, we are still at the same point, and that is unbelievable.
I would like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to quote some figures in order to throw some light on the situation of the international maritime traffic in our waters. The most recent figures are for the month of April 1978. During that one-month period, we had 1,720 arrivals of ships carrying close to five million short tons of freight, and the same number of departures of ships carrying 8.8 million short tons of freight. The potential is there, nobody can deny it. Yet, according to an OECD study published in 1976, our country ranked last among OECD countries, on the same level as Switzerland and Germany, two countries which have no littoral. That is quite an honour, Mr. Speaker.
For instance, according to Statistics Canada, in 1976, 200 freighters were loaded in Canadian ports with goods to be shipped to the United Kingdom, and out of those 200 freight-

ers, only two were Canadian registered. It is likely that it was the same ship. The most common registration countries are Denmark, Norway, Liberia, Panama, Greece, Germany, the United Kingdom and Russia. According to the latest studies, that last country has made tremendous progress recently and is already almost monopolizing maritime traffic throughout the world. Indeed, since the last war the U.S.S.R. has increased its merchant marine threefold or fivefold, to the extent that it is now in position to assume definite control over the huge potential of transport tenders by merchant marine. Conditions are about the same for the transport of goods from the United Kingdom to Canada. 1 could also mention that in the case of Belgium and Luxemburg, of 100 ships travelling from those countries to Canada, only one alone was flying the Canadian colours and finally in the case of France, only one of 150 ships carried the Canadian flag.
In reply to question No. 79 put on the order paper by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the Minister of Transport answered that only three ships of Canadian registry are doing some trade abroad, not taking into consideration of course the boats on the Great Lakes. In 1960, there were 18; in 1950, 88; in 1945, 173. Of our three ships, only one is anchored in Quebec City and it is the Edgar Jourdain which belongs to Mr. Jules Jourdain of Rimouski who feels rightly that the Canadian maritime policy is prejudicial to him. This man deserves our admiration because he persists in spite of everything in hoisting the Canadian flag on his ships which is one of the very few which are plying the seas around the world. Ships hoisting convenience flags in our waters are twice as numerous as they were two years ago, in spite of their low security standards. Indeed many of those boats and oilers have been shipwrecked and the crews of those ships of course are made up of foreigners and that does little for employment in Canada.
Just imagine that. Cl DA, an agency of the Canadian government, manages to find and send experts to Algeria to build a merchant marine in that country. I imagine it should not be too hard for the Algerians to outstrip us in this area. Flags of convenience have become a real plague. Some conventions and policies proposed or already applied in some countries have rid them of this plague. The UN has set up a maritime code providing that 80 per cent of the shipping between two countries should be done by vessels flying the flag of one or the other country, which leaves 20 per cent of the shipping to vessels flying other flags. But this convention has not been ratified by all trading nations. However, it indicates that there is a seemingly irreversible trend toward the protection of national interests in international shipping.
While many countries are combining money and efforts to build their merchant marine, our own government is moving at a snail's pace or not at all. We are really missing the boat, it is time to say. Even in the United States where 65 per cent of
January 29, 1979

shipping operations are carried out by vessels flying a flag of convenience, they have given thought to the establishment of an American merchant marine with a minimum quota for export-import shipping so that American sailors would have job opportunities rather than those from Elong Kong, Malaysia or other countries. With our potential, we only have to pluck up our courage and invest in setting up a merchant marine of our own.
In 1976, a project raised many hopes. It was the proposed construction of the M. V. Arctic. This ship was designed by a Montreal firm. Its construction was undertaken in the shipbuilding yard of Port Weller, Ontario, at a cost of $40 million. Three shipbuilding companies formed a consortium and, with federal government support, paved the way for the creation of a national merchant marine, and even if we had to call on technological expertise from abroad, even so this ship was nevertheless designed entirely in Canada and she was built in our own shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, that is really the first joint effort by the Canadian shipbuilding industry and the federal government. In an article published in La Presse on Friday, October 22, 1976, one could read this:
If the pilot project succeeds, the government intends to constitute a first nucleus of a national merchant marine with ten such vessels.
A few months earlier, on June 14, 1976, the vice-chairman of Canada Steamship Lines, Mr. Arthur Nightingale, stated at a seminar on transportation:
It is now economically possible to create a Canadian merchant marine regardless of any considerations of security and national sovereignty.
In spite of all his moderation and his carefulness, Mr. Darling had this to state in his report in 1974, and I quote:
It is obvious that the answer will not be the immediate creation and operation of a fleet under Canadian flag. But conditions are changing and it may be not only possible but also necessary that ships flying the Canadian flag operate within the international shipping community.
Mr. Darling had other comments to make which are still more to the point today. He noted that the companies that stood better in the international shipping community were those which were supported by their government, and I quote:
That means progressive penetration of nationalized or state-supported shipping companies will some day change considerably the competitive aspects in that industry.
On the question of costs, manpower, capital, expertise and shipyards we are just as advanced, Mr. Speaker, as our major trading partners. They are making increased efforts to develop their national fleets while we still only have an embryo which is far from being born, unfortunately. Following the release by the Minister of Transport of the report on our shipping policy in January, 1979, I wonder whether it is not more appropriate to talk of an abortion rather than a birth. Indeed, that report does not contain anything new and only maintains a status quo that has lasted long enough. The government refuses to recognize the need for new tax incentives.
The minister's release is a big disappointment. This is a time for action to use one of the prime minister's favorite slogans. This is a time for action, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
Merchant Marine
formulation and the implementation of a real policy for the construction of a merchant marine in this country. The time has come and we have every reason to believe that in the future under bilateral agreements our partners will want to transport a percentage of our goods shipped abroad. If such is the case we will be in a very bad way. Without a fleet we will not be able to get reciprocity under such agreements. In 1974, we spent $2.7 billion to ship goods abroad. The greater part of that amount went to foreign shipping companies and their governments naturally which levy taxes. If one considers that shipping costs cannot be stable under the present economic conditions this will place our economy and our balance of payments in a shaky position.
In June, 1976, Canada Steamship Lines announced it was acquiring three merchant ships, and despite the good will of the company, it was regretfully announced that these ships would have to sail under a foreign flag. The vice-president of that company, whom I quoted earlier, explained the decision this way:
We waited in vain for 16 months for the federal government to take steps in line with the recommendations of the Darling report, and then we decided to go ahead.
Mr. Speaker, how can we explain then that Canadian ship owners cannot find here benefits comparable to those we are offering to foreign countries through the Export Development Corporation? In his report, Darling was referring to this and I quote:
Canadian companies flying foreign flags would not be prepared to change flag unless they were given the opportunity to make as much profit.
And further:
It is estimated that Canadian companies should be entitled to the credit of the Export Development Corporation at the same conditions as the ones offered to foreign companies buying Canadian vessels.
What Canadian companies want, Mr. Speaker, is just to get the same treatment as the one given to foreign competitors. At that point, a very specific recommendation from the Darling Report comes in, namely unification of responsibilities and the establishment of an authority with powers proportional to the various goals established to meet the needs of a merchant marine policy which should have as its first objective the establishment of a merchant marine in the country as it has been specified in my motion which is now under discussion. Our government keeps on thinking that the merchant marine is a sector as any other. It is a rare case, Mr. Speaker, in the club of industrialized nations. We have no specialized administration for all questions concerning international navigation. This lack of policy and this indecision are not to our credit. I have the impression that the government watches our merchant marine as one would watch somebody on his death bed. The problem of the merchant marine cannot be considered within the general scope of a transport policy. It is a specific problem which needs specific solutions.


Mr. Raynald Guay (L6vis):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) for having presented this motion which has been coming back before the
2666

January 29, 1979
Merchant Marine
House for over 15 years. Year after year I come back asking the government to take a clear and well-defined position with regard to the Canadian merchant marine. Mr. Speaker, as one can see on the order paper, I too have a motion which I will eventually have to withdraw because it no longer responds to current needs. I am asking the government to implement the recommendations contained in the Darling report.
While strongly supporting the hon. member for Rimouski, 1 think that the government has followed the recommendations and the strong representations which I made and repeated on many occasions with the support of several members of this House, from both sides of the House and from all political parties.
I have been saying, as reported in Le Peuple of Wednesday, February 12, 1975, some four years ago:
A solution must be found to this issue ...
I was giving an explanation in this article because it had reported one of the many speeches I made in the House concerning a Canadian merchant marine and it had recommended that the government should take a position.
I would first like to mention all the positive aspects of "A Shipping Policy for Canada" published by the Department of Transport under the authority of the Minister of Transport, Mr. Otto Lang. I come directly to the conclusions, Mr. Speaker, in order to say something positive to this House because it has been criticized in various speeches and as I have myself criticized the government for 1 wanted it to be constructive.
I think the hon. member for Rimouski should have seen some good things in this report, even though he thinks that it brings nothing new and that the government does not seem to be prepared to do anything. I think that all the debates we have had in the House lead to a recognition which is very important for the future of a Canadian merchant marine.
I would like to read from page 51 of the English version of this report which was published on January 24, 1979. The report says:
With respect to Arctic shipping, the government intends that, as a condition of approval to export unprocessed or partially processed resources, Canadian registered vessels must be used if they are available at reasonable cost. The government is also prepared to consider, on their merits and on an ad hoc basis, substantiated requests for assistance related to the use of ships both registered and built in Canada for use in the Arctic.
And this is a big step the government has just made. I will come back to this later on in the course of my review. It must be acknowledged, however, that the government wants to proceed with this issue. Indeed, it is stated on page 3 of the release issued by the government at the time the report was published:
The government finally concludes it would be appropriate to require for exportation ...
And I find also on the subject of
... the Arctic
But still, with respect to the ships we need for the Canadian merchant marine, it is stated under options 3- and 4, that if

there are changes in methods, if some countries want to go ahead at our expense either by forming groups against assistance or costs or by applying costs that could become prohibitive for the transportation of our export goods, the government would be ready to revise those policies at any time and put an end to that, and consideration must first be given to the national interests on policy matters concerning an ocean-going merchant fleet. This is all very good, and I will come back to this later. There is also a matter of savings.
Last week, I was allowed to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). I asked him:
In view of the uncertainty which prevails regarding the future of Canada's shipbuilding industry and, in view of the many representations I have received from union spokesmen and shipyard officials, I would like to know if the government has made a decision concerning the 20 per cent subsidy to help shipbuilding in Canada and make us more competitive on the international market? If so ...
And I concluded: I would like to know for how long? Because a number of concerned people, and I see here the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), who probably will take part in this debate, a number of people know that no later then tomorrow the 20 per cent subsidy on shipbuilding will be terminated, according to recent statements made by the government. But the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated the following in answer to my question, as reported on page 2546 of the Hansard of June 25, 1979:
Mr. Speaker, we have done a considerable amount of work on the drafting of a new shipbuilding policy. The Board of Economic Development Ministers and the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers want to make a comprehensive statement on the whole subject, possibly next Thursday.
That is to say-


Prosper Boulanger: That was January 25 and not June 25.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Pardon me. I thank the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) for that correction. Then it was January 25, 1979, only last week.
I anticipated a positive answer without knowing what the minister responsible for the economy, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) will announce this week, on Thursday. I am sure the government will answer in a positive way in view of the pressure exerted by the Quebec caucus as this issue is causing some uneasiness as concerns the future of shipbuilding in our country, and all shipyards have been in touch with me, Mr. Speaker. It is also important in the province of Quebec. We have been most insistent, and I hope that in all that debate shipping shall not be the only topic to be discussed as surely I must admit that we made a big step by granting exclusiveness in the Arctic and, with the support of all honourable members, I urgently ask the minister to extend, not on a mere quarterly basis, the shipbuilding policy or the 20 per cent subsidy, but once and for all, for an indefinite period.
We need this subsidy for the future of the Canadian shipyards. Let us look, Mr. Speaker, at recent newspaper head-
January 29, 1979

lines, and I would like to quote something that appeared quite recently, on January 23, in the newspaper La Presse:
Crisis-
-this appeared on January 23, 1979 in La Presse under the title:
HEAVY INDUSTRY:
Crisis in shipbuilding;
This article discussed in particular the future of the shipyards, and especially of the Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon, which is involved in shipbuilding for 70 per cent of its operations. The article said that if the government did not restore or permanently maintain the subsidy so that, as I said earlier, Canada can remain competitive internationally in the area of shipbuilding and conversion-I must recognize that while some people say that the government has not acted in this area, this subsidy was maintained by the hon. Jean-Luc Pepin and was extended by the hon. Jean Chretien when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and was even amended because this 20 per cent subsidy previously applied only to shipbuilding and was extended to the conversion or modernization of Canadian ships and ships used for exports.
Mr. Speaker, I have here another newspaper. On a recent trip, I bought the November 25, 1978 issue of L'Express Information. On page 47 of the economic section, there was an article entitled:
The collapse of shipbuilding
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the future of our shipyards is a cause for concern if the government does not take some action. I cannot wait till Thursday and I shall be the first to applaud at anything that the government can do for an industry which is extremely important not only from an historical point of view, as the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) pointed out earlier, but also from an economic point of view and as regards the equipment needed on these ships. Indeed, we must not consider only the shipbuilding industry but also everything that it means for the secondary industry, all the supplies, all the subcontracts that the shipyards can let out when they are awarded important contracts, and most important, 80 per cent-I was even going to say 90 per cent, but I do not want to start an argument on figures-but our shipyards have been relying on government policies for their survival not only with respect to orders but also to incentives for shipbuilding, and it is truly essential for the future of this industry which is so important and deteriorating.
When I received a press release from the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, I was quite pleased with the conclusions of this letter which was addressed to me and which expressed the association's concern. One could read in L'Express Information that before 1982, something which should certainly be a cause for great concern throughout the world, shipyards will be forced to close down. And such will be the case of our own shipyards too. We are not any wiser than the people in Europe where shipyards date back nearly a thousand years. Our own yards are hardly a few hundred years old. We also will be faced with this tragedy unless the govern-
Merchant Marine
ment acts and acts promptly. I was therefore very happy to see that the government had given some thought to the matter. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce told me last Thursday that the cabinet had looked into the problem as a result of the numerous representations I have been making for too long.
That is why I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) and other members are now concerned with the merchant marine. I am pleased to get their support, perhaps because we begin to have glimmers of hope, except for a few Conservative members and a few also on this side. We were a handful of members who believed that Canada could provide itself partially with a merchant marine, and I do hope that in the long run we shall have our own ocean merchant marine we can be proud of.
The Canadian Shipbuilding Association said the following in that letter they sent me: The long-term prospects in that area are excellent. The government will ensure that its fishing boats are replaced in the next five or ten years. We also expect to invest close to $1.5 billion in the building of six frigates to renew our merchant marine fleet for the marine department. We do know that this is a long-term policy, that there cannot be any immediate effects on shipbuilding. The government also intends to spend over $2 million on equipment, assistance and supplies of every description to develop Arctic resources. And I am convinced that a major part of those $2 million will be used, as the report signed by the Minister of Transport suggests, to transport our abundant natural resources in the Arctic.
So, Mr. Speaker, I too remain still concerned, at least until next Thursday, and if one wants to make an effort and still remain positive in all this matter, you will admit we made a big step. If the government can say that in an indefinite and unlimited way the subsidy will be maintained, as long as that subsidy of 20 per cent to assist the shipbuilding industry is amended, until we have really found the way in the short run to help the shipbuilding industry in Canada because we saw in the case of Marine Industries Limited what the government of Quebec has to do for that industry. And in that respect, Mr. Speaker, in a future debate I would like indeed to talk about the promises of a government in power. I do not want to enter the debate on the merchant fleet on that issue but I believe that those who will be my opponents and those who will have to fight the referendum in the riding of Levis and in the 16 ridings in and around Quebec City will have to answer very important questions with respect to the assistance to the shipbuilding industry, particularly when we know what they did; they awarded two contracts against a very firm recommendation to Marine Industries Limited when all recommendations said that contract should go to Davie Shipbuilding, for advantages not only as far as manpower is concerned but also for economic advantages.
Mr. Speaker, reporters, members in the Quebec City area are very saddened by what happened. But I am not provincially elected, I am federally elected, and I believe that more

Merchant Marine
than ever the people of Davie Shipbuilding at home, the people in the shipyards across Canada are beginning to recognize what we did and the debate we carried on with the support, that I carried on, I would say, with the support of a few members in this House today, is bearing fruit, and I am glad because we are going to reap them not only to the advantage of the hon. member for Levis. After 16 years, I believe I planted, as the popular saying goes, other seeds that bore fruit. That one took more time to grow but I think it is there and it is there to stay.
So, the government is doing something, contrary to what the hon. member for Rimouski has said, claiming that the status quo is being maintained, that things are at a standstill, that the government does not budge. 1 know the hon. member has been away from the House for a while due to illness. I am very happy to see that he is well again and I welcome him to the House. But to my mind, the first thing he should do is read in its entirety the report we published last week, because it points out critical aspects of the situation and, indeed, it makes positive suggestions. On that topic, I have always tried to be positive, Mr. Speaker, because when one is negative in a debate, one obtains nothing; nothing worth-while comes out of it.
Mr. Speaker, 1 feel the efforts I have made in this House have borne fruit. But they must be followed up. That report must not become just one amongst all the others. As some will notice, those who are listening to this debate, I avoided repeating my speech and shall not repeat it, because for me only one thing counts in this debate on our merchant marine: not the Darling report, not the mountains of other reports we have had, not all the studies and surveys we have made, but this report that can be criticized. Indeed, I should like to deal with it when 1 have more time, because this debate does not end today; we must come back to it, or at least to my motion, at which time I can continue-


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


Donald W. Munro: Like the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), I am delighted that the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) has put a resolution of this sort on the order paper. I support it wholeheartedly. We have heard the hon. member for Levis on more than one occasion, as he has heard the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, the hon. member for Rimouski and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), as well as many others on both sides of the House, speak in support of the proposition that Canada should have a merchant marine.
Perhaps I may be permitted to be a little critical, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member suggested that when we are critical we do not get what we want, that we should really go along with this government, accepting its little favours and be happy. Of course that is the paternal attitude of this government, that we should just take what it gives us.

I noted in the report published and distributed last week the minister said that for the movement of processed and partially processed goods for export from the Arctic every measure will be taken to ensure that they are carried on Canadian flag vessels. That is good and fine, and it is progress, but what progress! It is very slow. We have been addressing ourselves to this problem for years, it seems to me-at least six years to my knowledge, and the hon. member for Levis has said that for 15 years he has been working on the government and has only got this far. That is fine, but there is a puzzling paragraph in this particular report TP-1676 published last week in respect of a shipping policy for Canada, which I should like to quote.
At page 51 there are two quotations in respect of policy that I should like to put on the record. They both puzzle me. I do not know whether in the time allotted we will obtain any clarification. The first part states:
After full consideration of all of the factors involved, the government has concluded that, in the present circumstances achievement of these objectives does not warrant the provision of new tax or financial measures to support the development of a Canadian deep-sea merchant marine.
The objectives there refer to a Canadian flag fleet.
This is an admission that all the work done by the hon. member for Levis, except in respect of the Arctic, has gone unheeded by the government.
The second column on this same page 51 contains an extraordinary statement which I just do not understand at all. Perhaps someone will shed some light on it. It states:
The government intends to proceed with legislation to give it broad powers to obtain information and to act where Canadian shipping interests are threatened by the actions of a foreign government or carrier.
I suppose that is fair enough, but it goes on to
Legislation would include the power to permit the designation of "Canadian shipping lines", including companies located in Canada but not operating vessels under Canadian registry, to enable the government to respond to the requirements of a number of developing countries.
What sort of gobbledygook is this? We are going to have designated Canadian shipping lines. Under what flag are they to be operating, Panamanian or Peruvian? This government has to be out of its mind to come out with nonsense like that. Why does this government not provide some means for accomplishing the objective?
There are a number of means the government could adopt, three of which come to mind easily, to assist in the construction of Canadian vessels in Canadian yards for the creation of a Canadian merchant marine. The first means, of course, is through outright subsidy. I do not know what the Thursday declaration will be, but I hope, like the hon. member for Levis, the government will not cut back on this subsidy.
There is the second means, namely, tax incentives to those who are prepared to raise the capital for construction. That is the basis of the question I posed on January 25 in a supplement to a question raised by the hon. member for Levis.
The third method is one that is open to every other country in the world but not to Canadians, and that is the use of Canadian funds from the Export Development Corporation. Why is that the situation? We have built 51 ships within the
January 29, 1979

last four of five years for Greece, France, the United Kingdom, the Bahamas, Cuba, and Bermuda, and we have built them under the provisions of the Export Development Corporation. We have spent over $500 million in this regard, but we have not built one through that method, the Export Development Corporation, for a Canadian carrier. I wonder why is that. This is a misuse of Canadian funds. Why should Canadian corporations not have at their disposal the same facilities available to these other countries such as Cuba? Why should they not be able to get low interest credit and insurance coverage to guarantee loans? That is one of the methods used by the Export Development Corporation, the guaranteeing of loans.
When I was at home at Christmastime an enterprising man from the area who is interested in shipping came to me and said, "If I had a guarantee I could raise the money to obtain a small Canadian flag vessel, then perhaps another vessel, and then another." Unfortunately at this particular stage he is talking about buying vessels that are now afloat. That will not help our shipbuilding industry, I grant you, but once an individual gets started there is no end to it. It will grow, and before long we will be building our own ships. This was a very enterprising man and I listened to him carefully. He asked why the government would not guarantee a bank loan so he could buy a ship. He actually had Canadian cargoes for these ships.
Speaking of Canadian cargoes, I found some of the figures given in this particular study confusing. Am I to believe that imports into Canada, as described in the table at page 15 of this report, are brought into Canada on Canadian flag vessels to the extent of 47 per cent? I just cannot believe that. There are not that many Canadian flag vessels available.
On page 15 of the English version of this report under exports it is claimed that 21 per cent is carried on Canadian flag vessels. I have gone past Roberts Bank more times than I care to count and have seen Canadian coal piled ship high beyond the funnels for shipment to Japan, but I have not seen a single Canadian flag vessel carrying that coal. That coal is carried by Japanese vessels, which in turn bring back the steel processed by the use of that coal, some of that steel with four wheels and a steering wheel attached. This is our coal, and much of that is our steel from the British Columbia islands. It is all carried in foreign bottoms. We would certainly be able to carry the goods in Canadian bottoms if the matter of guaranteeing a bank loan for the construction of Canadian vessels were looked at carefully. I find that particular table very deceiving.
The table on page 44, also in the English version, mentions the route description and the export/import commodity. It brings us right back to the coal I mentioned which was being carried from Roberts Bank to Japan. Coal is carried to Japan and the ships come back empty. We import a great deal from Japan. Why do we not carry the coal in Canadian bottoms and bring back the cars and the televisions, if that is what we are
Merchant Marine
importing from Japan? That table on page 44 is a disgrace, and should not be included in a study of this sort.
The hon. member may be content with what this government has done to ensure as much as possible and at reasonable cost, the carriage of Arctic resources. His minister has sold him a bag of garbage. It is not a guarantee that all our imports and exports into the Arctic will be carried on Canadian vessels. That report is a great deception and letdown after the Darling report, which has been urging the creation of a merchant marine. There are other reports, such as the Audette report, and the situation goes back longer than either of us can probably remember.
I understand that we have guarantees from some of the labour unions for "X" number of years that there be a no-strike clause in' the contract, because that is one of the things which destroyed our merchant marine after the war.
I know there are other members who will want to speak on this subject. Once again I would like to thank the hon. member for Rimouski for bringing this matter forward. This government does not have the time to create a policy on this matter, but there is one being developed. I can assure hon. members of that, but they will have to wait for the results of the election to see it.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the previous speakers to thank the member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) who was the mover of the motion today. I think it is an excellent opportunity to do so, since Canadian policy on maritime transport was made public last week. I also take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to welcome him back after his illness and assure him we are ready to cross swords in a friendly way as usual.
As for his comments, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Levis (Mr. Guay) has pointed out, I think he should have paid more attention to the report recommendations with respect to a Canadian policy on maritime transport, because it is far from advocating the status quo and I believe, for example, that restricting the shipping of resources from or to Northern Canada to Canadian ships is a major step in the right direction.
The hon. member for Levis, as usual when the subject especially concerns him, made an impassioned speech, and I would like to say on behalf of all my colleagues, that he has shown great perseverance in his long and useful career as a member of parliament in bringing up a subject which concerns of course the interests of his constituency, but which also is of great importance for the economic future and direction of the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) talked garbage in his speech. I shall mention only the venom which we are used to seeing him pour forth periodically in this House. We had rather a good example of this last

January 29, 1979
Merchant Marine
Friday in his speech about the bill on referendum, and this only added to the outpouring of venom contained in his few comments today.
Before speaking specifically about the direction of our policy concerning the merchant fleet, I would like to rectify a figure mentioned by my colleague from Rimouski, who said that there were only three oceanic ships sailing under the Canadian flag. I would like to tell him the good news and announce that there has been a fourth ship sailing under the Canadian flag since early January, and I would like to quote in regard to an article in the newspaper Le Devoir of January 5 and written by Mr. Guy Deshaies, which says the following:
An important even though modest step in the development of a Canadian merchant fleet will be made this weekend when the ship Maurice Desgagnes, sailing under the Canadian flag, leaves the port of Chicoutimi loaded with wood pulp and explosives for the Netherlands and Germany.
The ship will come back from its first international trip with a full load of German import products.
Mr. Speaker, this is a new company called Desgagnes Maritime Limitee and I am very happy to mention this fact because this company is established in my constituency and has been active in shipbuilding since the beginning of this century. Moreover, the chairman of the Desgagnes group, Mr. Yvan Desgagnes, has always been an active supporter of the merchant fleet. We must depend on the entrepreneurship of Canadian entrepreneurs, on the quality of our labour as mentioned by the hon. member for Rimouski, as we realize that even a private company in a less privileged area of Canada succeeded in carrying the Canadian ensign on international seas and, I am very proud of it as it is a company from my riding.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have the time to undertake an exhaustive analysis of the report published last week as I have only three minutes left, but I wish to say very briefly that in view of the adverse situation of the shipping industry, considering that there are too many vessels used for international transportation and that many companies do not succeed in obtaining contracts anymore and that, in the last three years, international shipping companies have seen their profits decrease, in view of the adverse situation of the shipping industry and the fact that it would be difficult to prove that a Canadian merchant fleet would be the ideal answer to our problems, to our balance of payments or our present commercial problems, the new financial or fiscal measures to encourage oceanic transportation by ships flying the Canadian Hag are not justified economically. Investments in oceanic transportation do not represent an optimum use of our national resources. This is an important factor as the government tries to encourage economic development through a minimum of interference.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and I think it might interest all hon. members, even the member for Esquimalt-Saanich who left this House. I am not sure if it will be during the present session but I hope that the report will be referred for study during the present session to the committee of transport and communication.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.


Charles Lapointe: To answer this question very briefly, Mr. Speaker, 1 would say that this report announces legislation which will allow the government to obtain more information on international companies doing business in Canadian ports. As soon as that legislation is introduced and adopted after second reading in the House, the report and the legislation will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will have to skip many pages of my excellent speech in which I could have presented very sound arguments to the hon. member for Rimouski. I will say that the government's conclusion, in the present international situation, does not justify the investment of Canadian funds in the development of a Canadian merchant marine. On the other hand, the government is prepared to protect a sector which after a few years should become the most important of the country, from an economic point of view, namely, northern Canada and as much as possible reserve that sector to Canadian ships.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 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-
[Stage Direction]
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.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock, when the House adjourned for supper, I was saying that in the Conservative policy-if it is really a policy-relating to the bill, to what the government is saying on the constitutional issue, on the national unity issue, the objective is not to put forward a viable alternative, to tell Canadians exactly what they want to do, but simply to attack what the government proposes, pretending as the Leader of the Opposition himself stated this afternoon, that the Liberal party is only trying to get some electoral capital. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they are playing politics with national unity, not the Liberal party, and I for one will not try to find an excuse because my leader has a viable position concerning the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, here I will be critical of my own colleagues and many Liberals across the country who should stop apologizing because our leader, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is an efficient critic-as he has always been-of political nationalism in Quebec. Time has come to stop apologizing for that. 1 do not feel ashamed because the leader of the Liberal party can say across Canada: here is the policy of the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative party should realize that by limiting themselves to criticizing our position on this issue without even putting forward a viable alternative, they show their weakness, their inability to arrive at positions. Mr. Speaker, there are ramifications to constant frustration of constitutional reform and constant downgrading of its importance. Before the five o'clock recess, I was suggesting I find it very hard to control my temper when I hear people state in or outside the House that the issue of national unity, the issue of the constitution is not that important and there are other matters more important to discuss.
Mr. Speaker, I also dealt with perceptions of injustice in Canadian history. There are not only, however, perceptions of past injustice, there are real injustices perpetrated now today on language matters, on racial matters in Canada. If anybody is amazed or questions this, let them come to my province where I could point to examples. I would quite simply suggest that perhaps the Progressive Conservatives are naive-because I am not in any way intimating they are being devious-they probably are naive if they think they can maintain a united and strong Canada while frustrating endlessly the constitutional reform process.
With regard to the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition over the past few months about sovereignty-association, there is an article in La Presse of October 28, 1978, in which he is reported by Mr. Louis Falardeau as having said something he has never denied, in spite of everything he is trying to say now:
Referenda
I shall have a mandate to negotiate with the provinces, and if a province has a specific mandate, I shall have to negotiate and deal with it.
Then many people have taken to task the new and unfortunate member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), a former mayor of the city of Toronto, who has not yet adjusted to federal politics. I do not blame him for his blunder, because he was doing exactly like his leader. I suggest that his leader did not mean any harm when he said that, because he did not realize what he was saying. I merely say that he is irresponsible and naive and proves his inadequacy as a national leader. That is what I am saying of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been against any action leading to political isolation. I have always objected to those who wanted to isolate people because of their language or their culture. However, I can understand as a Francophone how easy it was for political parties such as the separatist party in Quebec to inject nationalism in politics. It is quite easy to understand when one looks for five minutes at Canadian history. If anyone can deny that there never have been and there still do not exist in this country attitudes that are not as favourable to the French fact as they could have been, it is because he is not being honest. Surely one can hide this fact and pretend it does not exist. But it does exist, Mr. Speaker. That is why I think national parties such as the Progressive Conservative party should make its position clearly known on this particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to constitutional reform, it is getting late for Quebeckers as well as for Francophones outside Quebec, because they feel that some things ought to be changed in our country. And I explained earlier that the Progressive Conservative party always says when this matter is discussed: Look who has been in power for 10, 12 or 15 years, you have. And they seem to blame us for it. I told them that it was impossible to mean-


Walter David Baker: Who else?


Herb Breau: Some Conservative members are helping me make my point. What they do not realize is that one cannot redress the political institutions of this country nor can one redress the political order of this country without creating tension. If hon. members think they can do that, they are fooling themselves. One cannot do that unless tensions are created.

The fact that tensions have been created in this country for the last ten or 12 years does not worry me at all. There were tensions in my own provinces also, and that does not worry me too much either. There were some reactions against the promotion of Acadians. Looking at New Brunswick politics, it is obvious that there were some reactions like those. We should not worry about that. Such things are normal. If we are
2672

January 29, 1979
Referenda
seeking, a healthy society, we should not hesitate to tell each other truth. What happened in Canada for the last ten years is that we have begun to tell each other the truth. When truth is told, it is normal that some people try to use the truth to break the country. It is true that we have seen tensions, and it is true that we will know some more. Why? Because Canadians have started to face the truth and recognize it. These are the steps that we have to go through if we want to be able to take real decisions on those matters.
Unfortunately, the Progressive Conservative party is making an electoral issue out of that bill, out of the constitutional question. They are the ones who make an electoral issue of that question. The recent remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for Rosedale, although they both tried to clarify them, have shown that they are unable to understand the situation in Quebec and in Canada, that they are unable to really lead this country as a responsible party.

Earlier in my speech I mentioned that I had suggested a couple of days after the November 15, 1976, election that the federal government had a duty to make sure that the people of Quebec could respond to their federal government as well as to their provincial government. Why? Because now that the PQ have the means of communication in Quebec and the means of development, the government can create a context into which it could convince Quebeckers that the federal system is against their interests. That is exactly what I thought at the time and that is exactly what has happened. If hon. members want an example of what I meant at the time-and it is still an issue today-they could take a look at the issue of transmission of electricity from Newfoundland to Canadian markets and U.S. markets. We know that there was a deal made for Churchill Falls, and while I do not necessarily agree totally with the position of Quebec, I can agree that on that one, a deal is a deal and a contract is a contract. It is difficult to deny that.
But what about the development of the Lower Churchill- Gull Island?
That power will have to be transmitted through Quebec on Quebec land. Do hon. members not realize that it is possible in that kind of a context to make that an issue in Quebec and convince Quebeckers that it is against their direct interests to be part of a federal system? They can, and if hon. members do not know that, they do not know what is happening in Quebec. That is exactly the kind of issue around which the PQ could create a referendum campaign. In this instance, Quebeckers, if they want to be good Canadians will probably give Newfoundland a break and give Newfoundland what it is due so it can sell its resources in Canada and in the United States. That is an issue around which the Quebec government can very skillfully convince Quebeckers that a federal system is against their direct interest. It may not be against their indirect interests as citizens of Canada but it can be against their interests strictly as Quebeckers. That is why the federal government has a duty and a responsibility to make sure that on the question of the future of Quebec the federal government

must ask that question of Quebeckers as much as their provincial government will.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude on that point. Some people say that it is up to the Quebec people to decide their own fate. I heard a member make that comment this afternoon, I do not argue against that, naturally, because it will be mostly up to Quebeckers to decide.
But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I am a Francophone, and like other Canadians also, I have a right to speak to Quebeckers before they make up their minds because a part of Quebec belongs to me, my own history is rooted in Quebec and I have always felt that the fact that Quebec was the stronghold of the Francophone community in North America, in Canada, has inspired me personally and politically.
Mr. Speaker, French speakers outside Quebec have something to say on this matter; I am not suggesting that we tell Quebeckers that they are not able to make their own decision, but rather that I have the right to speak to them before they give their final word. In that sense, the bill that we are debating today is important because of the authority it would give the federal government, and parliament-in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition was saying this afternoon, to mislead the people-to decide when and how a referendum would be held, first on the future of Quebec, if necessary, but also on constitutional reform. I categorically oppose the Leader of the Opposition's attitude and position when he says that if two or three provinces want to boycott the progress of constitutional reform in Canada parliament should accept that. Parliament has something to say in this regard, and this is an important bill, Mr. Speaker, which concerns not only a referendum on the future of Quebec but also possible referenda on consitutional reform. We must not let those who want to destroy Canada impede the reform of Canadian political institutions, because those people want to use the diversity of Canada, which should be our strength, to destroy the country. That is what they want to do.
Mr. Speaker, we have the responsibility as a federal government, as a federal parliament, because in this parliament there are people from all over the country who spend days, weekends, weeks or election campaigns to go and persuade Canadians in all parts of the country to elect them to sit in this parliament, and I do not accept at all the idea that only the provincial governments can speak on behalf of the Canadian people.
Each hon. member is elected here to speak on behalf of Canadians, and if at a certain time partisan provincial politicians are only thinking about the future of their own province and if, on the other hand, we see, as it is the case in Quebec today, a government which wants to isolate Quebeckers around their language and their culture, which is bad for the future of Canada, it is our responsibility to have a mechanism enabling us to go and ask the people of Quebec what they
January 29, 1979

want, to ensure that the context in which that question is asked will favour those who want to fight for the unity of Canada, not only in a context which will favour those who want to dismantle the country. That is the danger. And the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) talks about respecting Canada's diversity. He says the government's attitude on the constitutional reform, on the subject matter of this bill, is dangerous because it does not respect Canada's diversity. I asked him this afternoon: Diversity at what price? Diversity until when? Diversity to what extent?
There is a danger of too strong a decentralization and of too strong a concern over this diversity, when one relies only on provincial governments to express this diversity, it is dangerous, it is naive, it is irresponsible. Each and every member of parliament represents the diversity of Canadians, wherever he may sit in the House. Where are these people elected? Where do they exercize their political ability? In any part of the country. We express here the diversity of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, for Quebec's future as well as for constitutional reform, we need a tool which will enable us to go to Canadians and ask them: What do you want? Do you want what your provincial government proposes? If, as I was saying a moment ago, a provincial government wants to hinder the constitutional reform, for their own reasons, should we, as the federal parliament, accept this? I say no, Mr. Speaker, and I would like those who pretend to be speaking in favour of a strong and united country to say the same.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate on Bill C-9, an act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada. The most important words in that title are "relating to the Constitution of Canada." The title of the bill must be read in conjunction with what is being put forward, as stated so eloquently by our national leader this afternoon.
I have just finished listening to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). I noticed that in most of his speech he was very critical. His aim in presenting his argument on unity and on this bill was to hurl reproaches and recriminations at the Conservative party rather than getting down to what is in the bill and under study this evening. It will not be my purpose in speaking tonight to hurl reproaches and recriminations at the Liberals, only to allude to one.
Since 1963 under Pearson that party was the government. Since 1968 under Trudeau they have been in the government. Prior to that time the question of unity was not in the form of confrontation and disunity that we have today. Regardless of what they say, they must bear some responsibility for the status of this issue in Canada at the present time.
At the outset I would like to read the most important part of the bill, and this was dealt with by our leader this afternoon
Referenda
when dealing with the title of the bill, the Constitution of Canada and how far it goes. I quote from clause 2:
"Constitution of Canada" includes, without limiting the meaning of that expression,
(a) the customs, conventions and enactments that comprise the Constitution of Canada,-
Our leader mentioned the various customs and precedents of parliament. The traditions and customs that crystallize the democratic process we have in this country should be one of the terms and matters placed before the people of Canada.
The word "enactments" in the bill means any bill that has been enacted by this parliament, whether it be the Bill of Rights or any other bill.
The point that bears emphasis, and I draw the attention of the chamber to this, is the political and judicial institutions and processes of Canada. The political institutions are the institutions of this parliament. The judicial institutions are all the other parts of our democratic system. That means this bill is really a general referendum bill. That is the complaint our party is placing on record in this debate. We are not against a referendum in any shape or form if the matter placed before the Canadian people is a special act or a special matter rather than on general matters. Therein lies the difference in the position between our leader and our party and the arguments from the other side.
One of the first things we must do is look at the word constitution as defined in the bill. What are we really talking about? I would like to put a couple of definitions on record before getting to the meat of what I intend to say about this bill. What does the word constitution mean? I would like to read from a book by J. D. Whyte and W. R. Lederman, "Canadian Constitutional Law". I quote:
The word constitution... means the document in which are set out the rules governing the composition, powers and methods of operation of the main institutions of government, and the general principles applicable to their relations to the citizens.
That is a very good, succinct, and brief definition of what the word constitution means. There are other definitions. There is the definition of Salmond in "Jurisprudence", and 1 quote:
Constitutional law is, as its name implies, the body of those legal rules which determine the constitution of the state.
That means the physical make-up of this country, which is exactly what our constitution is all about.
There is another definition by Dicey, which I will put on record at the same time:
Constitutional law ... appears to include all rules which directly or indirectly affect the distribution or the exercise of the sovereign power in the state.
I wish to deal with three aspects. First, I will deal with the make-up of our country. I will then give some historical background. I heard some this afternoon from the hon. member for Gloucester and from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (Mr. Collenette). What really is the make-up of this country? As I have said on many occasions in this chamber, we are not made up of provinces totally,
80047-28/2

January 29, 1979
Referenda
although there are ten provinces in our present system. We are made up of regions.
We are all part of all that we are. Each is needed by the other, and nothing is good alone. The prairie provinces have certain ideas about this country. The Pacific province of British Columbia has certain ideas. Ontario has certain fundamental ideas about it. I have listened to many speeches in this House, not only in this debate but in others. Quebec certainly has some definite ideas about the make-up of Canada, and so it should. The Atlantic provinces naturally have certain ideas.
I listened to the reproaches and recriminations hurled across the aisle this afternoon. I will not engage in that. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) made a very learned, reasonable and, I might say, low key speech on this issue. We live in a healthy climate. Canadians from region to region present their arguments and positions. We are all part of the environment.
I listened today to the hon. member for York East. He talked about being born in the United Kingdom. Well, many of us have roots there. But there is a difference he does not seem to appreciate and 1 should like to put it on record. It is plain, it is easy. Most of us understand it, but sometimes one has to argue from a known premise when one is developing an idea. It is that we are operating under a federal system. How did that system come about? We did not unite as a country, that is, the provinces of Canada, Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, just because we all loved one another-though no doubt, we respected one another's rights. We came about as a nation because of the growth of North America. At that time there was springing up to the south a very strong nation, one of the strongest in the western world, the United States-and thank goodness it is strong. So we were able to compromise.
As I read history, John A. Macdonald felt at the beginning that we should establish a legislative union. What is a legislative union? A legislative union is one where all powers are centralized in one government and then delegated to the various provinces and municipalities. A federal union is a central government with delegated authority under the distribution of powers, other powers being delegated to the provinces so that each area will have its say. Therein lies the difference between legislative and federal union. And when Macdonald and Cartier, an English-speaking Canadian on one hand and a French-speaking Canadian on the other, recognized that the four areas I have mentioned should come together as a nation, they came together under a compromise arrangement because each was able to make concessions; we were able to bring this country together by uniting the four provinces I have mentioned, and later the other regions came in, one after another.
If we were able to accomplish this without a referendum, do we need the kind of referendum which the government is proposing? I am not against a referendum, but do we need the kind of general referendum which would allow us as a parlia-

ment to make a decision? I want to ask this further question: do we, as a parliament, really make the decision? I say it is the cabinet which draws up the questions. Ministers draft the questions and bring them before parliament, knowing full well at this time that they command a majority and that they may have some help from the New Democratic Party which, as I understand it, is split this afternoon. So it is the government which will set the questions, and that is what I call a general referendum and that is what I am complaining about in connection with the bill before us.
We want the people to have their say. We believe in conferences, we believe in consultation. The government has held many conferences with the provinces in connection with confederation. Those who took part were not able to agree, but they agreed on some things, and arrangements are presently in hand for the holding of a further conference in February. Now we are to have a general referendum. Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada certainly want to have their say, if they are asked specific questions and if those questions could be brought before parliament by way of a special act in which they would be set up. Some people in this country believe there should be a referendum on the issue of capital punishment-yes or no. 1 see an hon. member over there shake his head. Maybe he would not want that kind of referendum to be held.
I say that if there is to be a special referendum asking, say, a question concerning the distribution of powers as between the federal and provincial governments, let the question be placed specifically before parliament by way of a special act. This was done at the time of prohibition, and the same was done on the conscription issue. Canadians would then know where they stood. But to give the government the power to hold a general referendum whereby they themselves draft the questions is unacceptable. I am reminded of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you say yes, you are wrong. If you say no, you are wrong. And then members opposite say, "Of course, parliament is going to decide."
Well, Mr. Speaker, parliament is going to decide, because we are allowed 40 hours of debate in parliament, and they were not even content with putting the guillotine rule of 40 hours into force. They even told the Senate they had to shape up in 40 hours, too. And then you know what it means, Mr. Speaker. They say parliament decides. Ladies and gentlemen, it is all decided nicely in the back rooms, to use an expression which one hon. member used this afternoon-somebody accused the Conservatives of back room tactics; well, if they did use some back room tactics they had some great teachers over there. So what is going to happen? The government is going to draft the questions. It is going to make a political ploy, and that is not what we are prepared to accept in this bill at this stage. That is why we intend to vote against it.
To get back to the question of a federal union, the issue can again be put in simple terms. All those matters that are common to Canadians in the ten provinces from coast to coast are matters for the central government, and all those that are local are matters for the provincial governments. Of course there is always some overlapping. It would take me a couple of
January 29, 1979

hours in which to read even a summary of the cases on the Constitution of Canada which have been decided in the last 30 years. They have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, and some of the eariier ones have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When I see before me wording such as I have read to the Elouse with reference to the Constitution of Canada-and meaning the constitution as defined by this bill, not by the definition 1 have read in Dicey or Jennings-I, as a Canadian, become very concerned and I think every Canadian who listens to the speech I am making now will be most concerned, wherever he or she may live.
As I have mentioned, only two referenda have been held. There was one on prohibition in 1928, and Quebec voted against the idea. 1 might say that had I taken part I would have voted against it too. I say this because prohibition did more to undermine the morals of this country than anything else has done.


An hon. Member:: Drink Canada dry!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One of my friends tried that and he died at the age of 45. He was the mayor of Calgary.
The next was held under the Dominion Plebiscite Act of 1942. Approximately 2,945,000 Canadians said yes to conscription and 1,643,000 said no. Again, Quebec took a position different from that taken by the rest of Canada-I am making nothing of that except to emphasize, and in this I agree with our chief spokesman on the subject before us, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, that this was divisive. Prohibition was divisive, and I would point out that these were particular subjects, not general subjects such as are involved in the present case. What we are trying to do now, as I understand it, is to develop a theory and a policy which will bring the country together, not divide it. Although the conscription issue was raised 30 or more years ago, it is still one which leaves deep scars in the memory of people in the province of Quebec.
Why is this divisive? It would pit region against region. What do 1 mean by that? Geoffrey Stevens was quite complimentary to our party in this regard. 1 am reading from the Globe and Mail:
The Government says its intention is to restrict referendums to constitutional propositions, but the words "political and judicial institutions and processes" lead Conservative Critic Flora MacDonald to argue that the bill would allow referendums, for example, on abolishing preliminary hearings or liquidating the Parliamentary Press Gallery-
As our national leader said.
Nor is there anything to prevent the federal Government from ordering referendums on constitutional matters which are wholly within provincial responsibility-to take extreme examples, the transfer of Alberta oil or Ontario schools to federal jurisdiction.
My New Democratic friends behind me are heckling me, but I do not mind. I know that they are split. They should have a talk with Mr. Blakeney, the premier of Saskatchewan, because I agree with Mr. Blakeney. He believes the resources of Saskatchewan belong to Saskatchewan, and we in Alberta believe that the resources of Alberta belong to Alberta. I am
Referenda
sure my friends from Quebec and Ontario and other parts of Canada believe that the resources of Quebec belong to Quebec and the resources of Ontario belong to Ontario. So I say that this legislation would pit region against region.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Are you speaking for the provincial governments?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to listen to the hon. member, but 1 hope he will just quiet down and give me a chance to make my speech. After I sit down 1 will listen quietly to him. There is one thing I have noticed about the hon. member, and that is his ability to make a lot of noise without making a lot of sense.
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.


Prosper Boulanger: Come on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1 see that the Liberal whip is worried about his members. This bill would pit political cunning against common sense and judgment.


Otto Emil Lang: Don't you trust the people?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I trust the people, but the people do not trust this Liberal government.
This bill would pit family against family and friend against friend.


Otto Emil Lang: And people against people.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister is right. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) comes from my province and was dean of the law school I attended. I do not know whether I was lucky or not; I graduated before his time. He knows as well as 1 do that when we deal with sensitive issues relating to people, religion, regions, race or culture, there is a virus of dislike, hatred and bigotry which always hovers in the dark. Perhaps it is not great, but it is there in every nation, and it is here in our nation. Let us not hide the fact that all that is needed is a spark to ignite a flame, and this general referendum legislation may be the spark which will ignite the flame of bigotry and hatred. As a Canadian I do not want to see that.


Prosper Boulanger: Try to be nice for a change.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know what to say to the Liberal whip.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not the whip.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If he is not the whip, he is the acting whip.
It seems that hon. members opposite do not like to hear the truth. This kind of referendum legislation in such a general and broad sense would undermine the whole principle of responsible government. I repeat that we in my party are not against a specific referendum on a specific subject, but we are dealing with constitutional law. My friend says we should be

January 29, 1979
Referenda
nice. I remind him that there are thousands of cases reported in the book I have in my hand. In the book there are decisions on phrases and words with regard to provincial and federal jurisdiction. The constitution is interpreted in this book.
We are dealing with a very serious matter. Let us suppose we put out a ballot as big as this book by Lederman and Whyte. The Minister of Transport should know Mr. Lederman. Mr. Lederman was a Rhodes Scholar from our university. He became the dean of the law school at Queen's University. If we put such a ballot before the people, they would be up day and night.
I feel that this legislation is a political ploy. Hon. members opposite keep asking us about our policy. I have told them where we stand on this subject. Hon. members opposite say we do not have all the answers. I will be honest and fair, which we must be on this subject. I have not met one Canadian in the academic field, or even in that great Liberal party, who has all the answers to the question of national unity. However, we over here have some answers, and we are prepared to give them to the House. We are prepared to stand on principle with regard to national unity policies. The fires of disunity are being rekindled all around us by none other than the Trudeau government and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself. The Prime Minister is a great actor; I cannot take that from him but, like a fireman, he is attempting to put out bonfires for political expediency in an effort to be re-elected at this time when he is in trouble. He is in trouble because, as hon. members opposite know, economically speaking this country has never been in the shape it is now, even during the depression.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: An hon. member says "rubbish". Let him stand in his place and tell us when the dollar was-


Otto Emil Lang: And tell us when Canadians were better off.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: C. D. Howe said that.


Otto Emil Lang: It was John Diefenbaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now the Minister of Transport tells us that Canadians are well off. The minister should tell that to our one million unemployed. Political expediency is what this government is all about.
Any number of questions could be put in a referendum. A referendum could decide whether the great bread basket of the prairies should be turned over to Canada. A referendum could decide what should take place in the maritimes. Let us face reality; the power in Canada is located in central Canada because that is where the majority of our population is located.
I believe Ontario members will now make up 98 seats in this House. Western Canada will return the same number as Quebec, but Ontario will return 98. There could be a question as to whether the Atlantic provinces should unite into one province. Perhaps the people of Ontario would say that is a good idea. Perhaps the people of the prairies might agree.

The province of Prince Edward Island is a great province. It was one of the first to join confederation after the initial four provinces, but Prince Edward Island has less population than three of the constituencies separate and apart in the city of Calgary or in Toronto. In a general referendum this question could be put to the people. Such a move might be a tax saver. By nature man takes care of himself at the right time, and people would vote accordingly. This bill would descriminate against small population regions. People in those regions would be the ones to suffer as a result of any general referendum legislation of this kind.
I would like to deal for a few moments with a few clauses of the bill. I have referred to political and judicial institutions an processes of Canada being in the form of the Constitution of Canada. Does that mean we will have a referendum to change all the courts? The administration of justice is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and criminal law falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Will there be a general referendum to say that all courts must be federal courts? The government talks about centralization, so that question could be put. I do not know what Canadians would do about it. I would think they would vote against it, but that question could be put easily.
That resolution or motion coming in for debate for 40 hours, with the guillotine falling, was drawn up by the Liberal federal cabinet. It will be a Liberal question put to the electorate to help the government elect itself, if the referendum were held at the same time as the next federal election. That is what this political ploy is all about.
Referring to Bill C-9, clause 3(1) reads as follows:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that any question relating to the Constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a proposed or possible change in the Constitution of Canada is of sufficient importance to warrant obtaining the opinion of electors on that question, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained-
Who has that power? Not my party, not the New Democratic Party, not the Social Credit party, but the party in power right now which has gone by its mandate because it is too frightened to call an election. That is the party which will draft those questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then, how does the procedure work? I know hon. members opposite do not like what I am saying, particularly those who have not read the bill. It is unnerving to find out how horrible something is which they have not yet read. The bill continues:
(5) No proclamation may be issued under subsection (1)
(a)	during any period that the House of Commons stands dissolved-
Thank goodness for some small mercy. It continues:
(b)	later than 45 days after the text of the order in council authorizing the
issuance of the proclamation has been approved by a resolution of both Houses
of parliament.


Mr. Reid:: Oh, oh!
January 29, 1979


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the new minister saying, "Oh, oh." He was not here for the original debate. He knows, as well as I, the process of government. He is not a child. He knows the Liberal party has the majority. The Liberals draft the motion, bring it to parliament, in 40 hours it becomes law, and in 40 hours it becomes law through the Senate. That is what we are debating tonight, and that is what we are against. We are against the breadth and width of the bill and the political ploy of the Liberal party in reference to this legislation.
The bill continues:
4. An order in council authorizing the issuance of a proclamation under subsection 3(1) shall not be made until a motion setting forth the text of the order in council-
Then clause 5(1) reads as follows:
-praying that the text of the order in council set forth in the motion be approved, shall be debated for not more than 40 hours-
When there is a time limit on debate, no matter what the issue, it would not matter what we on this side of the House said or what Canadians might say to the government. In 40 hours the guillotine falls. The question is put, and the Liberals stand together, men and women together, and they say that Canadians have been able to speak through a referendum which they put to Canadians in the question they wanted, in the language they wanted, and with the inference they wanted to draw therefrom. It is the same operation in the Senate, and on it goes. That is the reason we are against this bill in its present form.


An hon. Member:: What is your suggestion?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have told the House what our suggestion is. Sometimes it is similar to dealing with a mule. In order to get something through its head, you must get its attention. As I said, we believe a specific question, whether it is a matter dealing with the constitution or something other than the constitution, should be put to Canadians. It should be a specific question, not a general composition on the constitution about which even the great experts do not agree.
I should like to refer again to the remarks of Geoffrey Stevens in this regard. He said the following:
-Why should referenda be restricted to provinces which have rejected a federal constitutional amendment? Why, in the interest of consistency, should not people whose provincial governments have accepted a federal proposal have the same opportunity to overrule their elected representatives? Or is the object simply to give Ottawa a second chance?
He continued:
Similarly, the government, with all the fervor of a new convert, is preaching what a good thing it is to consult the people.
That will be something new. He continued:
Okay. But if consultation is such a good thing, why not make the verdict binding?
Let me pause there. After all the expense of a referendum and playing with the people like dollies, asking them for their opinions, then what happens? It is similar to Mackenzie King with conscription. He said, "Conscription when necessary but not necessarily conscription". Do hon. members remember
Referenda
that? That is exactly what he said, after spending several millions of taxpayers' dollars.


Mr. MacFarlane:: He was right, and that is important.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I suppose the argument of the Minister of Transport would be this: referendum when politically expedient, but not necessarily accept the message of the people if it is found to be politically inexpedient. I imagine that would be the minister's position.
Mr. Stevens continued:
Why not allow the people, by petition, to force a referendum?
The government rejects spending limits on political parties, on the ground that they would produce infringements of freedom of expression and association. Why, then, are spending limits imposed on candidates and parties in federal elections?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) has expressed some interesting thoughts. I should like to take a look at some of the comments he made when he presented the bill. As reported in Hansard, he said the following:
This bill is being introduced by the government at a critical time in Canada's history.
I could not agree with the minister more.
He continued:
I am sure all hon. members recognize its potential importance. The bill provides the framework which would permit parliament to approve that referenda be held on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, where that includes all the conventions and enactments of the constitution as well as the political and judicial processes of Canada.
That covers the entire field. Then he said:
I want to deal with three themes in my remarks today: first, the need for the bill,-
Do we need the bill in this form prior to the constitutional conference which is coming up? Do we need this bill at a very sensitive and tender time in the life of our nation? Do we need it at a time when the task force has spoken out? Those are the questions I should like answered.
He continued:
-second, its implications for parliamentary democracy and for federal-provincial relations-
How many times have we risen in our places because the federal government became involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction? How many times has the federal government thrust a program on the provinces, leaving them with the money burden of paying for it?


An hon. Member:: After they got the votes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.
The minister continued as follows:
-and third, the principles underlying it as the framework for a democratic procedure.
We would agree to that if it were a special act of parliament dealing with a specific subject, and not in great general terms.

January 29, 1979
Referenda
Later on the minister said the following:
Given these enormous changes, we must have the greatest respect for the Fathers of Confederation who drafted our constitution.
As I said, and I remind this government, we did not have a referendum when we came into this Confederation.
The quotation from page 2034 of Hansard continues as follows:
It has served us well and provided the framework for extraordinary accomplishments. But it is necessary that Canadians look carefully at this constitutional legislation to ask whether, after a century, the time has not come to renew our most basic law.
I suggest he has overlooked something. In 1867 the BNA Act came forward, but what happened after that? The growth of our country did not stop there. We then had the Manitoba Act which formed part of Manitoba, and later it became a larger area. Then we had Prince Edward Island coming into Confederation, and then we had the Saskatchewan and Alberta Act of 1905 when they came in. Prior to that time British Columbia came in. Then last, but not least, we had Newfoundland coming in. Newfoundland was mentioned in the original act, but it was the last to come into Confederation. All this has happened in the last 100 years.
There is one thing I have not heard from members of the Liberal party, and I do not think I have heard it in any of the complaints or questions about unity and Confederation. Has anyone ever really pinpointed what is really so bad about the constitution, except for small references to the distribution of powers and financial arrangements? I would tell the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, and I see him smiling, that all of us know that the words used back in 1867 are much like a growing tree; they change with social and economic conditions.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thought the hon. minister said something. I did not hear what the former dean said.


Otto Emil Lang: I said, I bet Sankey wished he had said that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is exactly what the judicial committee said in reference to one of the cases that came from Aberhart's government in Alberta. I do not know whether the minister read it. Maybe it was not in one of his lectures to his class, which somebody wrote for him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: You obviously were in law school before my day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and that is one thing I always say: Blessed are the lucky.


Otto Emil Lang: For they shall be Liberal in their hearts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then the minister went on to state:
But the federal government would be able to ask parliament to approve a referendum question if it was confident that a public vote on the question would clarify the desires of the population in regard to constitutional reform.

The government knows that is impossible, and the Minister of Justice has said it is impossible. Even if it were possible, this government would not follow what the people asked for in a referendum of this general nature. That is what I suggest in answer to that argument of the Minister of Justice.
Then the hon. member goes on to say:
Some Canadians, and I respect their views-
I do not know whether he respects the views of just some Canadians or just some Liberal Canadian views. In any event he stated:
Some Canadians, and I respect their views, are worried that a law which would enable parliament to approve referendum questions on constitutional matters may have serious implications for either our federal system or our parliamentary democracy. Are they right to be worried?
We have the right to be worried. We have a function here in the official opposition, and that is to point out the facts to the Canadian people about the kind of law upon which we are being asked to vote. I am confident this bill will go to the committee and we will have to make our changes there, if that is possible at the committee level. We all know how the committee system works. If a Liberal member does not get on with the Prime Minister, he is taken off the committee and we do not see him for a week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired. If he wishes to continue he will require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating that I regret that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) did not have the opportunity to continue. Perhaps it is time that someone intervened with a couple of points in response to what he has been saying. I should like to begin by trying to put to this House what I believe are some of the facts as they relate to this referendum bill. I do so having sat through the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) this afternoon, a speech which left me convinced that either the man does not understand what is going on in the province of Quebec or, if he does, he is not prepared to face it on a flat open basis, with statements or assertions with which he and we can stand during an election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: Easy now. I can stick it even much further. In the meantime, I am trying to do it gently enough so that you will understand something about the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Explain.
January 29, 1979


Roderick Blaker: I will be glad to explain if you will give me a minute. The hon. member for Calgary North referred to one of the members on this side as being somewhat like a mule because he could not get the point. Without using such rough language I want to try to make a point to the hon. member for Calgary North, with whom I might say I have often sat and had the pleasure and the honour of conversation on this subject matter. I am not going to repeat our private conversations, but I am going to say publicly what I then said to him privately.
The hon. member says the problem with this referendum legislation is that it does not provide for specific questions. I do not want to go all the way back to the Viscount Hall days and the Privy Council decisions in the 1800s to instruct the hon. member on a little history, because he only needs to go back to 1976 when Mr. Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois were voted into power. They were voted into power for a very simple reason. One very bright gentleman by the name of Claude Morin realized that if you distinguished the question of separation, putting that aside and promising the people in the province of Quebec that the order of the day was only good government and there would be a referendum put separately, with no separation simply by virtue of the election of the Parti Quebecois, the people would accept them. As a result we got a Parti Quebecois government. We have a party many of whose members declare that the position now taken, called sovereignty association, is not strong enough and that in fact, as Pierre Bourgault said recently, the current leaders of the Parti Quebecois will have to go and be replaced by somebody who is prepared to offer full sovereignty on the basis of a declaration with no referendum.
The hon. member for Calgary North must be aware of the game being played by the Parti Quebecois regarding the subject of the word "separatism". What does it mean? What does "independence" mean? What does "sovereignty association" mean? The hon. member says the answer to this referendum legislation is the posing of a specific question. He says the problem is that we are not asking a specific question. It is very easy to understand why that is so. We cannot get the Parti Quebecois to ask a specific question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: The proposition put forward by the Conservative party in this debate is that we are far better to trust the governments of all of the provinces including the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec. What can I say to those of you who do not live or reside in that province? We have heard the words "separatism", "independence", and "sovereignty association". We have seen them manoeuvred and manipulated week after week after week. Of course we are not sure that the Parti Quebecois is going to ask the question honestly. Since we do not know what they are going to ask or how they are going to ask it, we want a simple piece of legislation that gives us the manoeuvring room within which to ask the right question. That is not hard to understand.
Referenda
The hon. member for Calgary North, as did his leader this afternoon, said that this kind of general legislation is a direct threat to Canadians at large and that it is a direct threat to the provinces. The hon. member for Calgary North has said that this might mean the loss of the national resources in each of the provinces. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon said that minorities will be endangered or could be endangered by this legislation. Where has the Leader of the Opposition been? The minorities in Canada are endangered right now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Who has been in power for the past ten years, and what are you doing about it?


Roderick Blaker: I will answer the hon. member's question about being in power for the last ten years, in one minute.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer it then.


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member will be sorry when I do.
There are approximately one million Anglophones in the province of Quebec who are wondering just whether or not they will be remaining Canadians. While the member for Calgary North and his leader argue the power of provinces, we on this side make it very clear, "My civil rights and your civil rights as a Canadian ought to be applicable from one coast to another and never subjected to the whim and varying changes of party governments in one province or another."


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Roderick Blaker: No, he cannot ask a question. Have a seat.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When you talk about minorities, let's hear about all of them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't talk about the provinces. Talk about all of the minorities in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to remind the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) has the floor.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am terribly sorry, sir; he made me nervous.


Roderick Blaker: 1 imagine I do make the hon. gentleman nervous, and I will make him more nervous in a moment. Perhaps the hon. member does not understand because their members do not fit in any of the categories called minority.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You might as well sit down now.


Roderick Blaker: The proposition put by the Leader of the Opposition is that French-speaking people in the province of Ontario ought to rely on the government of Ontario for the enforcement of their civil rights and that English language

January 29, 1979
Referenda
Canadians in the province of Quebec ought to rely on the government of Quebec for enforcement of their civil rights. The proof of the matter is that the provinces will not guarantee those civil rights and, therefore, we would like a referendum that is wide enough to ensure that the meaning of being a Canadian and that one's civil rights will be guaranteed from one end of the land to the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition said that his party had a clear understanding of where they are going. I find that very interesting. He accused the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) of not understanding, and he practically said the latter could not follow the Conservative position. I want to plead guilty, because I do not follow it either, and I think that there are many other people on the floor of this House who cannot follow it. 1 know that the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), the former mayor of Toronto, cannot seem to follow their position. I know for sure that the Conservative candidate in my riding does not follow it, because no sooner did he hear the statements made about negotiating or not negotiating with the Parti Quebecois and about Claude Ryan "being a theologian, therefore it is better to deal with Rene Levesque," than he rushed into print to say, "some Conservatives don't share those opinions." I do not blame him, because if I were in his position I would be worried too.
The Leader of the Opposition said that it is regrettable that the newly elected member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston) did not explain just why it is that he believes a referendum will never become necessary. I cannot speak for the hon. member for Westmount, but I would like to state what, surely, is obvious. If our federal referendum is broadly enough based and well enough worded in terms of the opportunities to put in the words we need, then all the more reason for the Parti Quebecois to word its referendum so that the federal referendum will not have to be used. That is another reason why we need a wide-power referendum, because if we restrict ourselves, as the hon. member for Calgary North has suggested, to a single question now, the premier of the province of Quebec would fall over laughing and devise a question in order to get around our own question.
We do not want a referendum. Nobody who appreciates British parliamentary practice likes or wants a referendum, but we don't know what the best other response is to the fact that the country is beginning to divide amongst itself. We are not sure how the Quebec referendum will be handled, so we need a weapon in our arsenal to face this kind of separation challenge.
I will be very interested to hear the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). We may differ in our perceptions of how the bill ought to be worded, but surely, as two people faced with the same problem, we will not differ as to its seriousness.
An. hon. Member: He would have a different solution, I suspect.


Roderick Blaker: If I could hear one solution from the members opposite upon which they all agree, I would happily go to election the following day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: The Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite say that the danger of this kind of broadly worded legislation is that somehow or other the federal government will deke or mislead the people. If these members are truly afraid that legislation worded so widely could confuse or mislead the people, then why do they seem to have so much confidence that the same widely worded legislation in the province of Quebec will not deliberately confuse the people? We wind up with the Conservative party sometimes flipping to negotiating with the province of Quebec on separation, sovereignty or whatever, and sometimes flipping back.
I would like to tell the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who, I believe, had a question about where we are all going, that unless the Conservative party, which now has two seats in the province of Quebec, settles on a response to the threat of national unity, it will have no seats in the province of Quebec.


William Heward Grafftey: How many seats do you have in Alberta? Not one.


An hon. Member:: We have one.


Roderick Blaker: I would like to refer again to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the question of this referendum being used, in his words, "to blackmail the provinces." The provinces are legal jurisdictions and creations of the British North America Act. Surely it is not too difficult to understand that as legal and political jurisdictions they come after people. If we put a referendum to the people of Canada, are the member for Calgary North and the Leader of the Opposition afraid that somehow the results of that referendum will be so misleading and so confusing that they will do damage to these legal structures, the political institutions called provinces?
The hon. member for Calgary North has said that it may cost the people of Alberta their natural resources. He must have absolutely no faith in the people who put him in parliament if he thinks that they are so stupid that they will give up their natural resources in a referendum.
I would like to invite members of the Conservative party to take a position. I heard the leader of that party say this afternoon that the Pepin-Robarts report has a lot to be said for it and that this government has for years and years produced a situation which has caused the breakup of national unity. If this government, the Liberal Party of Canada, is the cause of so much difficulty in the province of Quebec and is the cause of national disunity, then how come there are going to be 72 Liberal seats out of 74 seats in the province of Quebec in the

January 29, 1979

next election? Every single Conservative knows that. How come the very same people, the French Canadians and the minority English Canadians in the province of Quebec, are massively voting for the Liberal party according to every poll that has been taken? We must have really pulled the wool over their eyes.
I said that I wanted to finish on the subject matter of the Conservative party position on the Pepin-Robarts commission. I want to go to the next election, and I want something very clear from the Conservative party. I want to be able to quote each and every member who is prepared to stand up and say that they agree with Pepin-Robarts and that the civil rights of Canadians ought to be governed by the provinces. I want to hear the Conservatives say that.
What I am saying, and as far as I know what every member of this government is saying, is that we think the purpose of a nation state is to serve the citizens. The best thing any nation state can do for any citizen is to make sure it is the servant of the citizen and not the master. The only way that can be ensured is by having civil rights enshrined in a constitution. We want civil rights in a nationwide constitution. 1 would be delighted to hear a Conservative member of parliament stand up and say he wants civil rights to come within the jurisdiction of the provinces. That is why we want a referendum, Mr. Speaker. If the ladies and gentlemen opposite say that referendum is too widespread, that is fine. May they look back, when the referendum is held, and say thank God that referendum was wide enough so that at least the federal government was able to run a referendum that was honest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, first I have to say that as a good Canadian I was very sad while listening to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker). I do not exaggerate and this goes beyond any political consideration.

The hon. member who just spoke said that he would happily fight an election on the question of national unity. Let me warn this House that if another election is fought on the question of national unity in a partisan way, it is my sober judgment that it will be a very hollow victory, because I am not sure we will have a country after that kind of election that is worth governing. The hon. member opposite would happily have-
[ Translation]
-yes, that is quite sad. We will be pleased to-

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to preserve the rights of all members in a serious debate like this. The hon. member opposite will have his chance to speak, although he rarely speaks in this House.
Referenda
[ Translation]
You will try to call an election on the historic issue of national unity, but let me remind you that the next election will be fought on the financial management of our country.

I am not fooling myself. Just take the pulse of the people and the next election is going to be waged on the fact-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: The only reason I am running is to get rid of the worst government the Canadian people have had since confederation. The other reason is we have such a great leader on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: I have seen hon. members opposite trying to orchestrate an election on the question of national unity. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the next election is going to be waged on the issue of the economic mismanagement of this country by hon. members opposite.
The hon. member who just spoke alluded to the fact that he wanted the referendum authority from the federal authority as an arsenal, so to speak, in the federal kit. Was this a Freudian slip? Is he looking into the future, as I am, vis-a-vis the possibility of a federal government saying it has its referendum in its arsenal to fight Mr. Levesque's referendum? If we continue in that style I am going to choose my words very carefully.


Mr. Pelletier:: Just negotiate.


William Heward Grafftey: I am not ready to talk about negotiating, but if we get into a situation-
[ Translation]
-where we have a federal referendum against a provincial referendum, can you imagine what the results would be of such a confrontation in our province?

I am going to deal with that later. I will debate this as I go on tonight, but I categorically say that by admitting that any referendum, be it federal or provincial, has the validity to bring this union to an end is to admit the negotiability of the union called Canada. That is the bottom line of this debate. I say it was a Freudian slip when the hon. member said he wanted the referendum authority for the federal authority.


Roderick Blaker: I meant-


William Heward Grafftey: I do not care what the hon. member meant, speaking from behind the curtain. It is what he said that is important. If we get into a situation as between the federal and provincial referenda on this question, at least in my province, I will tell the House later what I think the results are going to be.

January 29, 1979
Referenda

Mr. Speaker, 112 years ago, the Fathers of our Canadian Confederation met to unite those two Canadas and lay the foundation of confederation. One thing is sure: they were members of various political parties, and came from different areas of the country.

It goes without saying that the Fathers of Confederation 112 years ago, coming as they did from different political parties and different regions of the country, were obviously proud and were loyal to the various regions from which they came. In a spirit of bipartisan statesmanship and broad vision, however, they gave birth to this country that we today call Canada. I am sure that the one message the Fathers of Confederation would give to us in this House today would be that we should reincarnate that spirit, that bipartisan statesmanship and broad vision-we should bury the hatchet to a certain extent and get on with building a new Canada. We must bury the hatchet and speak together about one Canada.
We are not going to agree on all points, of course. I am as guilty of it as the next person, but quite often I do not like the atmosphere there is in this House. I think each and every one of us in this House is a good Canadian. No one is better than the other. No one indispensable man is going to save this union. No one party is indispensable. If, in a spirit of partisanship, we continue yelling across the floor to each other on this issue, and possibly having a referendum on it, only one person is going to be laughing on his way to the referendum, and that is Rene Levesque.
Maybe we have the fathers and mothers of the new confederation sitting in this House today, Mr. Speaker. 1 think we do. I have friends on both sides of this House who are capable of exhibiting the kind of statesmanship and determination that is going to set this country on new roads. The Fathers of Confederation would be the first to tell us-
[ Translation]
-to work together here in the House of Commons. In the broader sense of the word, a constitution is, let us say, a political document, in the best sense of the word. But it seems to me, in view of the challenge we now face as Canadian politicians, that we must work together, in the real sense of the word, towards a renewed federalism.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that it will be very difficult for me to discuss openly what will follow here in the House of Commons, but I start my speech with a deep sense of responsibility as the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi whose population is about 75 per cent Francophone and 25 per cent Anglophone, a riding where the two linguistic groups of our country live together, as in Sherbrooke, in a true spirit of national unity.


Mr. Bechard:: In Bonaventure too.


William Heward Grafftey: In Bonaventure also. Along the coast of the Gaspe Peninsula, in Bonaventure and several other places. That is proof.
The eastern townships, Bonaventure and other parts of the province, are not necessarily typical as opposed to those areas that are unilingual, be they unilingual French-speaking or English-speaking, but through our historical evolution, be it social, political, economic or constitutional, the people in my part of the world, as the hon. member opposite just said, like in many parts of Quebec, have learned to live together in a true, constructive, and positive spirit of national unity.
National unity in debates like this is quite difficult for me to talk about. It is something that for years people in my part of the country have felt deeply about and deeply believed in. It has dominated our political activities.

And I am proud, as is the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) to represent here, in this House of Commons, such a spirit of national unity. But that spirit demands, Mr. Speaker, the word is slightly more English, I know, that spirit demands leadership.

What we find in the eastern townships and in my riding is that when Canadians of the two different language groups get to know each other-it is not always easy because of the make-up of our country-it is living proof of what can be done in a true and constructive spirit of Canadians working together in national unity.
Let us have a good open debate about this. I am no better a Canadian than any member opposite, but if I differ in some details-and after all they are only details-my desire to preserve this union we call Canada is no less than theirs. We are not getting the kind of leadership we need if all we can do here today is draft a referendum, or draft legislation for a referendum, or from a federal viewpoint address ourselves to the proposition of a provincial referendum being held and asking Canadians a question which they do not want to be asked. Hon. members may feel 1 am presumptuous in saying that. I say this for the second time: Why ask the people of Canada a question, the answer to which we already know? Why ask the people a question they do not want us to ask them?

Mr. Speaker, when I took my oath of office here in Ottawa, as an elected member of the House of Commons I promised to
January 29, 1979

preserve national unity directly and indirectly. Together with hon. members from both sides of the House, I promised also to defend and define-or more appropriately under the present circumstances-redefine the federal entity.

When I was sworn in as a member of Parliament in Ottawa at the beginning of this parliament, I understood directly and indirectly that implicit in being sworn into this House was my promise to the Canadian people at large, and to my constituents in particular, that I was to defend and define-and as the circumstances are here right now, redefine-the federal cause. The people of my constituency never asked me to ask them the most stupid possible question: "Do you Heward, or do the people up in Ottawa want this union to continue?" Continue, my friends, with this legislation and I solemnly warn you in the most bipartisan spirit that you are heading right into a breach of trouble the like of which this country has never seen. [Translation]
When Churchill, President de Gaulle or Roosevelt were faced with real crises, did they rely on referenda? No! In the best and true meaning of the word, they demonstrated leadership, Mr. Speaker.

Governments are called on to lead. Governments are not asked to cop out of their responsibilities by holding a referendum, the results of which will be horrendous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: I say to hon. members opposite that we are ready to work with them. There is one clear message which the Canadian people from coast and from north to south are giving us, and that is that the time has come to renew and update a constitution suited to modern times.
Instead of passing this kind of legislation and instead of heading into the kind of trouble which I do not want to contemplate, especially in my particular part of the world- and I will choose my language later-I plead with hon. members opposite to forget this insanity, reach out across the floor of this House and include us in the debate on constitutional renewal. God only knows that much sooner than later and no matter who is in power after the next election, the whole idea of a plebiscite or a referendum could easily become an academic hypothesis. We are called on to lead.
What is the government asking for in this legislation? Is it asking for vague powers to hold a referendum? When I am asked to address myself to a debate, I want to know the ground rules. I want to know with some modicum of precision what I am asked to do. Is this bill about the desire of the government to change unilaterally our constitutional framework? I do not know. I suspect it is not. Most hon. members are honest and realistic enough to say what this bill is about. It is a specific reaction to what is going on in my province. I ask again what every member from this side of the House has asked since this debate was initiated, if that is the case, why not-
Referenda

Why did the government not ask us to co-operate to adopt a referendum bill with better defined intentions?

Sir, at the risk of being redundant and repetitive, something 1 am told I do far too often, but I guess we are all guilty of doing that-

I urge the right hon. Prime Minister to forget this bill as soon as possible.

I ask the Prime Minister to forget this legislation. I hope this message will be transmitted to him. My leader has already, directly and indirectly, referred to the chaos that competing federal and provincial referenda would have vis-avis the future of this country.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) referred to past plebiscites. She talked about what the 1928 plebiscite did and what the 1942 plebiscite did vis-a-vis pitting neighbour against neighbour and what it did in terms of setting back the body politic in this country in terms of constructive progress.
This is one of the saddest days in my life as a parliamentarian. It really is. I say this with no partisan gratification; this is a sad day for me. I make no apology for my emotion. I never thought I would see the day when, instead of exercising our prerogative of leadership by defining and defending the federal cause, we would be here discussing a referendum which will ask the Canadian people whether or not they want this nation to continue. What unbelievable foolishness. Let my warning be heard. If we continue on in this foolishness, and you are not going to trick me into using the words I am thinking right now, again I say why?

There is your answer, and it would be difficult to have a scientifically conducted poll in the province and the rest of Canada concerning the intentions of the public about a Quebec being inside or outside our great Canadian family or under the well-known sovereignty association formula.

We are discussing something in this House that we should not be discussing. We are discussing whether this nation is negotiable by way of referendum, instead of reaching across the floor of this House and joining forces in a bipartisan way to redefine and renew our federal structures. I know that to date-

Have hon. members opposite perhaps already found that out on many occasions? By voting against the bill currently before the House, we do not want to deny the federal government the

January 29, 1979
Referenda
authority to deal with the referendum Mr. Levesque wants to hold in the province of Quebec.

Are we in this House by voting against the bill denying, as the hon. member who spoke before me said, from the federal arsenal a weapon-strong language, eh-that Levesque already has in his provincial arsenal? Maybe so, but I think not. I cannot influence what is going on in the province of Quebec in terms of whether they are setting up a referendum or what kind of referendum it is going to be.
[ Translation]
But in a sense I may be able to influence directly and indirectly those who come to Ottawa. I know one thing, if this atmosphere persists in the House over various policies, as I noted a moment ago, there is only one man who stands to gain and that is Rene Levesque, the present premier of Quebec. [English]
There is one question that is asked of me by members opposite, admittedly by the public, and very often by the press. Where does your party stand on these questions of national unity, constitutional development, and federal-provincial relations? Maybe in some small detail we differ with members opposite. When I think about, as we say in French-
[ Translation]
-the main tenets of our policy-

-we are all together as good Canadians. In committee we can discuss our detailed differences on these issues. However, if we are looking for semantic slips or whatever in order to wage an election on this issue, forget Canada my friends. The Fathers of Confederation never did it. Why should we? The crisis, emergency and challenge facing us are no less than the challenge that faced them. I am often accused of being an alarmist. However, even in my part of the world we have slowly come to the realization that time is not on our side.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was first elected in 1965, I had great admiration for him. I still have a great deal of admiration for him. He is a personal friend. I met him many times in the cafeteria upstairs in this building, knowing that he had the ear of the then prime minister. I told him that I had been in this House for seven years and that I was appalled at the duplication, buck passing and waste as between the federal authorities and the provinces.
Apart from the specific things going on in my province at the time, a succession of Quebec governments were saying this is the last chance for Canada, with varying degrees of nationalistic slogans. I pleaded with the then parliamentary secretary to the prime minister to lend his considerable weight to the urgent demands of the time for immediate constitutional reform. Frankly, he disagreed with me. He said, "Heward, we have a constitution now which provides enough flexibility for what I want to do, and by confrontation with the provinces I would create an atmosphere and mix that would end up in no progress."

We have had 14 years of that kind of confrontation. I am not saying this in a partisan sense, but frankly, Mr. Speaker, every member of this House must realize it has not worked. Nobody can objectively say that it is working very well. The chickens are home to roost and the time has surely come for us to consider that constitutional renewal that we considered 14 years ago. Again I ask, what is the government asking us to pass?
An hon. [Member: The bill.


William Heward Grafftey: Does the government want specific power for a specific referendum, or does it want power to alter the constitution unilaterally? There is no substance to this bill. With many members in the past, I have voted against the constitutional implications of orders in council, a bill not having the regulations presented so that we would know the substance of it, or omnibus legislation with many subjects under one heading. The present bill is the final insult. Why not take us into your confidence? What do you want I ask? [Translation]
What do you want? The legislation under study in the House is so vague that I cannot see its substance.

It is very difficult to ask responsible members of parliament on either side of the House to pass legislation that is so vague that the substance will only begin to make sense when civil servants, under the instructions of the government of the day, write in regulations. Frankly, this is a very hard bill to debate. It is so vague that we do not know what the government wants.
I have already mentioned the Prohibition Plebiscites Act of 1898.

Then, as the hon. lady from Kingston and the Islands said in her magnificent speech, came the 1942 conscription issue and, by amendment, the Dominion Plebiscite Act of 1942 actually went as far as to write in the question though leaving the time of the calling of the plebiscite to the government of the day. The question and the intent of the act were clear. What it did in substance to our country is another thing.

After the plebiscite, the prime minister at that time said: conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription. Today with such a legislation we may be facing another issue, Mr. Speaker: separation if necessary, but not necessarily separation.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the most disruptive, ambiguous and damaging piece of legislation in this whole area that the government could possibly have brought up. In my appeal for a bipartisan approach to constitutional renewal-I do not think it is too late-let me say this: hon. members opposite
January 29, 1979

should not dignify the validity of referenda, be they federal or provincial, by passing one here in Ottawa. I have no idea what the provincial referendum is going to be in the province of Quebec. I have no idea.


An hon. Member:: And you are ready to take the risk?
[ Translation]


William Heward Grafftey: I have spoken with several Parti Quebecois MNA's and they cannot define the terms sovereignty-association. I agree that sovereignty is the same thing as independence. You have heard, no doubt, our leader's last statement. [English]
I issue a solemn warning to members opposite who want to recreate this issue for short time votes. The Fathers of Confederation said that if this country ever broke up regionally along political lines it would take statesmanship of the highest order to bring it together again. I heard an hon. member opposite say that after the next election there would be no members from my party returned from Quebec. Well, I hope that in the next election he comes to my riding and fights against me. The facts are these, Mr. Speaker. It is true we have only two members from the province of Quebec, but how many does the government have from Alberta, how many have they got from the west? One. And I won't tell you how they got that one, Mr. Speaker.
By emphasizing dualism and forgetting regionalism in the last ten years, the government has gone far toward creating the difficulties we presently face. We are all in it together. But the fact is that there are only two of us from Quebec- [Translation]
-and not many of you in the western provinces. That is another major reason why we should work together for a renewed federalism.

Is that true or false?


Some hon. Members:: True.


William Heward Grafftey: Is it true or false that because there are only two of us from Quebec, and hardly any of you Liberals from the west, we should stop the nonsense I am listening to in this House and work together for renewed federalism?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: When I say a renewed federalism, I mean this, and I want to be very clear-I am not choosing my words, here they are: the people of Brome-Missisquoi in the province of Quebec have given me no mandate whatever to recognize the validity of any referendum, federal or provincial, to take any part of this country out of the nation called Canada. Is that clear?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston) speaking in this debate said the referendum would
Referenda
amount to a sort of sophisticated Gallup poll. The Canadian Press has reported the Prime Minister as saying on many occasions that the result of a federal referendum in Quebec held under the terms of this federal legislation would be binding on the federal government. What nonsense! What is much worse than saying that by talking to a government that has a mandate for sovereignty association we are ready to negotiate.

No referendum, whether provincial or federal, can permit us to put an end to the Canadian union, and I speak on behalf of the whole population of Brome-Missisquoi, Mr. Speaker. [English]
Well, the hon. member says Rene Levesque doesn't run there, but I have Pequiste member from one part of my riding and this may possibly answer that question.


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


Irénée Pelletier: I have a question for the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey).


William Heward Grafftey: I am sorry, but my time is limited. Without drawing a long bow I will attempt to show how ridiculous is what we are attempting to do. In this electronic age it is very arguable that we do not need a House of Commons. I am not going to get into a philosophical debate, as to whether part of the country has a right to secede or the efficacy or lack of efficacy of referenda in a so-called British parliamentary system. But it is a fact of life that in an electronic age, leaving aside Mr. Orwell's 1984, it is highly conceivable that within two hours we could ascertain public opinion on any issue facing the country as a result of people voting from their living rooms. If members want to get into that type of direct democracy, even political parties today could pay for more sophisticated polls than the Gallup polls. You know, Mr. Speaker, and I know it. Electronic polls could be held on any issue.
The most serious plea I have ever made in my public life is to ask members opposite to forget this insanity. It is absolute insanity. I have talked to Canadians of both linguistic groups across my province, and I can only say that by dignifying the validity of referenda along the lines of the bill before us the government will be giving Mr. Levesque a weapon that he never expected to have. He has said he will continue to hold them provincially until he wins. So let us get together and defend and define the federal cause. We shall be doing that not by asking the people questions they do not wish to be asked but by working together for that degree of constitutional renewal Canadians are seeking.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of addressing this House on the most serious issue on which I have ever expressed myself in this chamber. I trust we can get this

January 29, 1979
Adjournment Debate
debate sooner, rather than later, on a bipartisan road for the good of our country and for the good of the people we are meant to be governing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this opportunity to contribute to this debate, but in view of the time and since the clock will not stop to allow me to say in three minutes what would take much longer, I believe I shall have to limit myself to a few preliminary comments. One of these preliminary comments is in reply to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graff-tey). Mr. Speaker, I have rarely seen anyone lose himself as completely in side issues as he did when he accused us of wanting to stage an election on a so-called problem of national unity. I suppose he imagines there are no national unity problems in Canada even though Quebec has a government which was elected by proposing an option which would separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi solemnly stated in the House of Commons that there is no national unity crisis in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but it is time for the adjournment debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the adjournment debate in which I take part tonight arises from an exchange in this House between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and I on December 21 last. At that time I referred the Minister of Finance to the latest of the letters which had been sent out by his predecessor twice removed, Mr. Turner, with respect to the haphazard, inadequate, and inept handling of the economy on the part of this government, and I was very much surprised to find that rather than dealing with the substance of Mr. Turner's comments concerning the Canadian economy and the inadequacies of the government, the Minister of Finance chose to use quips to try, somehow or other, to conceal the true impact of what Mr. Turner had been alleging.

Hon. members will recall that the Minister of Finance said that the letter to which I was referring, as he said was the case with other Turner letters, amounted only to a gossip column which one could get from any newstand in Toronto for 15 cents. I pointed out to the Minister of Finance at that time that the price was not 15 cents but that it was actually $15,000 to each of the corporate elite to whom Mr. Turner had been sending this information, and that in truth Mr. Turner had been making substantial revenues from circulating his comments concerning the government to this group of corporate brass of executives at $15,000 each. It was estimated that there may have been 12 to perhaps as many as 20 recipients.
I put a further question to the Minister of Finance, and again he made an offhand comment concerning the letters. The reason I asked that this be put down for adjournment debate is that I feel it is not so much a matter of embarrassment to the government to have a former minister of finance, who in many quarters is still respected, making comments concerning the present economic stance of this government- that perhaps is secondary-but to me the important thing is that these comments are being made not only by Mr. Turner and not only by economists from coast to coast but also in questions and speeches in this House continually, yet the government is evading the answers.
The government is not levelling with the Canadian public. Why, for example, is our dollar now in the 83 cent range, the lowest level it has been at on an average annual basis for over 120 years? Why, over the last few years, has our economic performance been worse than that of any of the major industrial nations of the world? The November 16 budget of the Minister of Finance forecast a $25 billion deficit for this year and the coming year. That happens to be a deficit on non-capital expenditures amounting to 25 per cent of the total expenditures of the government over the next two years.
Without any hesitation, on November 17 and continually thereafter, we in this party have said that that is an intolerable deficit, and that the government must answer to the Canadian public as to why it has been totally inadequate in curbing that deficit. That is the position of my party.
If the Minister of Finance does not have the courage to come into the House tonight and answer the question as to why the government has put us into this type of deficit position, at least his parliamentary secretary can somehow or other bring the word. Surely it is not enough, day in and day out, to question the Minister of Finance concerning not only the falling dollar and the $25 billion non-capital deficit which he forecast for the nation this year and next, but also concerning rising inflation, rising unemployment and the current account deficit.
In a document entitled "The Road Ahead", the former minister of finance, Mr. John Turner, indicated the following at page 3:
January 29, 1979

Finally, there is apparently a mood for a pro-business budget-The crux is the size of the federal deficit. The government does not wish it to exceed the present public projection-
As far as the public is concerned, the crux is the intolerable deficit which the government has asked Canadians to bear. I will be interested in hearing the remarks of the parliamentary secretary tonight. How can he justify the 25 per cent of the total expenditure deficit? As I have said, it is revealed in the November 16 budget.
In a nutshell, it is time for the government to be candid with the Canadian public. If it has mismanaged the public purse, it is time to admit it, ask for forgiveness, and have an election to clear the air. As Mr. Turner has said, it is intolerable to have the present inadequate handling of our economy without an election, although an election has been anticipated for 18 months. Let us clear the air. Perhaps a vote would do it.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available to me this evening I should like to illustrate some ways in which the Canadian public has been very well served during the tenure of the last five Liberal ministers of finance, Messrs. Sharp, Benson, Turner, Macdonald, and the present day Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).
During the period 1968 to 1977, personal disposable income per capita increased as much as 118 per cent. Real per capita disposable income rose 52 per cent, which was more than double the increase in the United States. During 1968 to 1978 the number of Canadians living below the poverty line was cut by half. From 1973 to 1976 the OECD reported that Canada had the third highest rate of growth in the western world. Further, the OECD reports that Canada's per capita income of $8,400 is third among major industrialized countries, and the United States was fourth. Each year during the 1970s Canada created more new jobs than any other major industrialized country. The increase averaged 3 per cent in Canada, 2 per cent in the United States, and less than 1 per cent in Japan and Europe. In 1978, ten million Canadians were working, whereas in 1968 7.5 million Canadians were working. From July, 1977, to July, 1978, 422,000 new jobs were created in the country.
Finally, I should like to refer to the opinions of a distinguished member of the Conservative party, the former treasurer of the province of Ontario, in terms of the economic policy of the opposition, wherein he said the following:
Former Ontario Treasurer Darcy McKeough emerged from six months of private life on the weekend to chastise federal Conservative leader Joseph Clark for suggesting the need for a larger deficit.-
The reference to the federal opposition leader was brief, but significant because it was made at a dinner in his honour before an audience that included Premier William Davis, several provincial cabinet ministers and many prominent Chatham-Kent Tories.
Let me further quote:
In an interview Mr. McKeough said he is alarmed with the federal Conservative party's stand on the deficit. It is nonsense to think that the tap can be turned on and just as quickly turned off-
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the record of this government stands on its own merit.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-RADIO AND TELEVISION SERVICES IN ENGLISH AND FRENCH
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) what he had done and what more he planned to do to hasten the full implementation of the CBC's so called accelerated coverage plan. The question I asked was prompted by a recommendation of the Task Force on Canadian Unity. As a matter of fact it was the first of the specific recommendations in the document entitled, "A Future Together". What the specific recommendation said was that the principles of equality, status, rights and privileges of the English and French languages for all purposes declared by the Parliament of Canada within its sphere of jurisdiction should be entrenched in the constitution.
Among the purposes referred to was No. 5, namely, the right of every person to have access to radio and television services in both the French and English languages. Allow me to show how the accelerated coverage plan, the ACP, is designed to meet the need and fulfil what this Liberal government already regards as the right of Canadians.
The ACP is a plan for accelerated extension of television and radio services in Canada. The terms of reference for the ACP are as follows: to provide CBC national service in the appropriate official language, English or French, to all unserved areas containing 500 or more people which can be covered by a single radio or television transmitter, and those points presently inadequately served and, secondly, to complete the implementation of the plan within a five year period from the date of approval.
Mr. Speaker, the memo which I have outlining the terms is dated December 3, 1974. Thus, by the end of this year the detailed plan for each region should be fully implemented. On this memo from the CBC there is written in alongside this term of reference a note which says "will be considerably more". That is to say, the time schedule of the CBC is not about to be met; the plan is not on target with respect to time. One could ask, what else is new? Governments and their agencies are rarely on time unless we have a crisis of some kind on our hands.
There is more to my complaint than that. This plan, which was to take five years to complete, was at the very beginning started with the CBC holding meetings with representatives of each region to ensure there was local and regional input. This was to be used in the development of the plan. From this work a detailed plan for each region took effect. Included among the topics discussed at these regional meetings was that of the priority of the projects within the five year time span. Frenchspeaking Canadians living in northwestern Ontario, where they constitute in many communities a majority of the population, or at least a significant percentage, were told their need for French language radio and television was of the highest priority and they would begin to enjoy this service at the very

January 29, 1979
Adjournment Debate
latest by the end of year three of the plan. That means they should have had the service by Christmas of 1977. There is some vague hope that it may come by Christmas of this year, but the degree of commitment by CBC to the accelerated coverage plan is very vague and uncertain.
I have the great privilege of representing in my constituency a great many Franco-Ontarians, and I hope in the future to represent many more as the boundaries of my constituency are pushed into north-eastern Ontario. Franco-Ontarians are a patient, tolerant, and good natured group of people who have contributed much to the economy of northern Ontario, particularly in the forest products industry, as entrepreneurs and as professional people. It has been a struggle for them, however, to maintain the use of their language in Ontario where there is but one official language, namely, English.
The province of Ontario has been rather slow in many cases to provide educational facilities and other services in the French language. Of course, the situation is improving, but Ontario at this time extends no statutory rights to the Frenchspeaking people of the province in terms of the right to use their language and to have services in that language.
Very recently a private members' bill to that effect was given second reading in the Ontario legislature. The premier made it clear, howewer, that there would be no way in which the bill would be brought forward for third reading and passed into law. The bill was not designed to make Ontario a bilingual province, but to give Franco-Ontarians service in their own language where there was a significant number and where there was a demand for the use of the French language.
Franco-Ontarians have learned to expect little from Queen's Park, but they do have high expectations of the federal government. There are federal agencies and departments which are bilingual in the main, but there is a strip of northern Ontario running from Sault Ste. Marie up to Nakina on the main line of the CNR where a significant number of French-speaking Canadians live, and they are still waiting for the CBC French language radio and television network they were promised. Some of these communities have a French-speaking population to the extent of 60 per cent or more. They believe that a promise was made and that there was a commitment, but the service they were told they would get is not yet there.
They are beginning to get a sense of impatience, and that is quite understandable. Recently an unlicensed service has done something to fill the void, but CBC must be instructed to meet their obligations. Additional funds were voted by parliament for the accelerated coverage plan. We know that it is an extensive plan and that there are many difficulties. However, my colleagues and myself have been frustrated in our efforts to speed up the implementation of the ACP. Therefore I would ask the Secretary of State to use his office to make it clear to the CBC that this plan is of the highest priority, and in the
name of national unity the CBC should step on the footfeed and get the accelerated coverage plan completed.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, I would commence by reiterating to the hon. member the words the minister used in a response to that question just a few days ago, that he shared the concerns of the hon. member and that, indeed, the hon. member has been tenacious in trying to ensure that in fact the schedule which was attached by the CBC to the ACP program would be adhered to if at all possible. In addition to that, the minister has made the increase he indicated he would make and, although they have been preliminary by way of response to date, the CBC has provided some information which I would gladly provide to the member this evening.
The CBC takes the position and relates that in fact the accelerated cover plan is designed to ensure that CBC radio and television service will be extended to all communities where 500 or more people are unserved or inadequately served in the appropriate language. The ACP is implemented under a strict formula system of priorities which takes into account such factors as population, capital and operating expenses, provincial equalization, and geographic and cultural isolation. Implementation is, in this way, as fair and equitable as it can be made. All communities identified for inclusion in the ACP are listed according to their priority under this formula, and "community" in this case also means minorities within a larger language group, such as the French-speaking population of Thunder Bay and the English-speaking population of Chicoutimi.
Provision of funds for the implementation of the ACP is made within the CBC's regular capital and operating budgets. As for the plan itself, it was originally to be completed in the period 1974 to 1979. A number of factors, however, have brought about a stretching out of that period by approximately three years. These factors include a sharp rise in costs, which are now approximately double the 1975 estimate, and the difficulty of finding enough qualified technical personnel for the installation of the more thr u 600 transmitters involved in the plan. Other factors were delays in the production by the electronic industry of the necessary equipment and budget constraints in 1978-79 and 1979-80.
I realize that this is not as complete an answer as the hon. member would require, Mr. Speaker, but it does give some kind of revised estimate in terms of the implementation time. It is something that both the minister and the hon. member would want to pursue when this matter comes before committee during steady of the estimates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 10.21 p.m.

Tuesday, January 30, 1979